http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/devil-baby-strikes-new-york-city-article-1.1580159
We should not attack Iraq
-
Did we not already attack Iraq and bomb the crap out of it for the reasons that “Newby” already listed?
for that matter, should we not be bombing Russia and Germany etc. for their past sins as well?
Does not America torture people daily?
Right now, Iraq isn’t doing a lot of a whole bunch of things, except being under suspicion of having weapons under its control.
We’ll never be able to prove they don’t have weapons, so how long do we get to assault their soverignty until we are satisfied? Forever?
How long did we give Russia, China, etc?
I agree with Yanny on this one. We must be hyper-vigilent in the middle East, but this business of a pre-emptive killing of another country’s citizens without a declaration of war or attack is a little . . . war-hawkish. -
@cystic:
Did we not already attack Iraq and bomb the crap out of it for the reasons that “Newby” already listed? …
I agree with Yanny on this one. We must be hyper-vigilent in the middle East, but this business of a pre-emptive killing of another country’s citizens without a declaration of war or attack is a little . . . war-hawkish.applauds whole heatedly
(who would have thought that i would agree with CC :) ) -
oh F_alk
we’ve agreed on stuff before, n’est pas?
I’ve always considered you to one of the more rational posters. -
@cystic:
oh F_alk
we’ve agreed on stuff before, n’est pas?
I’ve always considered you to one of the more rational posters.That’s right…. we have agreed before… but it surely was no religious topic :) :) … and thanks for the compliment
-
@Mr:
Quote from F_alk "For the first:
Why the hell did and do the USA still produce weapons of mass destruction, even illegal ones?
For the secod:
Why do the US spy on even their allies and friends?You seem to take rights for you that you don’t allow other nations. "
Why did they? The cold war is why, and it made most Eurpoean countries safer because of it. How far do you think Russia would have went if not for the US?
America has been down sizing its nuclear weapons ever since the Wall came down.
Your sadly mistaken if you think the US is the only “friendly” nation that spys on its allies.
I’m willing to bet every nation is “guilty” of it.You didn’t answer the queation after the “why do they still” and ignored the illegal ones.
Yes, after the war there was a danger of another war, but not directly after it. None of any allied people would have understood why to fight on. The russians wouldn’t have gone further, as they have already met the allies, remember the deal of the western allies and the russians, to exchange some of east germany for a part of Berlin. The climate cooled down since then, but the danger of a directly successive war was not given. Even in the liberated countries with much interest of both sides, the russians went to use (weaknesses of) the democratic ways to strengthen their position (like Greece, Yugoslavia, East Germany, etc.). If you read the party programs of the west german parties after the war, even the conservatives were (in american standards extremely) socialist. But you are right, the climate cooled down since then, and a war might have started later (when the soviets had nuclear weapons of their own).For the spying: I can give you proof that the US spies on the german economic and inventions, stealing some of them. Can you give me proof that we do the same to you?
Just because you “think” it is someway, doesn’t make it that way!Quote from F_alk"Seriously: I would take away the bat, then bring some distance between the two, and then examine the case."
What if its the 10th time he’s hit her with the bat? He’s done it again and again over the years.
Oh well, that i can only know when i start to examine the case!
Or could you see from the tip of his nose that he has done it once, twice or ten times?
The punishment afterwards is something where i would then look at the legal system, which punishment for which crime etc.Quote from F_alk"Just as the US are in possession of these weapons, and are capable of using them for terrorist attacks.
It kind of sounds that you are envious to anyone who can do that as well, as if you want to have the monoply of weapons of mass destruction.Come on! you know dam well the US doesn’t use terroist tactics. Its silly of you to even make that statement.
It kind of sounds like you are suggesting we (international community) let any dictator, with a shady past, have access and the means to weapons of mass destruction.lol
No, of course. The US never supported guerrilas in america, to fight against the elected government. The CIA never was involved in anything illegal…… that’s all lies… just as Saddam in real is the most peaceful person since Gandhi…
shaking my head
And let’s have a look at which dictator was supported by the americans…
Hmmmm… nearly all…
You even cooperated with Germany after WWI, clearly breaking the peace treaty of Versaille with that. ANd this cooperation lived on till '41…Quote from F_alk"as many years as other countries get."
What other countries are you referring to?which other country in the middle east continously defies UN resolutions?
Qutoe from F_alk"Acting in defense? Well, were did the Iraq attack the US then?
You could claim the fighters again, but would you call shooting at foreign soldiers in your territory “attack”? Couldn’t you argue that it’s the Iraq qho is constantly under attack? (No, that is not my position, but the US are clearly not defending).
