Iraq Issue
 

I know this has been a topic before, but I thought i'd re-kindle it. What does everyone think the issue between Iraq?

My opinion is that if Saddam says he hasen't got any weopons of mass destruction, why dosent he let the inspectors in - show us that he has nothing to hide. If he refuses to co-operate, I think the Bush government should show us some convincing evidence about Saddams Weopons of mass destruction and the threat he posses (though I think we should kick him out anyway as i think he is threat).

Bush Snr could have finished the job off properly back in the Gulf war, and could have put in a government FRIENDLY to the US government, but Powell, and the other top US General, I can't remember his name, chickend out, and decided to opt for a peacful life, so in effect, Iraq won the gulf war.

Xerxes, you're american (or at least i think you are), would do you think the Bush administration should do?

Michael.

XERXES IS AMERICAN!!!

where doomed:cry:
just develop man boobs and be one with us

How about that now I wish that Gore won the Florida vote, and that Bush's have been picking on Iraq in both Administrations is making things worse for everyone that lives in this world, especially our fear and safety in jeopardy that the media influences daily.

Oh yea the other guy would have done things better. I just love that mentality. :rolleyes:

Re: Iraq Issue
 

Iraq winning the gulf war! No way. IMHO. Colin Powell and Normal Schawartzkopf finished the gulf war admirably. They nearly obliterated Saddams giant army and his military infrastructure.

The only giant policy failure was afterwards - the UN economic sanctions that were intended to coerce them into becoming a better country were in effect nullified by European, Chinese, and Russian trade agreements. Yes, the heart wrenching footage that came out of iraq of starving babies was all that was required to get people to switch their opinions... of course the babies wouldn't have been starving if saddam would have made the neccesary changes required of them to show their good faith. (Their nuclear program, for starters)

The only action now left is what both the US and UK leaders term as a "regime change". All you of course can pick from any conspiracy theory you please- Bush finishing his father's work, an evl committee of rebublicans' greedy move for oil reserves, whatever, i've heard it all. Those who say that the US has sponsered Iraq before, so who are we to make moral judgements, would prefer to the US to remain in a catatonic state unable to use its power and influence are generally leftists who would rather peacefully coexist with the incredible evils abroad.

Whatever would make you think otherwise?
/me takes a big swig of Coffee. :) :cool:

Re: Re: Iraq Issue
 

IMHO, Colin Powel & Schawartzkopf (thanks for reminding me of his name) SHOULD HAVE completly obliterated Sadam and his Army, I think Powel & Schawartzkopf were too scared to do it though. And now, we are in this prediciment of no-one bar the US & UK wanting to attack Iraq. I don't think it helps either that France & Germany have supplied Iraq with Nuclear making devices. I know that Germany have supplied Iraq with machines to dig up Uranium.

Michael

Post WWII, it has been the general policy of non US/USSR countries to abstain from military engagements unless forced too- nobody really wanted to attack Iraq in the first place as I remember it.

To say that the Allied leadership "chickened out", or was afraid of Saddam... IMHO does not make sense. What was there to be afraid of, with most of the military gone?

The objective of the gulf war, few people remember, was to defend Kuwait against an Iraqi Invasion, and then "discourage" the Iraqi military from similar policies in the future. Killing Saddam would have been a luxury at most, it was never job one.

This gulf war however, will be about a "Regime Change"- completely different than the last.

would you want the UN to inspect your nation's top secret facilities? we lie about shit all the time.

fuck george bush.

Now now. Iraq has deadly weapons of mass destruction, but what I read is that several Eastern, and European nations oppose the attack on Iraq. Which I think seems to be rational at the moment to think of the situation at first. Instead of bullying around, let them take the first shot and awaken the sleeping giant. Then have proof of their plans, and then stop them. What I think that the Presidential Administration was heading for was to make the US public feel a little safer by doing a whole lot of Counter-terrorism, oppositely it may be scaring the general US public about the current situation. The United States can't do too many things at once. That puts a strain everything, which may make it weaker, and easier to bring down.

It's true, that that was the official reason ... but you don't seriously believe that the US was going to risk a lot of lives to save a little country. Forget it! The war was held for money reasons. If Kuwait wouldn't of had any oil, the US wouldn't have really cared. The US weren't really fond of anti-americanism that had been growing in the country for a while.

IMHO I think the Gulf war was a huge mistake. And I think George Bush will only repeat this mistake. Letz hope everything turns out good though!

P.s. I do think Saddam H. is "evil" and should "taken care of" yet, I think that the Iraqi population would have taken care of the situation a long time ago, if the US hadn't attacked the country (which pissed them off).

[(Hamylde)]

You know that if Hitler would have been stopped from taking poland WWII might not have ever occured.

presently it seems that europe takes saddam to be a cute fluffy puppy, and too far away to bother with.

A topic we're currently discussing in my World History class...

