We should not attack Iraq

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

I am not neutral: i am biased. Therefore i will not answer that question, as you would not think …
they were impossible.

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

@Deviant:Scripter:

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

Oh my……

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

Well, i suppose you don’t have the original paper about that at hand, the actual proposal… do you?
If you have, i couldn’t find it in this quick time neither on the whitehouse website nor the UNs … so, if you could help me out…

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

“Playing tough” is different from “wanting to see dead”.

Who said dead? Bush is simply saying that he cannot rule that regime anymore. Saddam is bringing the death part upon himself.

Oh my……

What?
Did the UN not give Saddam plenty of time to disarm?
Did Bush & Blair not submit a resolution to the UN?
Did Bush not get approval from Congress?

If Saddam was to voluntarily resign and move to a neutral country, I guarantee you we wouldn’t be invading Iraq.

Again, please tell me which points you think are impossible. Improbable, Yes, but not impossible.

Well, i suppose you don’t have the original paper about that at hand, the actual proposal… do you?
If you have, i couldn’t find it in this quick time neither on the whitehouse website nor the UNs … so, if you could help me out…

Sure, I’ll find that for you. :wink:

@Deviant:Scripter:

The French way. LOL.
Do the French hold the responsibility of protecting anybody besides themselves?

Just becuase USA is playing tough with Saddam, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or even unfair. Remember, Saddam had almost ten long years to comply. His second chance, we’re not going be as leniant.

Yes, the French do protect others - and not just former protectorates (vis a vis the French foreign legion). They provide services through the UN’s peacekeeping force just like everyone else. True their WWII record is not sparkling, but neither is the US. Forget for a moment our feelings about Frenchmen, they do have their uses :)
(Recently they saved a group of schoolchildren - many of them Americans) held hostage in Africa (Ivory coast? I forget already).
And w.r.t. Saddam not complying, my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc. If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.
And second chance? What second chance? The first time he invaded Kuwait (a country not really backing the US right now) and prepared to invade Saudi Arabia (ditto). This time he’s guilty of not allowing weapons inspectors into his palaces - well, regardless of how worried the US is that he might well be harbouring weapons, if i were him, i’d say “ok, so i invaded Kuwait and you bombed my country back into the stone ages and now we have nothing - little money, little food, next-to-no medical supplies - now you want to rob us of the little dignity we have? Fine - bring it on, and i’ll see how many of you i can take down with me” - IF i were him.

(Recently they saved a group of schoolchildren - many of them Americans) held hostage in Africa (Ivory coast? I forget already).

Ok, then I commend them on that. I’m sorry. :(

my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc.

We’re not telling him how to run his country, we’re telling him what he’s not allowed to do. These judgements against his way of ruling are not simply our moral beliefs, they happen to be international law and human rights violations across the board.

If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.

…and if you were in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and sitting in the most unstable region in the world, then we’d be coming after you also. :wink:

And second chance? What second chance?

I was referring to the second chance that F_alk wants to give Saddam to play around with us.

now we have nothing - little money, little food, next-to-no medical supplies

Well, the Iraqi people don’t have much. Saddam is living the high life, mainly because he siphons off the foreign aid and taxes to pay for his lifestyle. He’s not as innocent as you portray him… :-?

oh, i was 19 during Desert Storm, and i have a good memory - i know that Saddam’s not innocent. It’s the BABY with the bathwater that i’m worried about (having said that, if you had me with a sniper rifle and Saddam lined up in my sights, i couldn’t pull the trigger anyway).

@Deviant:Scripter:

What?
Did the UN not give Saddam plenty of time to disarm?
Did Bush & Blair not submit a resolution to the UN?
Did Bush not get approval from Congress?

@1): yes
@2): No! It was not yet officially submitted to the Security Council!
@3): what has internal, national politics to do with international politics and warfare? Does the Congress rule supreme over the UN?

Sure, I’ll find that (original paper) for you. :wink:

thanks for that.

@Deviant:Scripter:

my gut is that he’s sick and tired of others telling him how to run his country and who to allow in or not, bombing him, etc.

We’re not telling him how to run his country, we’re telling him what he’s not allowed to do. These judgements against his way of ruling are not simply our moral beliefs, they happen to be international law and human rights violations across the board.

Can you punish a criminal with a criminal act?
If you do not wait for the UN approval, then an attack on the Iraq is criminal.
And telling someone what not to do is effectively telling him what to do.
Do you think the people in the former GDR were free? They just had a lot of things that they were not allowed to do… did the party with that not tell the people how they had to live?

If i were him, i’d tell the US to f**k off too.

…and if you were in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and sitting in the most unstable region in the world, then we’d be coming after you also. :wink:

Well the US would tell anyone the same, who tried on them what they try on the Iraq. The only exception is the “most unstable region in the world”… :)
Who watches the watchman?

And second chance? What second chance?

I was referring to the second chance that F_alk wants to give Saddam to play around with us.

Second chance, last chance, yes, i am willing to give people a second chance in the face of the alternatives here.
But i give him not a chance to play around again, but a chance to change, save his ass, not lose his face. Especially the last is something that (even it seems to be one of the US’s major flaws as well: outstanding pride) is an important thing in many non-western cultures.

what has internal, national politics to do with international politics and warfare? Does the Congress rule supreme over the UN?

Well, it’s sounds like you guys are making this a “Bush vs. the world” situation, when in fact Congress HAS approved the use of military action. My point is that Bush is not simply a lone-gun going after Saddam cowboy style.

Can you punish a criminal with a criminal act?

Yes…capital punishment. :wink:

Who watches the watchman?

Interesting point. :)

I heard on the radio today that tourism is down (30%in some cities) in many parts of the country (Phoenix, Atlanta and Orlando were named specifically.)
From this I’d say the country feels insecure and is staying home. One way the president is working on the economy is by trying to give the Office of Homeland Security some teeth with which to work. However, the illegitimately Democrat controlled Senate (thank you Senator Jeffords!) will not allow Bush to juggle staff in a non-union setting. Though FDR was given approval to do so by the full congress of his time.
Most attacks mentioned here are economic blows to our countries …
the WTC … the Bali night club … The French (it was just a normal case of oil blowing up on its own) oil tanker. All countries in the fight will need to tighten security.

We are not at war.

You’re utterly wrong. :x
We ARE at war, whether you choose to believe it or not. We’re not at war the same way we have been in past conflicts, but it’s a war nonetheless.

who will be in charge after suddam?

American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.

@Deviant:Scripter:

American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.

give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.

@cystic:

give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.

What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!

That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!

You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!

Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!

Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-?

@Deviant:Scripter:

@cystic:

give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.

What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!

no, you said it would be done. I don’t think it can, and i certainly don’t think that America will.

That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!.

Then the world should go after America, Russia, and any other country that stockpiles these. I think that we should go after Bush 'cuz he’s crazy, dictator-like, and is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Also because America goes around bombing everyone - something Iraq hasn’t done in 11 years.

You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!

sorry,
America vs. the world.

Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!

ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?

Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-?

But why stop at Iraq? There are enough nations out there that aren’t inline with American policy - enough that have weapons, anti-west sentiments (well, anti-US anyway - i have to wear a Canadian flag so i don’t get confused with you guys), and dictators who mis-treat their people.

@Soon_U_Die:

Yanny& Falk & others,
…

Well SUD,

i don’t agree with you.
If America takes up leadership (with action and without consensus) too early, that would be contra-productiv, if not stupid.
THe rest is too long to talk about from miy side ( and i am too lazy at the moment… maybe tomorrow)

ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.

Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.

and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?

Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o