Is a pre-emptive strike really defending? Is it defending, because you call an attack a pre-emptive strike? Did Germany never attack the USSR or Poland in WW2 then, just because german media said so?And, you would get the worlds approval with an instant, if you were attacked, just remember Septembre last year."
Defense of future terrorist attacks.
I said nothing about any fighters, sorry.
Don’t know what your saying about WW2 Germany media.??
Does the US have to wait for another terrorist attack before it is OK with everyone?To the fighters: “you could”…. man, do i have to teach you your grammar ;)
To german WW2 media: The attacks on Poland and Russia were “pre emptive strikes”, if you believed the Nazi propaganda.
And to the terrorists: You are after Al Kaeda and Bin Laden… and the whole world supports you in this. As long as you fight them, noone will say anything, but the Iraq is a different story.
They have a dictator, true. This dictator has committed crimes, true. He is being punished for that.
Starting a war, to get rid of any peoples government, is an act of aggression and anti-democratic. Would you bow, if someone told you: Get rid of GWB, or we will bomb your country into oblivion? Would you?Again, The US feels Iraq is a cog in the terriost threats against them.
They have every right to “defend” against that.I feel i get paid not enough. I feel the currentUS government are arrogant hawks, who should fight in the first front line in whichever war they start. I feel like a coffee and a cigarette.
You start a war because you feel threatened by a second class dictator?
That is worse than anything heard here before, even worse than still caling a pre emptive strike “defending”.I curious, why are you ( that being anyone) against action against Iraq?
I don’t undestand what the outstanding reason are?
It seems clear to me ( if you havn’t guessed) something has to be done.Read my previous posts.
I think i have made my point clear enough there and more than once. If you wish, feel free to ask me again, i then will answer. But not before you made at least an effort to read what i wrote before.PS: Yes, maybe diplomacy with the Iraq is hard, and effort, and noone garantuees total success. But that is life: There is no total security, no total success, and you have to work for the limited success you want.
These are part of the “american dream”, aren’t they? Why is that skipped, has your dream died? Are you not willing to work for successes, are you like a spoiled child? Wanting everything, and screaming and kicking if you don’t get it all and at once?
… if that is so… then let’s hope that you grow up, and do so quickly… -
CC makes a great point.
If we attack Iraq pre-emptively, we completely lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists. That is something we cannot do. Do it, and expect a second, third, fourth, or more 9/11s.
-
Those second, third, and fourth 9/11’s are inevitable regardless. With the wide open borders that we have around this country, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet.
In no way do we lower ourselves to the level of terrorists by attacking Iraq pre-emptively. Was it wrong for Israel to attack pre-emptively? It’s been done before in history, this is not a new concept. SADDAM HUSSEIN IS A TERRORIST, IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD!
Bush made is very clear, and I agree with him, that we cannot make any distinction between terrorists and those who harbor terrorists. Plain and simple.
You cannot “contain” terrorism, nor can we give in to it, the best you can do is fight it.
-
^^
Signed,
D:S -
Those second, third, and fourth 9/11’s are inevitable regardless. With the wide open borders that we have around this country, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet.
No they aren’t. They are avoidable. How? By eliminating the base for terrorism. Whats the base? Ourselves.
Notice, the countries where terrorists come from are the mid-east countries that we support the most. Saudi Arabia, 16 Hijackers (?), Egypt, 2 (?), Yemen 2. You don’t see Hijackers coming from Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Libya. Why?
Because were are cause of the problem. We continue to fund regimes as bad as Saddam’s. People see this, and that opens the door for bad people to take control of their emotions.
What do I propose we do? To start, Force the Saudis and the Egyptians into a democratic government. If they don’t, we threaten to cut off their weapons supply. If their weapons supply is cut off, their country will go into revolution.
Saddam Hussein and Terrorist are two different words. Your right, we cannot “contain” terrorists. However, we can contain Saddam Hussein. We can keep him from doing anything, and blast a cap on his ass the second he tries to. We can see everything he does from a mile away. We must spend a hundred million a year on Iraqi Defecters.
There still does not have to be a war. War should always be the last alternative.
Tell me now, why the hell is there not a single other country in complete support of us. Not even Israel will unconditionally follow us into Iraq. Kuwait won’t, and that country was destroyed in 1991.
If we beat Saddam Hussein, we are going to have a much worse Government in place. Who’s standing up in the front of the line to take power? Iranian backed Islaamic Extremists. Saddam is the only leader in the region who is not a religious leader. Yes, he’s a dictator. Yes, he’s incredibly oppresive. Yes, he’s a facist. But he is not dangerous. He is better than the leaders of his neighbors.
