The Real problem is our treatment of the innocent people, for two things, Oil and Votes.
Name for me a Strategic Objective outside of oil that our nation solves by attacking Iraq. Don’t mention a Humanitarian Issue, there are far worse places. Don’t mention Israel, they can take care of themselves.
It won’t be a perfect victory with little loss of life this time. We aren’t as militarily strong as we were at the start of the Gulf War. We don’t have the scores of nations backing us up. Thousands will die, to help Bush’s 2004 campaign.
The Real problem is our treatment of the innocent people, for two things, Oil and Votes.
Name for me a Strategic Objective outside of oil that our nation solves by attacking Iraq. Don’t mention a Humanitarian Issue, there are far worse places. Don’t mention Israel, they can take care of themselves.
It won’t be a perfect victory with little loss of life this time. We aren’t as militarily strong as we were at the start of the Gulf War. We don’t have the scores of nations backing us up. Thousands will die, to help Bush’s 2004 campaign.
First, there is a strategic objective to taking out the chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear threat that Saddam possesses. There is proof that he has distributed these weapons to any terrorist group that has the cash.
Secondly, I only agree with the second part of your comments about our military. Yes, Clinton screwed America over when he cut our military so much. (He wouldn’t have been able to launch a Gulf War type campaign if he wanted too.) Militarily wise, we don’t need the scores of nations backing us up. I do think that our military is perfectly strong enough to combat the brittle army that Saddam possesses.
Currently, there are only 2 middle eastern nations saying we can use their bases. Bahrain and Kuwait. This is not enough. We will not be able to bring in the resources we need with only those two countries. We don’t have the political backing that is needed for this type of operation.
Russia has been proven to of sold Uranium to third world nations, should we attack them for it? And there still is zero proof of Saddam doing any of that. It is all speculation.
Again, Saddam will only use his weapons of mass destruction if he feels he is about to be overthrown.
Whats he going to do with a nuclear weapon? He’ll have 1 bomb. He hits Israel, Israel responds with 20. He hits us, we respond with 30.
He is no where near a nuclear weapon. he doesn’t have the Uranium
And there still is zero proof of Saddam doing any of that. It is all speculation.
It is NOT speculation! Have you heard what the chief UN weapons inspector said as he was coming out of Iraq?
He said Iraq had Biological and Chemical weapons. He didn’t say he gave them to terrorists.
Yea, and the German’s weren’t killing Jews during World War II…:roll: Look how many lives were lost when we waited for die-hard proof on that…
Ok, prove to me Iraq has given Chemical and Biological weapons to terrorists.
Or, I’ll give you a choice. You can either prove it to me, or tell me you will shoot yourself, with your own gun, every single innocent that dies when we attack Iraq.
Or, I’ll give you a choice. You can either prove it to me, or tell me you will shoot yourself, with your own gun, every single innocent that dies when we attack Iraq.
What sense does that make? Our troops are not going into Iraq with the intention of killing innocent civilians. Let me answer this with a question. In the long run, which do you think will cost more lives. A stray precision-guided bomb and some misplaced bullets, or Saddam’s purposeful starvation of thousands and thousands of people? (Plus the use of his chemical and biological weapons in the future.) In my opinion, we’re justified in saving the lives of thousands of people. You anti-attack-iraq advocates need to think long-term.
The fact is there is no proof Saddam will do that. Again, he is intelligent. He will not do something that will get him killed. This includes an attack on the US, Israelis, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, ect. He wants to stay alive.
I truely do not believe Saddam would be involved in any attack on the United States. Israel… maybe, and thats a huge maybe. Israel has nuclear weapons, and Saddam knows him and all he’s built will be destroyed if he uses anything on the Israelis.
Saddam has not intentionally starved thousands of his people. There is no proof at all, you watch too much TV.
@Yanni:
Saddam has not intentionally starved thousands of his people. There is no proof at all, you watch too much TV.
Ok Mom. :lol:
@Deviant:Scripter:
Or, I’ll give you a choice. You can either prove it to me, or tell me you will shoot yourself, with your own gun, every single innocent that dies when we attack Iraq.
What sense does that make? Our troops are not going into Iraq with the intention of killing innocent civilians. Let me answer this with a question. In the long run, which do you think will cost more lives. A stray precision-guided bomb and some misplaced bullets, or Saddam’s purposeful starvation of thousands and thousands of people? (Plus the use of his chemical and biological weapons in the future.) In my opinion, we’re justified in saving the lives of thousands of people. You anti-attack-iraq advocates need to think long-term.
Damn i keep thinking you’re TM with that duck.
w.r.t. starving thousands of people - by that logic the US should also be marching into Zimbabwe to oust Mubabe, as well as perhaps a dozen other fascist countries where other human rights are violated. Why has the US not wiped out the FARCS in Columbia or IRA in Ireland or the FLQ in Quebec or PLO for various acts of terrorism, kidnapping, human rights violations etc.? And if scale is so important then why does China, Russia, Indonesia, Sudan, Algeria, and dozens of other countries get away with what they do?
