Iraq.
- Thread starter Dudebusta
- 41 comments
- 1,631 views
Here's what I think on this Iraq deal.
The United States already went to war with Iraq and if things didn't end up to our satisfaction in the matter, we shouldn't have stopped the war back then. I understand we're doing these 'No Fly Zone' patrols and attacking antiaircraft sites that are targeting our planes and I don't really have a problem with it. I do however have a problem with the assumption that the United States is gearing up for some sort of military offensive against Iraq. I don't think that now is the time for this kind of thing. I think we have our hands full with other things and I think that going against the wishes of nearly the entire region on the matter is unwise.
Weapons of mass destruction... I understand that giving a lunatic lethal weapons can be a disturbing notion. I also understand that Saddam has a history of invading nearby countries. I don't think what's going on right now is important enough to warrant this kind of attention though. He's not invading anybody, and for crying out loud, nearly every semi-developed country in the world has weapons of mass destruction. Countries like the U.S. and China and Russia, and even Pakistan and India are sitting on huge arsenals of these kinds of weapons and for some reason it's okay for us to hold these kinds of weapons but not Iraq? Like I said, nobody likes it when the crazy folk get weaponized, but c'mon, he's not using them and we're being frickin' hypocrites.
I think that if we truly believe Iraq to be a threat to world stabillity, that we should keep an eye on their movements, and make it perfectly clear to everyone that if Saddam USES any weapons against another nation, or takes any aggressive action, then and only then would it be appropriate to consider military action against that country. I'm not talking about doing what we did last time either... go blow stuff up and then pretty much leave things as they are and walk away, crying about inspections and sanctions. If and when it's necessary to act against Iraq again, I believe that we should walk up in there AND TAKE THE FRICKIN' COUNTRY AWAY. I mean it. Make it a Middle East portion of the United States. That way we could keep the damn oil and not be forced to deal with all this trading for oil with other countries bullppucky. Until then, make it perfectly clear that this is what we would do but leave them the hell alone.
The United States already went to war with Iraq and if things didn't end up to our satisfaction in the matter, we shouldn't have stopped the war back then. I understand we're doing these 'No Fly Zone' patrols and attacking antiaircraft sites that are targeting our planes and I don't really have a problem with it. I do however have a problem with the assumption that the United States is gearing up for some sort of military offensive against Iraq. I don't think that now is the time for this kind of thing. I think we have our hands full with other things and I think that going against the wishes of nearly the entire region on the matter is unwise.
Weapons of mass destruction... I understand that giving a lunatic lethal weapons can be a disturbing notion. I also understand that Saddam has a history of invading nearby countries. I don't think what's going on right now is important enough to warrant this kind of attention though. He's not invading anybody, and for crying out loud, nearly every semi-developed country in the world has weapons of mass destruction. Countries like the U.S. and China and Russia, and even Pakistan and India are sitting on huge arsenals of these kinds of weapons and for some reason it's okay for us to hold these kinds of weapons but not Iraq? Like I said, nobody likes it when the crazy folk get weaponized, but c'mon, he's not using them and we're being frickin' hypocrites.
I think that if we truly believe Iraq to be a threat to world stabillity, that we should keep an eye on their movements, and make it perfectly clear to everyone that if Saddam USES any weapons against another nation, or takes any aggressive action, then and only then would it be appropriate to consider military action against that country. I'm not talking about doing what we did last time either... go blow stuff up and then pretty much leave things as they are and walk away, crying about inspections and sanctions. If and when it's necessary to act against Iraq again, I believe that we should walk up in there AND TAKE THE FRICKIN' COUNTRY AWAY. I mean it. Make it a Middle East portion of the United States. That way we could keep the damn oil and not be forced to deal with all this trading for oil with other countries bullppucky. Until then, make it perfectly clear that this is what we would do but leave them the hell alone.
Donald Rumsfeld already said that we ARE going to be taking a military offensive against Iraq, so it's no assumption.
I have to agree with the fact that what's going on right now may not be enough to warrant attention. After all, we don't know what weapons he's had for about ten years, and he hasn't done anything.
Not a good point, and you're lucky that I saw this before vat_man. Russia, Pakistan, India, the US, and China all have weapons of mass destruction, but the key here is that Iraq refuses to let inspectors in to see what kind of weapons they have. For all we know, they could be stockpiling smallpox.
Problem! What if he USES a suitcase nuclear device and destroys Washington, New York, or Palos Hills? The problem is that we cannot sit back and take the risk that Saddam is not going to use weapons - we need to be offensive.
How are we going to take a country with several million supporters of the man in power, and several allied nations around it? Impossible. We just need to kill the Boss (no, not Springsteen).
Okay, maybe it's not an assumption, that's just the phrasing I chose. The sentiment remains though, that I disagree with taking military action at this time.
Well he wouldn't be the only one with it then. My point is that you can't blame the guy for stockpiling anything. We all do it.
Sure, if we get nuked that would be a problem, but at the same time we can't sit here and assume that's what is going to happen. That's just paranoid and irrational behavior. What does a guy like Saddam gain by using a suitcase nuke on the U.S.? Really, the only outcome of such an action would be total destruction of him and his country, so where's the motive for such an act? I can see him doing it maybe as a reaction to something we've done to him... like invade his country and try to unseat him from power, but otherwise no.
Aw, c'mon. If Saddam really did something to warrant us going in there and killing everyone, we'd do it, and we'd do it with the support of the rest of the civilized world. We did it to Nazi Germany and we wouldn't hesitate to do it again.
Look, I know not everything I said is entirely feasible. I know it's not possible to just ignore what's going on over there. I just don't agree that running all over the world and being cavalier about who runs what country and how they do it is the role of the United States in this world. We can't decide everything for everyone you know, and it seems to me that we've got our noses stuffed into quite a few of other nations' business... some warranted and even requested, but there's a lot of things we would be better off in the long run to leave well enough alone.
So, while I can see what you're saying, I just have a more reserved opinion on a lot of it.
Well, who else is stockpiling smallpox? The problem is plainly that if he doesn't allow US inspectors in, we know he's got more than we think. Sure, the US may be stockpiling, but it's also stockpiling within reason, and it knows when to shoot, and that's more than can be said for Iraq.
Agreed that it's stupid to assume that's what's going to happen, but what were the odds that he'd use mustard gas against his own people?
Or that in one day, 19 people would kill 2800? Slim.America hesitated to do it to Nazi Germany, remember. And no, the nations surrounding Iraq would NOT be for US invasion, neither would most of Europe. This is a totally different situation as Nazi Germany, too, for a trillion different reasons.
I can just say to you one thing:
Since the beginning, the United States has been a reactive nation, rather than a proactive nation. I can guarantee that if the United States was proactive, though, the World Trade Centres would still be standing.
Samples of the Smallpox virus are held at the CDC in Atlanta, and somewhere in Moscow. Now, I don't see how it's possible at all to know what Saddam's "stocking up on" without these inspectors having already been there and found something. Not once have I seen or heard of evidence that there is any of this activity going on. Sure, everyone assumes that it is true but I don't see how you can prosecute on assumptions.
Also, that comment about the US knowing when to shoot... that's going a bit too far, and I could, if I felt like it, research examples upon examples of the United States killing innocent people by not knowing when to shoot.
Agreed that it's stupid to assume that's what's going to happen, but what were the odds that he'd use mustard gas against his own people?
Look, if we were in the habit of attacking everyone who posed a threat to the U.S. we'd have been to war with the Soviet Union and China for the past 50 years. The only reason we give a damn about Iraq is because we know we can take them with minimal cost and that's just not good enough reason for me. You maybe, but not me.
If Iraq made an overt act of violence towards the United states, the nations surrounding it would indeed support our right to kick their asses, and so would I. Now, I'm not comparing this situation with WWII necessarily. I was simply pointing out that we were able to overcome the seemingly invincible power of the Nazis back then, and I disagree with what you said about it being impossible to take the country over should we decide it's necessary. I find it interesting that you seem to think that, but are all for using military force in Iraq.
Well all I can say about that is that I disagree, and I hardly believe you can make any kind of guarantee such as that. Talk about being presumptuous!
We've got satellite photos of all around Iraq; we know there are warehouses with huge amounts of military activity going to and from them, and whenever Saddam invites the weapons inspectors in, he never is forward enough to let them pick the places where they want to go. The CDC in Atlanta and the germ centre (
) in Moscow hold extremely small vials of the disease in order to research diseases with the same scientific makeup.If you'd do that, I'd love to see those results. Not trying to be a dick, but I think it'd be an extremely informational thing to see. Especially if you could find it for other countries, too, and the number of soldiers the US has killed in battle. I think that's wishful thinking, though...
Well, the United States and the Soviet Union is a completely different argument. Mutually Assured Destruction was the key phrase - we knew Russia wouldn't strike first, and we knew we wouldn't strike unless Russia struck. The Cuban Missle Crisis was something of an escalation of the point, but nothing really ever happened.
Personally, I don't think it would require minimal costs to take out Saddam, and I guarantee the loss of lives.
The problem is the cover that Iraq is using. It's hard for anyone to distinguish between al~Qaeda and any of the countries that support it. Any sensible person would agree that Iraq is most likely supporting al~Qaeda, but it's hard to blame Iraq for the September 11 attacks, because they may not have been behind it. However, they may have, too. So the big problem is convincing the Arab countries that Iraq is indeed supporting al~Qaeda, and that's near impossible.
The countrymen themselves would stand up for Iraq. Saudi Arabia would cut off our oil. We'd have the support of Iran and Kuwait, and probably nothing else near it; most of Europe is extremely stagnant in supporting us, too (though I personally believe that if push came to shove, Europe would support).
Damn. That usually shuts people up.
Just kidding. It's pretty obvious, though, that if we had taken out Saddam in 1991 when we had the chance, or if Clinton had killed Osama (and he knew Osama was a threat), we wouldn't be in this situation now. But the American people would not have supported the killing of either of them due to the fact that they had not done anything to them at the time; however look where that got us.Originally posted by M5Power
We've got satellite photos of all around Iraq; we know there are warehouses with huge amounts of military activity going to and from them, and whenever Saddam invites the weapons inspectors in, he never is forward enough to let them pick the places where they want to go. The CDC in Atlanta and the germ centre (
Look, you asked about the smallpox so I answered the question, and the point I was making is that while you speculate on Iraq's possession of the virus, we know that the US and Russia possess it. What you believe the reasons for this possession are isn't relevent to the point I was making... which was that if Saddam had it, he wouldn't be the only one. I believe I made that point.
I believe I made that point too, and without having done the legwork because you know it's true. The U.S. isn't immune from scrutiny on decisions it's made.
Then you agree with what I said. The fear of mutual destruction is what kept us from attacking the Soviets, and therefore our seeming willingness to attack Iraq stems from not being afraid of taking the estimated damage as a result. By 'minimal cost' I meant comparatively, and there you go making guarantees again.
All the more reason to wait for Iraq to give us a concrete reason for invading the country. Thank you for making my case here.
Damn. That usually shuts people up.
All that means is that we didn't illegally assasinate two men and I applaud that. I don't think we should go running around whacking people we don't like so count me in as one of those people you speak of.
They posses it (legally) and they don't stockpile it, or have/use it for weapons or defence (or offense) purposes. I agree that if Saddam had it, he wouldn't be the only one - that's obvious. But Saddam (if he's got it) does not have it legally, does not have it for research purposes, and does not just have one vial.
I agree. The US takes a lot of flak, though, (as it maybe should considering it puts its hands in anything
), though sometimes it may take un-necessary flak by the uninformed.I don't think that Saddam's got the fear of mutual destruction.
Comparative to what?
Do you think there would be no loss of US lives?
Not quite. Just because we haven't got the support of Arab nations surrounding Iraq means we should wait? Do you not think Saddam is dangerous and needs to be dealt with? The fact of the matter is that he's paying suicide bombers (families) to go and blow themselves up in Israel, which is a US interest, especially now that US citizens have died - this should be cause enough, combined with the rest of the crap Saddam has done since taking power.
Well, that's your opinion. At the time, Osama was wanted for various terror crimes throughout the world, and Saddam had just attacked Kuwait for the hell of it.
This is the purely liberal American attitude, though. We shouldn't have done it because it wouldn't have been correct, politically or legally. **** that. If we had killed bin Laden, there's NO question that the World Trade Centres would be standing. It's stupid to uphold the law at all costs, especially when the life of any US citizen depends on it. Remember in 1993 when the Trade Centre was bombed and the US had to tell where they found out about certain evidence? We said the terrorists' cell phones, and since, we haven't intercepted a single cell phone call. The law does nothing BUT SLOW US DOWN, some of the time.
We're just going 'round and 'round here and the discussion is branching out and away from the core topic so I just want to make a comment or two and then we'll just have to agree to disagree on taking military action in Iraq.
I found our discussion interesting though, and want to thank you for keeping it civil. That's more and more rare online these days.
If you remember, I mentioned WWII, so I was talking about the comparative difficulties and loss to life between that and a conflict with Iraq now. Do I think there would be no loss of U.S. lives? Well, if we were engaged in military struggle with Iraq, of course not. I do, however, think that there should be no loss of U.S. lives, or the life of anyone for that matter, including the Iraqi (is that how you spell that?) and even Saddam Hussein. What I'm advocating here is a peaceful resolution, and one that we should persue with everything we've got. Persuit of nonviolent resolution to this situation is a struggle that the rest of the world would join us on too.
That is something that I would put a guarantee on.
I found our discussion interesting though, and want to thank you for keeping it civil. That's more and more rare online these days.
If you remember, I mentioned WWII, so I was talking about the comparative difficulties and loss to life between that and a conflict with Iraq now. Do I think there would be no loss of U.S. lives? Well, if we were engaged in military struggle with Iraq, of course not. I do, however, think that there should be no loss of U.S. lives, or the life of anyone for that matter, including the Iraqi (is that how you spell that?) and even Saddam Hussein. What I'm advocating here is a peaceful resolution, and one that we should persue with everything we've got. Persuit of nonviolent resolution to this situation is a struggle that the rest of the world would join us on too.
That is something that I would put a guarantee on.
Oh man...
Dude, the thrust of George H. Bush's administration's view on the matter was that by simply containing Saddam, he could be controlled and would eventually be replaced from within. Time was on the United States' side and not Saddam Hussein's so to speak. This way, an end could be accomplished without unnecessary bloodshed and whatnot.
I think M5's advocation of using force to oust the Iraqi leader comes from a mindset that has seen what the U.N. sanctions have done to the Iraqi people. Concensus seems to be that the standard of living for these people has degraded to the point where it would be better for them in the long run to intercede militarily and put an end to it so the rebuilding and healing process can begin as soon as is possible.
Now is another time and i don't think they'll take him down VERY QUICKLY
I just love the way that the one ex-Army general on the cabinet (Powell) is the guy who's anti-war.
I must say I really don't care for the way the US has completely circumvented the UN here - I'm very concerned this may basically render the UN irrelevant. I'm also pretty concerned about the ramifications for the region - as if it isn't unstable enough already...
I must say I really don't care for the way the US has completely circumvented the UN here - I'm very concerned this may basically render the UN irrelevant. I'm also pretty concerned about the ramifications for the region - as if it isn't unstable enough already...
- 10,832
*Phew* Quite a lot to digest here. Way to many statements, both succinct and absurd, to quote.
I am an American, one of the few Americans who longs for something positive to define "American." Today, that is a tall order.
I guess I'll just spit it out, in no particular order, but broken into seperate, yet interdependent thoughts.
The brick wall of conscience the I always run up against when critiqueing other countries is: the American Indian. That poorly documented historical event really should be enough to shut any honest American up. We live on stolen land, it is contaminated with the violence of hate from it's inception. America is haunted. Most Americans don't comprehend what happened as recently as the early 20th century... the almost perfect wiping out of an entire race, a genocide, a cleansing. It's sickening and it is the American Heratige... but we mustn't forget it is a hand-me-down from Europe, who, when it comes to America, is the epitome of "sour grapes."
Any claim of America's to be fighting for freedom in the hostile un- democratic world is not a valid argument and totally untenable. Hypocrisy is the rule. Everybody knows it but the American majority. American society is engineered more than any other with the aim of creaing a luxurious, contented world where dissent is not worth the risk. As long as everybody has color TV and junk food to gorge themselves on, they'll be fat and happy, content and maliable. This is also the proposed solution for the Islamic world. Make them fat and happy... or else!
King Bush says "Iraq is Evil." His loyal subjects say "Kill them! We need something to watch on TV!" A new reality show? WAR TV.
America has an identity crisis. We want to be the only game in town, but we won't be decisive about it. We are the 2nd millenium Rome. America is Imperial in the highest sense of the word. Every move America makes highlights this fact. "Free market" means "Americanized." It is Bush senior's "new world order" coming to fruition through his son. It's an Epic. There will be long movies made about it in a thousand years.
AMERICA SHOULD BLOW THE **** OUT OF IRAQ NOW OR SHUT THE **** UP! Agitating the whole world and whoring itself out to buy support is pathetic.
Extremist Islam is the biggest threat to the world today. Eventually, somebody will have to solve the problem. Where do you start? Iraq is as good as any other place.
A threat to "freedom?" Do you feel free?
Don't ask yourself freedom from what, but ask yourself freedom for what.
I am an American, one of the few Americans who longs for something positive to define "American." Today, that is a tall order.
I guess I'll just spit it out, in no particular order, but broken into seperate, yet interdependent thoughts.
The brick wall of conscience the I always run up against when critiqueing other countries is: the American Indian. That poorly documented historical event really should be enough to shut any honest American up. We live on stolen land, it is contaminated with the violence of hate from it's inception. America is haunted. Most Americans don't comprehend what happened as recently as the early 20th century... the almost perfect wiping out of an entire race, a genocide, a cleansing. It's sickening and it is the American Heratige... but we mustn't forget it is a hand-me-down from Europe, who, when it comes to America, is the epitome of "sour grapes."
Any claim of America's to be fighting for freedom in the hostile un- democratic world is not a valid argument and totally untenable. Hypocrisy is the rule. Everybody knows it but the American majority. American society is engineered more than any other with the aim of creaing a luxurious, contented world where dissent is not worth the risk. As long as everybody has color TV and junk food to gorge themselves on, they'll be fat and happy, content and maliable. This is also the proposed solution for the Islamic world. Make them fat and happy... or else!
King Bush says "Iraq is Evil." His loyal subjects say "Kill them! We need something to watch on TV!" A new reality show? WAR TV.
America has an identity crisis. We want to be the only game in town, but we won't be decisive about it. We are the 2nd millenium Rome. America is Imperial in the highest sense of the word. Every move America makes highlights this fact. "Free market" means "Americanized." It is Bush senior's "new world order" coming to fruition through his son. It's an Epic. There will be long movies made about it in a thousand years.
AMERICA SHOULD BLOW THE **** OUT OF IRAQ NOW OR SHUT THE **** UP! Agitating the whole world and whoring itself out to buy support is pathetic.
Extremist Islam is the biggest threat to the world today. Eventually, somebody will have to solve the problem. Where do you start? Iraq is as good as any other place.
A threat to "freedom?" Do you feel free?
Don't ask yourself freedom from what, but ask yourself freedom for what.
Are you sure you're an American?
Did you feel free immediately after you actually witnessed a jet airliner packed with human life slam into a building equally packed with human life? Feel free as you watched those buildings fall to the ground crushing everyone who didn't get out?
Similar threads