Why are we going after Iraq? Pakistan is just as oppresive, and has Nuclear Weapons already. Saudi Arabia is more oppresive. Sudan harbors more terrorists than Afganistan did, and the people are starving from famine.
Just because Iraq made news in 91, that does not mean Iraq still matters. We need to go after Terrorists, not wannabe facists.
-
What do I propose we do? To start, Force the Saudis and the Egyptians into a democratic government. If they don’t, we threaten to cut off their weapons supply. If their weapons supply is cut off, their country will go into revolution.
I agree.
However, we can contain Saddam Hussein.
No, we can’t. We’ve already tried that for 8 years.
We can keep him from doing anything, and blast a cap on his ass the second he tries to.
Once that SCUD missile is flying towards Israel, a cap in his ass will not save the lives of those hit with that chemical or biological weapon. :-?
Tell me now, why the hell is there not a single other country in complete support of us. Not even Israel will unconditionally follow us into Iraq. Kuwait won’t, and that country was destroyed in 1991.
Well, now Yanni, here you’re just wrong. Britain and Australia are with us. I think Israel would be too, but we’re the ones holding them back from unleashing a can-o-woop-ass on Saddam.
If we beat Saddam Hussein, we are going to have a much worse Government in place.
Says who?
Saddam is the only leader in the region who is not a religious leader.
Obviously. :wink:
Just because Iraq made news in 91, that does not mean Iraq still matters. We need to go after Terrorists, not wannabe facists.
Saddam is a terrorist, by every meaning of the word.
-
No, we can’t. We’ve already tried that for 8 years.
And its worked.
There is a major difference between Saddam and Osama (and his friends). Saddam is predictable. We know what he is doing, what he is going to do, and what he will do.
nce that SCUD missile is flying
towards Israel, a cap in his ass will not save the lives of those hit with that chemical or biological weapon
Not a single SCUD killed a single Israeli in 1991. And 95% of his SCUDs have been destroyed. Not only that, but Israeli air defense systems have doubled in effectiveness.
And why would he launch that SCUD at Israel? I repeat, as I have a million times, Saddam is not suicidal.
Well, now Yanni, here you’re just wrong. Britain and Australia are with us. I think Israel would be too, but we’re the ones holding them back from unleashing a can-o-woop-ass on Saddam.
Britain? No. Only Tony Blair is. And unlike our congress, the British House of Commons has the balls to stand up to their leader. Australia, has only pledged political support, and that means little.
Saddam is a terrorist, by every meaning of the word.
Saddam is an evil man, yes. But he is not a terrorist. He is a dictator, like 80% of the world’s leaders. Yes, he kills his people, like 80% of the World’s Leaders. Yes, he should be shot, like 80% of the worlds leaders.
But he is not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who blows themself up. Someone who flies a plane into a building. People who President Bush is letting get away.
We could of caught these people by now. We could have Osama Bin Ladin in a noose. I don’t give a shit about Saddam. Saddam didn’t kill 3,000 people on 9/11. And the people who did are going to get away with it, and do it again.
-
Kinda funny. I can remember the day when people said that the U.S. congress would never allow Bush to attack Iraq. Now they will.
How long before those people are wrong about Europe?
-
What do I propose we do? To start, Force the Saudis and the Egyptians into a democratic government. If they don’t, we threaten to cut off their weapons supply. If their weapons supply is cut off, their country will go into revolution.
And what will come out of it?
Good, this thread is set to outpace the UN Topic. :)
-
No, we can’t. We’ve already tried that for 8 years.
And its worked.
There is a major difference between Saddam and Osama (and his friends). Saddam is predictable. We know what he is doing, what he is going to do, and what he will do.
nce that SCUD missile is flying
towards Israel, a cap in his ass will not save the lives of those hit with that chemical or biological weapon
Not a single SCUD killed a single Israeli in 1991. And 95% of his SCUDs have been destroyed. Not only that, but Israeli air defense systems have doubled in effectiveness.
And why would he launch that SCUD at Israel? I repeat, as I have a million times, Saddam is not suicidal.
Well, now Yanni, here you’re just wrong. Britain and Australia are with us. I think Israel would be too, but we’re the ones holding them back from unleashing a can-o-woop-ass on Saddam.
Britain? No. Only Tony Blair is. And unlike our congress, the British House of Commons has the balls to stand up to their leader. Australia, has only pledged political support, and that means little.
Saddam is a terrorist, by every meaning of the word.
Saddam is an evil man, yes. But he is not a terrorist. He is a dictator, like 80% of the world’s leaders. Yes, he kills his people, like 80% of the World’s Leaders. Yes, he should be shot, like 80% of the worlds leaders.