I think we should have finished the job during the Gulf War, when he had more support. Now Russia, China, most of our European allies, and the entire Middle East are opposed to some sort of tactical military strike.

Of course, this crazy bastard could unleash everthing he's been hiding from us on us if we try something...

The UN is pushing us to get involved in this. One of UKs UN representatives gave a big speech about how "we" need to act. Of course, when he said "we", what he really meant was the US. . .

Personally, I'm getting sick of other coutries bitching about us needing to do things, and then bitching more when we do them . . .

We are allied with Kuwait. Technically, we were obligated to help them. I wonder what would happen if the UK got attacked by (oh, I don't know, let's say) Germany, and America just stood by and said "not our fight".

As for the Iraqi's fighting off Saddam if we hadn't gotten involved . . . no chance. The Iraqis don't seem to be interested in fighting off Saddam.

Like I said, the UN has been pressing for action.

By the way, that crazy bastard might just decide to unleash everything on us even if we don't attack. Personally, I think he will if he's given enough time and room.

actually I don't think he has them yet. When he starts making a move to take over another country again, that will be the point when I will say he has weapons of mass destruction.

So the biggest millitary power in the world has the right to invade another country on the premise of perhaps being attacked does it? Not according to international law it doesn't, but then America has so much pursuading and clout in these matters that it continually gets away with it. Personally I think Iraq hasn't done anything wrong recently, it wanted to let inspectors in then Bush made it very clear he wouldn't accept that and wanted millitary action. Then people complain that Saddam has withdrawn the offer to let in inspectors, well DUR!!! wouldn't you if someone is threatening to attack you?

If Saddam does have biological weapons then you can be rest assured that the US/UK have 10000x more stock piled away and better facilities for making them than Sadam and an arsenal of more Nuke than anyone else. Where is this threat Saddam poses anyway? From what I see it's the UK/US that are the threats to anyone. Also the US historically quite likes Saddam in Iraq, it maintains stability in the area, something they find far more preferential than proper democratic governments. Just look to Afganistan, the US activly supported that regime because of the stability it brought to the region, Indonesia too. But if these countries do even the slightest thing wrong the US, sheepishly followed by the gutless fuckwits in Westminster, use it as an excuse to go bombing.

The only reason that the Iraq issue has been raised now is because of the Success in Afganistan, they want to keep up the momentum for support for millitary strikes. I'll tell you it won't work though. The US has very little support anywhere in the world except the UK. The Gulf War was won because the US had massive international support, the ability to use airbases in neighbouring countries and the the fact that it was a legitimate war to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Any war now would be against international law and would jepodise and peace in the region. That is why no-one else wants to get involved.

The phrase "international law" is pretty much an oxymoron. . .

I'm fairly certain that our treaties with Iraq pretty much say that we own them, an can do just about whatever we please. So yes, we can just invade. Building up stockpiles of biological weapons is enough reason for me to invade, though. He hasn't exactly got the best record in the world, and I'm not in favor of "forgiving and forgetting". I like waking up in the morning.

As of yet, Saddam has never fully cooperated with the inspections. Never.

The difference between the US and Iraq is that Saddam might theoretically use such weapons. (Oh, wait. He did during the Persian Gulf War . . .) The chances of the US using such weapons are nill. We couldn't afford the backlash if we used Nuclear Weapons, and using biological weapons would probably get us in even more trouble.

I completely agree that these dabates are going on just because of our success in Afghanistan. So what? Would it be better to wait for ten years, when he's got enough weapons to destroy half the world and decides to attack someone?

Oh that's a good reason then isn't it :rolleyes:. There are treaties and internationl courts that enforce these things. That statement is just total arrogance and 'we're America we can do what we want we're exempt from everything that's bad for us'. It's America and the UK being the bullies of the world as they have done in past. What gives you the right to invade someone and get off scott free if it was an illegal attack? Nothing. It is illegal to attack a country as a premptive action because you fear something might happen.







Forgiving what exactly? tthey haven't done anything to you and nor are the likley to unless we take action against them.


Well he did recently, and in the past before we slammed the door in his face and said not good enough, for no legitimate reason.






I completly disagree, the US has repeatedly used them in the past on innocent people in Vietnam and in Indonesia where they have helped the oppressive regime for more than 40 years and stood idly by as hundreds of thousands of innocent people die. So do I think the US would use such weapons in an actuall war? Of course I do, although they're probably more likley to use nukes due to the better tv coverage and eye candy they produce to show the world and use as propogander.
The way I understand it is that the UK/US already has enough weapons to destroy the world several times over but you didn't get people wanting to invade us because we might attack them with these weapons did you. And we're the ones who are worried? If you were an Iraqi wouldn't you be a little aprehensive if someone with thousands of nukes wants to attack you? It reminds me of a scene in a movie where the guy makes someone pick up a gun then shoots him exclaiming 'you all saw him. he had a gun'

... well .. of course. But by that time WW2 was just waiting to happen. Most of the world had pretty much gone crazy, and Hitler wasn't the only evil moron on the planet (Musollini, Franco, Mao, just to name a few).

