We should not attack Iraq

@F_alk:

BTW,
now that the UN and Iraq have come to an agreement on letting back the inspecteurs, with free access except to the 8 palaces……
and the US threatening to veto it (which legally is impossible, but still would have a major impact: in strengthening the Iraq as they know that the inspectors are not “fully backed” by the UN…)

What do you say to that: The US gov’ not only says as open as they can that it’s not about the weapons but about the man, and has no trouble in accusing the UN to be a “debaters club” and threatening to turn it into one once they get their will ('cause that’s what happens, when the UK/US-resolution should be accepted, taking away any influence the UN has, blackmailing them into submission, noone will ever take any UN-threat seriously after that)…

So, your opinions?

I think the UN is being too “politically correct” in terms of it’s foreign policy. The UN knows Saddam is dangerous. The problem is with the fact that the UN is comprised of so many nations that resent us, they’d would love to see nothing more than a slap in the American’s face.

Don’t worry, we’ve already seen how little the UN weapons inspectors can do. There’s no possible way that they’ll find all the weapons that Saddam possesses. At least they can’t blame the US for not trying (although they probably will anyways) when our allies get attacked with the nuclear weapon that Saddam will have in 3 months.

@TG:

France and Germany are our friends!

Nah! one is Ungrateful (I am repeating myself here,)
and the other has invested more in our country than anywhere else in the world. They’ll take profit from our hardwork, but when it come time to put out …
Looks like we’re gonna havta ben her ova da back
ob da divan an let hur havit! Beg for more, baby!
Sorry, I enjoyed that movie too much
the last 47 times I saw it. - Xi

What movie was that?

@Deviant:Scripter:

I think the UN is being too “politically correct” in terms of it’s foreign policy. The UN knows Saddam is dangerous. The problem is with the fact that the UN is comprised of so many nations that resent us, they’d would love to see nothing more than a slap in the American’s face.

Don’t worry, we’ve already seen how little the UN weapons inspectors can do. There’s no possible way that they’ll find all the weapons that Saddam possesses. At least they can’t blame the US for not trying (although they probably will anyways) when our allies get attacked with the nuclear weapon that Saddam will have in 3 months.

I agree on the “never all the weapons”, but disagree on nearly all the rest :)

I agree on the “never all the weapons”, but disagree on nearly all the rest.

So you agree with the fact that UN weapons inspectors will never find all the weapons? Then why are we wasting our time and implanting a false security into the rest of the world by using inspectors? Saddam will continue to develope these weapons even while inspectors are “inspecting” certain key facilities. His chemical weapons facilities are on mobile semi-trucks for crying out loud!

Plus, I think the proposal that Bush sent to the United Nations was not strictly focused on removing the weapons:

Are UN weapons inspectors going to free the 600+ POW’s that still are held captive in Iraq from Desert Storm?

Are UN weapons inspectors going to stop the persecution of the Kurds and the Sheaites? (sp?)

Are UN weapons inspectors going to stop the horrific crimes (and experiments) that Saddam currently inflicts upon people? Including acid baths and dis-memberment of body parts while the person is still alive!

UN weapons inspectors are a weak attempt to solve only one aspect of the broad range of issues that Saddam is guilty of. They don’t even do a good job at that.

3 Months? What have you been smoking? Give him 3 years, minumum.

According to the former Iraqi nuclear scientist who was under Saddam’s command.

For me, I don’t oppose the war because of the reasons for starting it. I oppose the war because we don’t have a clear plan for afterwards. If this war lasts awhile, meaning a long bombing campaign, hate is going to be brewed by the barrel. If we let happen to Iraq what we let happen to Afganistan, we’re in trouble. Going into Iraq as is right now, with no post-war plan, is a bigger folly than the Townshend Act by England in 1765.

I will lay money on the fact that the Bush team has multiple proposals on the table for a post-war Iraq. There’s a big difference between what you hear on CNN and what’s going on in the White House.

@Deviant:Scripter:

I agree on the “never all the weapons”, but disagree on nearly all the rest.

So you agree with the fact that UN weapons inspectors will never find all the weapons? Then why are we wasting our time and implanting a false security into the rest of the world by using inspectors? Saddam will continue to develope these weapons even while inspectors are “inspecting” certain key facilities.

Just as the US, who claim to be the judge over others, and still develop aggressive chemical weapons?

And of course, my emphasis was on “all”. I still think inspectors would/will find “most” of those weapons.
Plus: i prefer someone searching for that weapons to someone forcing Saddam to use those weapons! And that’s what an attack with the aim of killing him would do.

I will lay money on the fact that the Bush team has multiple proposals on the table for a post-war Iraq. There’s a big difference between what you hear on CNN and what’s going on in the White House.

i would wager against that.

Just as the US, who claim to be the judge over others, and still develop aggressive chemical weapons?

And of course, my emphasis was on “all”. I still think inspectors would/will find “most” of those weapons.
Plus: i prefer someone searching for that weapons to someone forcing Saddam to use those weapons! And that’s what an attack with the aim of killing him would do.

Yes, absolutely. The US is probably the biggest producer of these weapons. However, there is HUGE difference between the two countries.

We are civilized and Iraq is not.

Is “most” enough to save us from the threat that Saddam poses? Does this argument seem weak to anyone else?

We are civilized and Iraq is not.

Hmmmm… just as the Romans thought they were civilized whereas the “barbarians” were not? :-?

Of course there is a difference, though I think you’re being vague on it.

they should snipe hussain using robots

LOL. :lol:

@Anonymous:

Yes, absolutely. The US is probably the biggest producer of these weapons. However, there is HUGE difference between the two countries.

We are civilized and Iraq is not.

Is “most” enough to save us from the threat that Saddam poses? Does this argument seem weak to anyone else?

To whoever posted that:
Well, i prefer weak arguments to illegal, hypocritic and arrogant action,
only that it doesn’t sound weak to me.
You can: either reduce the risk of these weapons being used against you, or make sure that these weapons are being used against you. What do you choose?

Chineese barbarians

:-? ??

More likely I’d label them as Hun instead of Chinese Barbarians. Of course there were other “barbarians too” (in fact some German tribes fought for the Romans), like the Angles, Saxones, Jutes, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, ect.

Asian ancient history tends to escape me.

Well I know a bit of Asian history, and I during the period of 317 - 589 AD, China was ruled by the Dynasties of the North and South (Bandits and Hans)

@F_alk:

To whoever posted that:
Well, i prefer weak arguments to illegal, hypocritic and arrogant action,
only that it doesn’t sound weak to me.
You can: either reduce the risk of these weapons being used against you, or make sure that these weapons are being used against you. What do you choose?

Hmm, I agree that your solution to the situation would be the ideal one.
However, your argument rests weakly on the strong trust that you have in Saddam NOT to use his weapons that he is producing. :o Yes, when faced with his demise, Saddam probably will use his weapons against us. Hopefully, with the right strategic planning and use of our technologies in the battlefield, casualities among allied forces will be minimal, if any.

What happens if you’re wrong, and Saddam does have a nuke in six months?

This is exactly the same rational that people tried to use during World War II to try and justify America staying out of the war. Our government knew that astrocities against the Jewish people were being commited, yet many people were hard-pressed to act upon it until that attack came onto our home front (Pearl Harbor).

I think there’s a common misconception that it’s “all or nothing” with Saddam. If you happen to caught Bush’s speech last night, then you’d know all of the proof that he laid on the table. Do people realize that our military is already operating inside of Iraq. Do people realize that our military is slowly stripping away Saddam’s anti-aircraft sites one-by-one?

Honestly, what will convince you that we need to use military force to oust Saddam from his oppressive regime that he controls? Do you honestly believe that UN weapons inspectors are going to be a success?

I cannot understand why you want to put your trust into Saddam Hussein. From what I can understand, it appears that anti-war demonstrators are simply avoiding an inevitable situation that will happen in the future. Only, in the future, the magnitude of devastation is likely to be multiplied exponentially.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Hmm, I agree that your solution to the situation would be the ideal one.
However, your argument rests weakly on the strong trust that you have in Saddam NOT to use his weapons that he is producing. :o Yes, when faced with his demise, Saddam probably will use his weapons against us. Hopefully, with the right strategic planning and use of our technologies in the battlefield, casualities among allied forces will be minimal, if any.

I am sure he won’t use his weapons, as he knows, as soon as he touches them, his land lies in ashes, and his skin will stripped of alive.
For the right strategic planning…. have you heard of Paul Van Riper and the Millenium Challenge 2002? I doubt that the planning done by the US command is really good, and surely not good enough to wage that war.

What happens if you’re wrong, and Saddam does have a nuke in six months?

That’s why the inspectors are there. Nukes can’t be built in the back of a van. And: the real danger is not the nukes. Compared to biological warfare, Nukes are pretty nice and civilized: they destroy a pretty well marked area in an instant. The radiation just “blocks” that area from some time, and fallout, well, we had that without bomb falling (this all is considering only a “hadful” of nukes).
Biological warfare: well, diseases don’t stop and know no borders.
Chemical warfare: that can be done in the back of a van

So, nukes are the least to worry about, IMHO.

This is exactly the same rational that people tried to use during World War II to try and justify America staying out of the war. Our government knew that astrocities against the Jewish people were being commited, yet many people were hard-pressed to act upon it until that attack came onto our home front (Pearl Harbor).

There is a difference between “staying out of a war” which by definition means the war has stareted already, and “starting a war”.
If Saddam raises his arms again and attacks someone: No mercy. Until then: stand on guard, but don’t attack him.
The same arguments you bring here could have been brought during the cold war, but in that time your leaders were sensible enough to know that a war will just bring those weapons into use.

I think there’s a common misconception that it’s “all or nothing” with Saddam. If you happen to caught Bush’s speech last night, then you’d know all of the proof that he laid on the table.

i must say, i find that “proof” not proving anything unknown. And, with the rethorics used by Bush, the whole world had to get and now has the impression that it is “all or nothing”, it is “the man” and not “the weapons”.
That’s one of the points why i am opposed to this american call for “action”.

Honestly, what will convince you that we need to use military force to oust Saddam from his oppressive regime that he controls? Do you honestly believe that UN weapons inspectors are going to be a success?

Well, i don’t htink you “need” to oust him. And i surely don’T want the US to make “an example”, who knows who you “need to oust” later? Maybe the german chancellor, because he said we won’t follow? You know your legal system, it is built on these examples, and i don’t want to take just a single step into this one direction, of one nation playing the “accusor” (lacking the word) and the judge over others without a trial, and being the henchman itself.
To act this way is everything the US stands against.

I cannot understand why you want to put your trust into Saddam Hussein. From what I can understand, it appears that anti-war demonstrators are simply avoiding an inevitable situation that will happen in the future. Only, in the future, the magnitude of devastation is likely to be multiplied exponentially.

I don’t see it that way at all. Watching and guarding is not “appeasing” as done to Nozi-germany. Saddam knows how far he can go since he tried to take Quwait. AS long as you take care you are on the watch, and don’t let this “borders” for Saddam weaken, he is not a danger.
Maybe he is mad, but he is no fool, and he wants to stay in power on all costs (he has proved that often enough): To stay in power, he just can’t take the risk of a war, which would inevitably cost his head (maybe dearly, but he can’t win).