But he is not a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who blows themself up. Someone who flies a plane into a building. People who President Bush is letting get away.
We could of caught these people by now. We could have Osama Bin Ladin in a noose. I don’t give a sh*t about Saddam. Saddam didn’t kill 3,000 people on 9/11. And the people who did are going to get away with it, and do it again.
Firstly, Saddam isnt the only non-religious leader in the region. Turkey is a non-religious Muslim country that wants to join the EU in order to be as far away from the Arabs as possible. Israel has a non-religious leader.
Turkey will also be threatened by Saddam’s arsenal. Even though tye conduct operations with the IDF, the Turks could still be hit hard by Saddam.
Tell me, Yanny, was Hitler a terrorist? I mean, he killed millions of people.
-
Not a single SCUD killed a single Israeli in 1991. And 95% of his SCUDs have been destroyed. Not only that, but Israeli air defense systems have doubled in effectiveness.
And why would he launch that SCUD at Israel? I repeat, as I have a million times, Saddam is not suicidal.
He won’t hesitate at all to unleash some type of warhead on Israel. I think he knows that the US will push it’s hardest to keep Israel OUT of the war, despite the Israeli’s being victims.
If the containment system had worked, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. If the so-called “containment” of Saddam was so effective, then why is in possession of such terrible weapons? The reasoning of your statement makes no sense.
IMHO: The UN just wants to slip Saddam under the carpet and not do a damn thing about him, regardless of what the consequences will be in a decade from now.
The United States and Israel have un-controvertible evidence that shows a direct link between Saddam and the Palestinian suicide bombers. He has funded, trained, and armed these homocidal and suicidal bombers. How much more do you have to do to be classified as a “terrorist.”??
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
(1)…He won’t hesitate at all to unleash some type of warhead on Israel. …
(2)…If the containment system had worked, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. If the so-called “containment” of Saddam was so effective, then why is in possession of such terrible weapons? …
(3)…The United States and Israel have un-controvertible evidence that shows a direct link between Saddam and the Palestinian suicide bombers. He has funded, trained, and armed these homocidal and suicidal bombers. How much more do you have to do to be classified as a “terrorist.”??
D:S,
would you prefer the Iraq to unleash all the deadly weapons you presume it possesses (see (1) and (2)?
Can you give me an assessment of the risk that they will be used in the case the Iraq is attacked and in the case the Iraq is not attacked?Assuming (3), the Iraq works hand in hand with terrorists…. do you think Saddam is so stupid, that he wouldn’t give half his arsenal to terrorists should he die an unatural death? (And let the next leader keep the other half for self defense)…
I mean, you have played a fascist regime (on A&A), why can’t you think for a second and “play” the Iraq?
Then you would see, that everything Saddam does makes “perfect sense”. And attacking him doesn’t.And PS: if the US and Israel have this proof, then it must be one of those leftists world conspiracies, as i have never heard anything of that in any news available…
-
Firstly, Saddam isnt the only non-religious leader in the region. Turkey is a non-religious Muslim country that wants to join the EU in order to be as far away from the Arabs as possible. Israel has a non-religious leader.
Israel maybe doesn’t have a religious leader, but still they are have at least as many fundamentalists as any arab nation. Don’t they even pay scholars of the Talmud and Thora and excempt them from the military service? Don’t they have even an ultra-orthodox party?
I wouldn’t call that a clear distinction of state and religion, and that is important for me when judging nations.
Arab nations have fundamentalists parties as well, and just in a very few they are at all or even constantly part of the government.
Maybe the leader of Israel is not religious, the state itself is! -
@F_alk:
@Deviant:Scripter:
(1)…He won’t hesitate at all to unleash some type of warhead on Israel. …
(2)…If the containment system had worked, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in now. If the so-called “containment” of Saddam was so effective, then why is in possession of such terrible weapons? …
(3)…The United States and Israel have un-controvertible evidence that shows a direct link between Saddam and the Palestinian suicide bombers. He has funded, trained, and armed these homocidal and suicidal bombers. How much more do you have to do to be classified as a “terrorist.”??
D:S,
would you prefer the Iraq to unleash all the deadly weapons you presume it possesses (see (1) and (2)?
Can you give me an assessment of the risk that they will be used in the case the Iraq is attacked and in the case the Iraq is not attacked?Assuming (3), the Iraq works hand in hand with terrorists…. do you think Saddam is so stupid, that he wouldn’t give half his arsenal to terrorists should he die an unatural death? (And let the next leader keep the other half for self defense)…
I mean, you have played a fascist regime (on A&A), why can’t you think for a second and “play” the Iraq?