If you would have wanted to stop WW2, you'd have to go back a long time (at least as far as WW1).

And of course it was good the the US intervened in WW2.. otherwise who knows how the world would look like now. But I don't think you can actually compare Iraq to the 3rd Reich. Their Military power isn't even close to as strong (sure they might have ABC-weapons, but if they only use those once, they know the US and every other country will completly smother their lil country). As I said before... I don't think the problem is Iraq.. I think the problem is Saddam. And many people tent to forget that.

I'm not saying: Lets build the dude a palace, and lets all worship him. But sending a lot of troops (human lives), in the country to destroy it ... isn't the best method either. I think it would be best, if we send in Special Troops, to overthrow the goverment

[(Hamylde)]

lol - yeah not for three years - the US didnt want to know about it until they got hit at pearl harbour


debating Saddam's intentions for the future and wether he has weapons of mass destruction that he plans to use etc is perhaps fruitless. why can't the U.N. 'get him' just on his past record of actions towards people of Iraq, his own people?

-he carried out the complete genocide two of iraqs people groups [one was the Marsh arabs - i forget the other one]
-almost completely wiped out the kurds [destroyed 4000 out of 5000 villages]
-some of these killings were with biological weapons

if this is not enough, some other of Saddam's past activities...
-Sponsors international terrorist groups
-Encourages and funds groups who kill / violently overthrow governments
-Started wars with Iran, Kuwait - led to Gulf War
-Threatened Saudi Arabia with war
-launched unprovoked missiles at Israel

surely the U.N. can make him answer for these past crimes...

Wow... really good point.

I also think the situation shouldn't be solved with war.

You are playing with symantecs I don't think we are talking about destroying the Iraqi people, at least that is not what I am talking about. We are talking about a change in leadership, which you just agreed he is out of control, and I haven't forgotten that.

unfortunately this gets messy in practice, the current plan for getting Saddam out [ie US bombing the shit outa Iraq] will have a big effect on the people of the country. as Saddam kills his own people anyway this shouldn't phase him. remember that Saddam has himself admitted that he is not afraid of mutually assured destruction.

But they'd also have to prosecute and remove several other current and former leaders of other leading countries, mentioning no names, for the same reasons. And they wont do that because the UN doesn't have the power and clout it needs to do it's job properly. It is too easily bossed about by countries it has to weild to or face some form of consequence.

The UN is a paper tiger- this is why the US is taking action without so called "world cooperation"- bureacracies and effective prosecution of war do not mix.

But the UN would never sanction such action anyway, not pre-emptive action anyway.

Noooo there would be lots of discussing and talking, while Saddams friends on the security council listen in and communicate to saddam everything about the pending attack against him... :rolleyes:

i would be interested in the names of these other leaders...not too many have directly wiped out over a ¼ of their own population

i am just giving reasons that Saddam should be taken out of power, the UN can use these reasons to justify action without treating similar countries consistantly, all they need to argue is that they are starting with iraq and will move on to other 'evil do-ers' in time.

the U.N. does not need forces in this case, since the U.S. are willing and able, however this means that as usual it will be carried out how the U.S. wants it to be, then again, was anyone thinking this wouldn't happen?

You know, I hope you guys don't think that all Texans talk like that? I live in Texas and I have never utter nor heard that commonly spoken.

I would move if i started hearing bush-isms everywhere I went. :D

hehe... don't mess with Texas :)

Willing definatly, able definatly not. Not at the moment, even the US needs support from other countries in the area for any action to occur successfully. Without it they'll never win.

lol - support for america is not that hard to find, too many countries are tied up economically to the U.S., in this way it will be in their interests to give support

There are no countries queuing up to offer their support and millitary bases though.

Your hoping that playing the world bully will get you support which I very much doubt it will. People will just become even more defiant and unwilling to offer support.

Then why has Europe with the exception of the UK said no? Why has Arab state after Arab state said no?

if playing the bully fails - then all the U.S. needs to do is provoke Saddam into doing something dangerous, this wont be hard, and will scare other countries into action.
note that most countries are not opposed to action, just they dont want to be involved themselves. this is rude, but i would argue that the U.S. have the forces, but they would prefer to send someone elses into the crossfire first - just like britain used to do

We did?

But if the US does provoke Saddam thaen they are likely ot be on the recieving end, and possibly the UK. This would mean that the nations who didn't support them are justified in their stance.

Arab states stick together (when they arn't conquering each other), with the exception of Turkey, the only righteous forward thinking one of the bunch.

im talking a while ago - back when australia was part of britain and got sent into all of their wars
good point - but wouldn't this action still cause general outcry and result in everyone ganging up on Saddam, to disarm, before he does more harm?

An example of that would be an Iraqi Biological attack- the world would freak out.