War on Iraq thread

[moviezdude]

Why Bush is Right:

1.Saddam has to go. We need to finish what we started in
the Gulf War.

2.He needs to go because of the things he does to people.
He does things like the dripping of hydrocloric acid on the
skin, holding of innocent people indefinately in jails, forced
recruiting, burning off limbs, electric shocks to genetalia,
poisoning with thallium, lowering into vats of acid, and
having red-hot metal rods shoved into the most sensitive
bodily orifaces there can be. Would you liek any of those
done to you?

3.It's not a war on Iraq. It's a war on Saddam Hussien and
his dictatorship. We're HELPING the Iraqui people.

Read this for more info:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4820

So, do you still say "no" to a war on Saddam?

[admin]

There is no doubt Saddam Hussein and his regime has to go, but the thing that the world disagree on is how to go about getting rid of Saddam. The US believes in a total war while others believe that Saddam can be disarmed, smart sanction can be introduced (so instead of targetting the people with the current sanctions, actually target the regime, to make it weaker) and support/unite opposition groups. This was done with good success in Serbia (success as in getting rid of the Milosovic, not in other areas as Serbia is still a deeply troubled country), and can be applied here.

Unfortunately, the reasons behind the US's push for war is not as simple as getting rid of Saddam and "liberating" the Iraqi people. There is oil, and more importantly, the shape of the middle east and helping Israel get rid of one of it's main threats.

But the picture we're slowly seeing is that of a devestated Iraq, Iraqis that don't want to liberated (for them, control of their oil is a national pride and fighting foreign invaders is more important than getting rid of Saddam), a Iraq now sold off to US (note no British and Australian) interests (aiport, port, oil production, re-construction), a middle east on the verge of an Anti-American revolution, not to mention all the deaths, both military and civilian, on both sides.

The US has just effectively increased terrorism stemming from the middle east by a factor of about a hundred, at the very least. This time next year, we could be all worried about thousands of Osamas, not just the one that for some reason, no one can catch.

And as much as this war should be about Saddam Hussein, the US has already said that capturing Saddam is not a priority, just like capturing Osama is no longer a priority. And the big question, on everyone's lips is "Who's next?"? North Korea is certainly thinking they may be next, and that's why they have said that they want to build up as many WMD as possible, to prevent it from "making the same mistakes as Iraq" (paraphrased, but actual quote from NK). I think Syria and Iran, and a dozen other countries, are thinking the same too. Is this now the new reality, is this what the 21st century will be like?

And as for torture and human right abuses, which middle eastern country doesn't use these tactics (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, to name a few, including a few US allies)? Even the US admits using torture-like tactics when interrogating suspected terrorists.

[setarip]

To admin

"helping Israel get rid of one of it's main threats."

Iraq has historically been far more of a threat to its Arab and Muslim neighbors (e.g. Iran and Kuwait) than to Israel. About the only aggressive action Iraq has taken against Israel in the last 35 years (the Saddam Hussein years) was to launch a few Scud missiles toward Israel in the 1991 action - as an attempt to draw Israel into action and then, it was hoped, draw othe Middle East nations into the fray on Iraq's side.

It appears that this activity may very well be short-lived. if so, we can get back to the important things here - namely, Digital Video ;>}

[admin]

Just saw a documentary on the feelings of people in the Middle East. It was very disturbing to see widespread pro-Saddam rallies, and people forgetting about everything that Saddam has done in the past.

For them, the legacy of Saddam Hussein is his defiance against the US, rather than his brutal regime, and that's a regretable, although not entirely unexpected side-effect of this war.

Maybe it was just the bias in the documentary, but the conclusion from all the dozen or so British, American and Middle Eastern experts seemed to be that the US is screwed and so is the ME for that matter. Truly depressing (if it is true).

[gd_nimrod]

Re: Why Bush is Right:

Originally posted by moviezdude

3.It's not a war on Iraq. It's a war on Saddam Hussien and
his dictatorship. We're HELPING the Iraqui people.... [/B]

Its a war for oil and dominance. The only people youre helping is yourselves as the "peace-keepers of the planet".

...So, do you still say "no" to a war on Saddam?

Yes.

[moviezdude]

Re: Re: Why Bush is Right:

It's NOT a war for oil, and that point is so OLD that it is no longer worth rebutting, but I will. We're FREEING THE IRAQUI PEOPLE. They can keep their oil if they want, OR sell it to us, whatever. ALL WE'RE DOING IS KILLING SADDAM AND SETTING UP A FAIR GOVERNMENT! WHY CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

[admin]

ALL WE'RE DOING IS KILLING SADDAM AND SETTING UP A FAIR GOVERNMENT! WHY CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

So is this the new US foreign policy? Take down government and kill leaders of countries that YOU judge to be "unacceptable".

There is heck of a lot of countries and leaders that could fall into this category (starting with the whole of the ME, including most of the US allies).

At least it would solve the unemployment problem ... that is, if you want to work in munitions manufacturing or enlist in the new US "Global Liberation Army".

[gd_nimrod]

Re: Re: Re: Why Bush is Right:

Originally posted by moviezdude
It's NOT a war for oil, and that point is so OLD that it is no longer worth rebutting

Well then you shouldn't debate about such topics because every valid point is a good point. And if you're so sick of the same points, then you shouldn't beleive the us that all they want to do is "make a free Iraqi regime".

ALL WE'RE DOING IS KILLING SADDAM AND SETTING UP A FAIR GOVERNMENT! WHY CAN'T YOU COMPREHEND?

Trust me, if the u.s really wanted just to kill saddam they could have done so many times...yet they didnt...

[moviezdude]

I'm NOT a blind believer, but I do think Saddam needs to go.

AS for that argument "we had lots of oppertunities", WE WERE FOLLOWING OUR OWN RULES. We have laws preventing Assassanation of a leader, and that's what it would have been. Now with war on Iraq, its free and clear to kill him.

ALSO, we had to deal with Russia and France, the holdouts, WHO HAPPEN TO BE SELLING WEAPONS TO THEM, and so have a vested interest in seeing them survive, thus their resistance.

ALSO we had to deal with that crap the U.N. (which WE pay most of the expenses for anyway) calls "negotiations". They sent in inspectors, who didn't find anything. Pretty soon they had tapes about "rearranging" the locations of a "special" tank, and others. Perhaps you missed that? AND NOW WHAT ARE THEY FINDING? DRUMS OF PROBABLE "BLISTER AND NERVE GAS!"

Did you even read that post I linked to in my first post? Would you like any of those done to you? Your family killed perhaps? No? You would have for speaking out a single word against Saddam.


He's a dictator and HAS to go.

[admin]

@moviezdude : ... and meanwhile other dictators are free to torture their own people, develop weapons of mass destruction, building up their cache gas/chemicals/biological and even nuclear weapons, support global terrorism and all with the support (or at least without catching the attention) of the US. I think we all know which country (or countries) I'm talking about ...

Anyway ...

Regardless of what you think about the war, I think it's now a reality that the present Iraqi government will fall sooner or later.

So let's change the discussion to what you do people think should be the short term solution to the problem of governing post-war Iraq?

I personally believe that the UN is best at peace keeping, and since it is a neutral party in the war, it should administer Iraq in the immediate post-war environment. I think the US and Britain (and in a smaller way, Australia), while helping, should stay clear of trying to run Iraq (or to be seen as proping up any new regime, setting up a puppet government), as we already know what the people in the region (including within Iraq) think of the US/UK, and the whole "conquest" and not "liberation" argument.

An independent body (perhaps the UN, or perhaps some other organization) should be setup to decide on how reconstruction contracts and future oil contracts should be distributed, so that it should not be seen in the region that the US (and maybe the UK/Australia) is trying to profit from this war.

Basically, leave Iraq to the Iraqis, and let them decide what kind of government they want, and how their resources should be best used (with help from the UN while order is being restored). Anything else, and I think it will cause more suspicion as to the intent of the US, which is not what the region needs more of.

[gd_nimrod]

Originally posted by moviezdude
Did you even read that post I linked to in my first post? Would you like any of those done to you? Your family killed perhaps?

No. Speaking of, how about those many friendly-fire incidents we hear about that the americans keep shooting the british and even their own troops "by mistake". And what about those journalists killed today, because american soldiers couldn't wait to finally shoot someone - whoever it was.

[admin]

I think the cases with friendly fire has to do with the looser rules of engagement that US forces have, compared to say UK or Australian forces.

For example, there was they story of an Australian pilot who went on a mission in Iraq, felt that he couldn't identify the target properly, so he went back to base without dropping a single bomb. A US pilot would probably have "let loose", and may cause damage to unintended targets.

Also, the US's reliance on technology, rather than on-the-field-real-person intelligence means that lots of targets are wrongly identified, or using ordinances that are too large for their specified target (eg. cluster bombs within cities), causing collateral damage.

Add to this the fact that 10% of all smart bombs fail, you can see why the friendly fire death are sometimes larger than those cause by the enemy, not to mention civilian death.

[Batman]

Dumb soldiers+Smart bombs=friendly fire/collateral damage

[Oldbie36]

People, You can't reason with Idiots...

Batman says, "Dumb soldiers+Smart bombs=friendly fire/collateral damage".

Shame, Shame, Shame

"OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF IDIOTS COMES THE WISDOM OF FOOLS"

Disciples of "BATMAN", "Lord of Idiots" are requested to respond...

All of you who think there is a better place on Earth than the USA should go there. All the rest of us who love America should buy them tickets.

PS: Batman, are you an American? Most cowards hide in Gotham City where evil resides.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND OUR BRAVE TROOPS... The troops that gave their lives so that smucks like you Batman could spread the venom of hate around the world. I spit on you and slap you with both shoes. Tooie, Tooie, Slap, Slap, Slap. Does anybody remember what happened to our USA on 9/11/01?


Oldbie says," Brave soldiers - Dumb A**holes = Freedom to speak without being murdered + Protection from those who fly airplanes into buildings.

How do you like that math "BATMAN"?

[The Edge]

smucks like you Batman could spread the venom of hate around the world.

Oldbie36......I find your remarks very offensive.

Disciples of "BATMAN", "Lord of Idiots" are requested to respond...

What is this supposed to mean?
Your just looking for a flame war imho. Thanks for ruining this discussion.