Then you would see, that everything Saddam does makes “perfect sense”. And attacking him doesn’t.And PS: if the US and Israel have this proof, then it must be one of those leftists world conspiracies, as i have never heard anything of that in any news available…
No question about it F_alk, there will be a bigger COW risk if we invade. That’s just how war is. I’d rather that risk be now, with his current weapons capacity, then later when things will only be worse. (I’m speaking under the likely scenario of Saddam defying UN inspectors. :wink:)
Actually, I’ve never played a fascist regime in A&A. In fact, I’ve never even played A&A. I just come here for the debates. :)
-
History has proven time and time again that America’s policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked. Hundreds died on the Lusitania in 1917, 2400 died at Pearl Harbor on the “date which will live in infamy” (December 7, 1941) and over 5000 on September 11, 2001. Each time the attack is worse and worse. A biological attack could wipe out 80% of a city such as Los Angeles very quickly. The time has come to break history’s repetition and to wake up early to smell the coffee.
5000 people did not die on Sept. 11. The number is closer to 2800. (40 were on flight 93 in Pa., and the latest count of the WTC is 2,797.) And it bears repeating: there is absolutely no reason to think Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. We knew Germany sunk the Lusitania, we knew Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The current situation is different. Indead, the current situation is unique in that our enemy is not a foreign state, but a global cabal of murderous religious fanatic.
Attacking Iraq is silly. Saddam is as much of a threat today as he has been any time over the past 10 years. Why is it an issue now?
Because George W wants an Enemy upon which to focus national attention for political purposes. Has no one seen “Wag the Dog”? And of course, the military industry desparately needs government contracts, and of course all that precious oil that the American armed forces can seize.
About 340 Allied troops died in the Gulf War, in a war that took place mostly in Kuwait and the deserts of Iraq, rather than urban warfare. In 1991, it was clear to all that the war would end if Saddam consented to the twelve UN resolutions which focused on Iraq departing Kuwait. Now, it is about “regime change.” That means bombing Baghdad and every other Iraqi city, and then storming it with ground forces. That means something akin to “unconditional surrender.” Many more than 340 Allied troops are going to die, (and who knows how many innocent Iraqi civilians) and I do not see the point of sacrificing that many.
Instead of focusing time, money, and lives on ousting Saddam, the US and its allies should concentrate on destroying al Qaeda – you know, al Qaeda, the scumbags who we know actually do threaten America! It seems that George W has become frustrated that al Qaeda is such a difficult target to hit, so he has focused on Iraq because we know where that is.
Keep in mind that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was premised on mistruths. (President Johnson informed Americans that North Vietnam had attacked US naval vessels twice in August of 1965 without provocation. It’s now clear that one of those “attacks” never happened. The other probably did, but it wasn’t unprovoked – the USS Maddox was using radar etc. to assist the South Vietnamese navy attack North Vietnamese targets.) I don’t know why I should believe today’s administration when they try to convince me that Iraq presents a clear and present danger.
Moreover, I cannot agree that America’s “policy of non-interference in world affairs until they become personal has not worked.” By staying out of WWI and WWII until late in the game, the US suffered far fewer casualties and lost a lot less resources as compared to other combatants (e.g., Britain, Russia, China), but after both world wars the US gained considerable amounts of clout and enjoyed boomtime economies. So in that regard, USA’s style “worked” well for America, although not so well for many of USA’s allies, especially Britain who had to hold off Hitler all by itself for a while there before USA and USSR got involved. Compare that to Vietnam, where the US “interfered” quite a bit. I’m not sure if the Vietnam War worked well for anyone.
Finally, if concern for Israel is a motivating factor, keep in mind that Saddam did not launch Scuds at Israel until after the Allied attack in 1991. And in 1991, George Sr. pled with Israel and got the commitment that Israel would not retaliate, thereby threatening the unity of the Coalition, which included Islamic nations like Syria. Today, an invasion of Iraq might very well provoke Iraqi attacks against Israel. Today, there is no Coalition to undo, and I think it highly likely that Sharon would retaliate. In that region, it would not take much to escalate into a full-blown regional conflict…
-
In 1991, it was clear to all that the war would end if Saddam consented to the twelve UN resolutions which focused on Iraq departing Kuwait.
Sure, but he didn’t comply. :-?
Instead of focusing time, money, and lives on ousting Saddam, the US and its allies should concentrate on destroying al Qaeda – you know, al Qaeda, the scumbags who we know actually do threaten America! It seems that George W has become frustrated that al Qaeda is such a difficult target to hit, so he has focused on Iraq because we know where that is.
We’re more than capable of fighting against both of these forces. :roll: