We should not attack Iraq

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).

Funny how this thing goes on:

Even the CIA says, there is no imminent threat from Saddam, and attacking him could push him towards the use of weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq wants the inspectors back, to the date that was fixed with the UN (19th Oct). They also asked the UN to start with examining the ‘accustions’ by Blair and GWB, concerning weapons of mass destruction, the basis of why those two want a new resolution.

France critized the “oversimplified version of a war good against evil”, but does not want to stop discussions in the UN security council with its veto. War has to be the “last means”, an option only if the Iraq is working against the inspectors.

Russia opposes the new US resolution proposal, as it includes “demands that can’t be met from the start”, and said it will block anything that includes the “automatic” of war.

China keeps quiet, but says the return of the inspectors is a “necessity”.

But most funny is what Bush said:
Iraqi officers who use weapons of mass destruction will be brought before a court for war crimes. That is the kind of thing a US soldier should be exempt from, after the US behavior and bileteral contracts with a few countries, on the other hand, it something that they won’t let happen to Saddam (taken from the previous speeches held by GWB).

Well, it is and keeps to be interesting.

we should annex Iraq after we blow their gov’t away and get 50 cent gas prices :evil:

If all Saddam wanted to do was stay in power, why not had over his weapon cache?
Why all the resistance?

The US has and does help countires all over the.
Saddam is a threat, no question.
The initiative should be taken.

If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.

To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.

@Deviant:Scripter:

LOL. :lol:

what? then they might surrender.

@Mr:

If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.

To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.

they are 2 different situations, my friend.
You know too much of WWII for me to point out the reasons, however needless to say Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).
Also it is only b/c i have fleeting respect for Tony Blair and Jon Manley that i have support for any action in Iraq.

I just want to Bush to turn up the pressure, so Saddam will have to yield full access. If he really wants to “stay alive,” then he’ll do it.

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.

First, this is the left’s argument that I love to hear most. You say you’re not putting your trust into Saddam, yet all your arguments prove the contrary. IMHO…once that biological weapon is unleashed in an American city by a rogue al-Qaeda operative, it’ll be too late to “put up our guard.”

You say that Saddam won’t use his weapons? THEN WHY THE HELL IS HE PRODUCING THEM??? :wink: If he doesn’t have such weapons, then why all the cover-up from the Iraqi regime?

Secondly, if there’s any administration that’s capable of defeating Iraq in the swiftest most deadly swipe, it’s this one. The United States military (and government) are even deadlier and more experienced then they were in Desert Storm. And look what happened there…

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.

You’re right. And I’m thankful that our leaders had the intelligence not to attack Russia. But this is a different time, different situation. Saddam is not equal in power to us, whereas attacking Russia would have clearly been a defeat for both sides.

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”.

Well, let me answer that with a question:
If a man is beating his wife with a baseball bat, do you simply take the bat away, or do you arrest the man?

what? then they might surrender.

We could also just hit them with a giant lazzzzzzer-beam. (In the profound words of Dr. Evil. :) )

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.

You can “stay on watch” as long as you want, but the fact still remains…Saddam has WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCITON, and he’s capable of passing them to terrorist groups.

Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).

Actually, Iraq has been firing on American and British fighter pilots in the no-fly zone some 750 times. Seems to me that’s as guilty as dropping a bomb.

@cystic:

@Mr:

If funny how people criticize the US for not getting involed in WW2 sooner, and now people criticize the US for there lack of patient with someone who has, for 10 or so years, defied UN resolutions.
It seems that there are damed if they do and damed if they don’t.

To suggest that America will go on and topple anyone who disagrees with them, if and when they deal with Iraq, is a fallacy.

they are 2 different situations, my friend.
You know too much of WWII for me to point out the reasons, however needless to say Iraq has not, since it was last bombed, eaten up other countries in order to slaughter their citizens to allow the Iraqi’s more room to breath, nor has the Iraqi’s recently bombed other nations, nor have they declared war on anyone (again, recently).
Also it is only b/c i have fleeting respect for Tony Blair and Jon Manley that i have support for any action in Iraq.

They are different situations, but you can see a common theme here.
A head of state, or country or whatever, promising to corporate then not.
Openly supporting terrorist, hiding bio weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Does a dictator have to follow the same path as Nazi Germany before someone is willing to act?

I’ve said it a few times already, how many years time should you give the guy to comply? Its beyond ridiculous already.

The US is acting in defense of its people and it certainly does not need the worlds approval to do so.
The states does not go out of their way to bomb civilians.
Which seems to be the main argument against action in Iraq.
If the US feels that removing Saddam from power is a step in preventing future terrorism against them, then, they should act.

fair enough.

@Mr:

They are different situations, but you can see a common theme here.
A head of state, or country or whatever, promising to corporate then not.
Openly supporting terrorist, hiding bio weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Does a dictator have to follow the same path as Nazi Germany before someone is willing to act?

I’ve said it a few times already, how many years time should you give the guy to comply? Its beyond ridiculous already.

The US is acting in defense of its people and it certainly does not need the worlds approval to do so.
The states does not go out of their way to bomb civilians.
Which seems to be the main argument against action in Iraq.
If the US feels that removing Saddam from power is a step in preventing future terrorism against them, then, they should act.

Well said, Mr. Ghoul. :P