Iraq, again

@cystic:

. . . maybe if the weapons inspectors actually find something, or if Iraq goes and attacks someone/commits genocide again or something like that, then i can see “going in” . . . .

By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?

Do we realy need to question the need to remove SH from power? I know it’s a tired analogy, but Hitler could have been stopped by the British/French when he violated international law the first few times.

The longer we wait the more expensive, in dollars and lives, it will be.

Zero, read THe Iranians by Sandra Mackey. Iran has never had a democracy and instead has a strong totalarian tradition

CC, Iraq did not say anything about it’s WMD. It didn’t say it destroyed them, it didn’t say it still had them, it said nothing.

By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?

There is lots of crimes in the world, the United-States does not want to attack Iraq for some humanist reason. If you want to save lifes, there’s a more efficiant way than to declare a war, help people in need in africa, or asia, but declaring a war against Iraq to saves lifes is a really strange way of thinking, even if i am not blind to Saddam’s cruelty he cannot compare to Hitler. Just think how much you could do with all that money, just think how much people will die in the war, you really think you’ll saves lifes ?

Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in

Yea, he said he had “proof” this summer, then he (and the brittish governement) publish a loosy report, full of supposition, empty of proofs. Again i don’t say Saddam is clean, but for now there’s nothing convincing, i just see the Americans and the Brittish claming they are irrefutable proof, but they show nothing, and i see a pretty good cooperation from Baghdad. We should gave Blix the time he need and we’ll see, Bush’s impatiance is nothing convincing.

@FinsterniS:

By all means lets wait until he commits genocide again! How many people do you think we should stand by and watch him kill? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? Maybe we should wait for a million? I wonder what the Kuaities who lost thier lives in 90 would think of that plan? Or the Kurds that were gassed with “defencive weapons”?

There is lots of crimes in the world, the United-States does not want to attack Iraq for some humanist reason. If you want to save lifes, there’s a more efficiant way than to declare a war, help people in need in africa, or asia, but declaring a war against Iraq to saves lifes is a really strange way of thinking, even if i am not blind to Saddam’s cruelty he cannot compare to Hitler. Just think how much you could do with all that money, just think how much people will die in the war, you really think you’ll saves lifes ?

Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in

Yea, he said he had “proof” this summer, then he (and the brittish governement) publish a loosy report, full of supposition, empty of proofs. Again i don’t say Saddam is clean, but for now there’s nothing convincing, i just see the Americans and the Brittish claming they are irrefutable proof, but they show nothing, and i see a pretty good cooperation from Baghdad. We should gave Blix the time he need and we’ll see, Bush’s impatiance is nothing convincing.

@dezrtfish:

Do we realy need to question the need to remove SH from power? I know it’s a tired analogy, but Hitler could have been stopped by the British/French when he violated international law the first few times.

The longer we wait the more expensive, in dollars and lives, it will be.

I think we should then first remove GWB from power, for the frequent violations of international law done by the US.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Like I said before, if we wanted the oil, we could have it. There’s nothing standing between us and those oil fields! We wouldn’t be wasting our time trying to give Iraq every peaceful opportunity to end this war without bloodshed.

So, we are already at war with the Iraq? We are wasting time to find a solution without bloodshed?

@Deviant:Scripter:

The problem with this entire situation is you liberals are (yet again) scrambling for your next excuse for not taking out Saddam.

Damn man… take a gun, and go there on your own, and shoot whoever comes in your way. You are not better than warlord anywhere in the world. All you know is brute force to “solve” problems your and only your way.

The hour the Missles were found, Iraq even insisted they were in it’s weapons declaration. Bush says they weren’t, but of course only Bush and Iraq have seen the original declaration

LOL :P and yet the Iraqi’s wouldn’t even tell us where to find that so-called referal to the missiles inside the declaration. If it’s in there, then show the world…

Maybe the Iraqis tell us on which page to find it once the US tells about all this evidence that the Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. “If it is there, then show it the world”.

How can you, seriously, turn around one of the most important concepts of western democracy: Any suspect is innocent until proven guilty
This seems to be totally unimportant for this country that still hasn’t signed the ban on anti-person-mines, still tortures, preaches free trade and sets ups tariffs, ignores international laws, spies on allies, has a president the majority didn’t vote etc. Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world, and this is just another example of you trying to bully the world into your opinion.

I mean, c’mon, how long do we have to playcate to this gullible United Nations and their frivilous attempts at controlling a madman?

You have to do that so long as you are not directly controlling every other state.
It seems like that one saying which went like “Patriotism is great for America, but not for the rest of the world” can be exchanged to "free trade, democracy, economic liberty are great … ".

Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world,

Then why are you living here if it’s such an awful place?

So, we are already at war with the Iraq? We are wasting time to find a solution without bloodshed?

We’ve been fighting with them for the last 11 years.

Damn man… take a gun, and go there on your own, and shoot whoever comes in your way. You are not better than warlord anywhere in the world. All you know is brute force to “solve” problems your and only your way.

YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE! You peaceniks just want keep placating to this maniac while he accumulates more and more weapons.

How has he not complied yet?

See YB’s post above…

it may well be a matter of time. Even if they are not in the declaration - who cares? It’s not like they’re “contraband missles”. Really, the US has to do MUCH more than it is doing to commit war on another country at this point. I mean PLEASE. SURELY Bush can show SOMETHING by now. Either Iraq doesn’t have a whole lot going on and Bush is running out of good reasons to march in, or Blix et al. is just not done yet, in which case what harm will waiting a little while do? I mean really, are they going to go attack Israel in the next couple of months just because they’re not currently being invaded?

Who cares? That’s your attitude toward all this? Unbelievable.

You’re wanting the same situation that happened with the Cuban missile crisis. Where JFK simply “showed” everyone where the missiles were. That’s not going to happen here…

The difference between Iraqui and N. Korea can be summed up in a single word:

OIL!

The U.S. backed Saddam in Iraq in the 80s because Iran was threatening to conquer Iraq. If Iran conquered Iraq the US would have lost a major supplier of oil. Iran was our enemy because we help to overthrow their democratic government and reinstall the Shah dictatorship. Why? We did that because their was a communist party in the new iranian democracy, and heaven forbid they might win some seats in the government and that might have interuptted the flow of oil.

I am so ashamed to be an American when I hear about the horrible things my government has done to people around the world for oil.

Its disgusting that the richest most powerful nation in the world has stooped to the point of installing dictators and overthrowing dictators to maintain our energy supply. If we are truly the greatest nation on the Earth, then humanity truly sucks! Bring on WW3 because the cockroaches that survive the nuclear winter will be more honorable, and noble than the best Americans. The “greatest” nation on Earth.

Death to Humanity!

Cynical bastard… :wink:

Your sounding more and more unreasonable every day. Diplomacy works. It has works for thousands of years. Diplomacy takes less time, money, and most importantly, kills less people than war does.

Not when you’re dealing with Islamic fanatical terrorists.

Plus, in the case of Saddam, it’s only going to delay the inevitable until another generation has to deal with it. :roll:

Agree with Yanny.
I mean, why is Bush even bothering to put on the pretext of waiting for something if he is going to attack without evidence of weapons? Like you think we should just go in there right now based on the possibility that he may have WMD? Or based on actions that they were punished for over 10 years ago? REally, if you have any kids, they must be the most confused people on earth “harry, you’re getting spanked” “why dad?” “because you hit your sister 3 years ago” “but you already spanked me for that” "yes, but you may do it again . . . "
stupid

Also DS, when i said “who cares” that simply referenced the M122’s that Saddam had. The ones that he is allowed for home defence, the ones that are empty, and not in use. From the sounds of things, it’s like a wooden watergun in the hands of a man - he might be able to club someone with it, but other than that it’s not going to do a whole lot of “damage”.
Not unless you’re attacking him.
Also SH is one of the furthest things from an “Islamic fanatical terrorist” in the Middle East. He has not been shown to support terrorism, has few ties with fundamentalist organizations, and is really quite separate from Al Queda. REally, if that is your reason for attacking him, well, there are a few neighbourhoods in Winnipeg you might want to nuke.

You’re wrong, he has been shown to support terrorism. Primarily Palestinian terror groups: Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. He’s supplied them with extensive funding and even provided them with chemical & biological weapons to use. Definetely as guilty as Osama in my opinion.

http://www.idf.il/iraq/english/info13.stm
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

Also DS, when i said “who cares” that simply referenced the M122’s that Saddam had. The ones that he is allowed for home defence, the ones that are empty, and not in use. From the sounds of things, it’s like a wooden watergun in the hands of a man - he might be able to club someone with it, but other than that it’s not going to do a whole lot of “damage”.

Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not willing to wait to attack the man until he’s actually got the missiles loaded and firing across the desert. At that point it’ll be too late. And to those who say he wouldn’t even try something like that, then why strive to develop such weapons?

I didn’t argue that he wasn’t “legally” allowed to have them. However, he didn’t declare them in the 12,000 page declaration he showed us.

First, Sadam has breached the U.N. declaration already, he was supposed to say if he got rid of his weapons or still had them, he pretended he never had them, essentially. I’m not neccessarily saying we should go to war, but Sadam has not complied with the U.N.

Second, what international laws has the U.S. broken?

Third, Yanny, it is bad in Iraq. MIllions have starved in the most fertile country in the middle east. They are not starving because of the U.S./U.N. How do I know this? They were starving before the War and before the sanctions, way back in the 80s, because of Sadam’s evilness and incompetentness.

Thank you YB.

At least somebody is looking at this realistically, and not through the eyes of “Bush isn’t playing fair.”

You are welcome Deviant

@yourbuttocks:

First, Sadam has breached the U.N. declaration already, he was supposed to say if he got rid of his weapons or still had them, he pretended he never had them, essentially. I’m not neccessarily saying we should go to war, but Sadam has not complied with the U.N.

SH didn’t say “never”, but “after Desert Storm”. And if he has none, then he is not pretending. Alone the question “if he got rid or still has them” implies he had them in the first place (first place here being after the first U.N. inspectors were forced to leave (that was against the current resolutions, but dealt with by the UN)).
I mean, if you stand in trial accused of shooting someone, and the question you have to answer is wether you still own the gun or dropped it… that has no meaning wether you actually did the killing or not.

Second, what international laws has the U.S. broken?

One of them:
denying foreigners who are accused of a crime to contact their embassies for legal help.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Man, the US are the most selfish country in this world,

Then why are you living here if it’s such an awful place?

May i blame the US ignorance again? Read my profile, read other messages from me or about me……
I am not from the U.S.

We’ve been fighting with them for the last 11 years.

Hmmm, on what legal grounds did you?

YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE! You peaceniks just want keep placating to this maniac while he accumulates more and more weapons.

Well, i don’t believe the second until i see proof, so i can do the first.

Mispost, to be deleted