You’re pre-emptive strikes are not a long-term strategy. Quite the opposite - they will prove to the Iraqi people that Saddam was right - that the US deserves every bad thing that happens to it for invading their country. That not only was 9/11 a cause for a celebration, but a standard of warfare that all Iraqi’s should attain.
Of course i say this while comfortable in a nothing country (Canada) in a nothing city (Winnipeg) where no one knows of anything of any significance within 800 km of me (the mall of America is around 800 km south), so i do perceive that the US is still pissed off. The question remains - is jr. a better man than sr.?
@Cystic:
Damn i keep thinking you’re TM with that duck.
LoL. Lack of options, I guess. :)
Yes, but I don’t agree with your use of “invading their country.” Granted, we will enter their country to remove Saddam, our mission is not to take them over. If everything goes as planned, we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader, and hopefully bring their country out of the crap-hole they’re in now.
You actually believe that? If we take out Saddam, there will be a massive occupation of the country. We’ll set in place an oil slave puppet Government.
@Deviant:Scripter:
If everything goes as planned, we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader, and hopefully bring their country out of the crap-hole they’re in now.
There exists a plan for a post-saddam era ???
That’s news to me!
May I quote
we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader
……
…
…
very democratic
@Anonymous:
@Deviant:Scripter:
If everything goes as planned, we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader, and hopefully bring their country out of the crap-hole they’re in now.
There exists a plan for a post-saddam era ???
That’s news to me!
Last time I checked, we haven’t started attacking Iraq yet, have we?
@Yanni:
May I quote
Quote:
we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader……
…
…
very democratic
I don’t understand.
When I say “we”, I’m referring to us Americans.
@Deviant:Scripter:
@Anonymous:
@Deviant:Scripter:
If everything goes as planned, we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader, and hopefully bring their country out of the crap-hole they’re in now.
There exists a plan for a post-saddam era ???
That’s news to me!Last time I checked, we haven’t started attacking Iraq yet, have we?
@Yanni:
May I quote
Quote:
we’ll replace Saddam with a more democratic leader……
…
…
very democratic
I don’t understand.
When I say “we”, I’m referring to us Americans.
exactly. America replacing the head of a foreign sovereign nation is not the most democratic way of defining a country’s leadership, regardless of the type of government America fantasizes about having herself.
Maybe the correct phrasing would be "Americans will have Saddam killed/arrested/assassinated and will work with the UN to insure that a democratic process is involved in electing the next leader of Iraq (to ultimately be destroyed by the Iraqi military/assassinated by the US for not falling in line with American policy etc).
@cystic:
Maybe the correct phrasing would be "Americans will have Saddam killed/arrested/assassinated and will work with the UN to insure that a democratic process is involved in electing the next leader of Iraq (to ultimately be destroyed by the Iraqi military/assassinated by the US for not falling in line with American policy etc).
Do you think it’s just the American’s that find Saddam undesirable and view him as an extreme threat? C’mon, don’t be so naive. We’re just the only country with the balls to do something about it.
You’re absolutely correct. If we don’t like who the democracy votes into office (example: the leader makes bad decisions, and poses a threat through the use of biological, nuclear, chemical and/or terrorist connections.) we probably will take him out of office, but I don’t think it will come to that point. The situation will be similar to Afganhistan, in which the US appoints a leader that is acceptable with all parties involved. Hopefully this will serve as an example to other dictators, and hopefully they’ll make wiser decisions in the future.
@Deviant:Scripter:
We’re just the only country with the balls to do something about it.
american self justification: If you stand isolated, call everyone else cowards! Never admit that you could be wrong, as americans are never wrong!
You’re absolutely correct. If we don’t like who the democracy votes into office (example: the leader makes bad decisions, and poses a threat through the use of biological, nuclear, chemical and/or terrorist connections.) we probably will take him out of office, but I don’t think it will come to that point. The situation will be similar to Afganhistan, in which the US appoints a leader that is acceptable with all parties involved.
american definition of democracy:
democracy is good for the american people. If it is outside the USA it still has to be good for the american people.
that remembers me of the american definition of patriotism:
patriotism is good, except for people who are not US-americans.
If you want to avoid double standards, then don’t use them yourself: You are the superpower, whatever you do must therefore be correct. You use double standards, the use of double standards therefore is legitimate. You don’t want double standards used against you……
wise wise all-knowing citizen of the superpower, help me, i don’t understand how that works!
Deviant, you arent thinking of how the world works. Sure, we put a leader in Afganistan, a very American friendly leader, but not one good for the Afgani people. We are going to do the same thing in Iraq. And there still has not been a vote in Afganistan, this guy’s term is long up.
