Recommended Posts
I completely understand that..and I am probably biased since I am married to someone who is in the military and hear their reasonings behind it all. I can't debate about all of this as I do not know all of the facts of which you stated. I do not want war....however...if that's what it comes to..I will support it.
jerry81 10
Quote
Some people make it sound like the U.S. is going to conquer Iraq and all the oil and keep it for ourselves.
When in reality, the U.S. and the rest of the U.N. will help a new Iraq government sell the oil at a fair market price to the rest of the world and use that money on building a better country for the Iraqi people.
Such noble cause! Too bad a lot of those Iraqi people will be killed in the event of an attack and even more of them will die in the aftermath of the war. The U.N. estimates the number of direct and indirect casualties of a US attack would be around 500.000. That's half a million people, most of whom are not soldiers, who will die because of bombs, lack of food, lack of water and diseases for which no cures will be available (it is estimated the Iraqi supply of medicines will last for about four months in the event of a war). And more than 20 million people will for more than a year afterwards rely only on humanitarian help. And believe it or not, those millions WILL hate the US for destroying their country, fucked up as it is.
QuotePeople say that we are rushing to war, I don't understand this. The U.S. and U.N. have been trying to deal with this madman for well over 11 years. Thats not a rush if you ask me.
If you ask me, any war that could with more time/effort be avoided is rushed.
QuotePeople also say "Give the U.N. inspectors more time". Who's not giving them more time? Don't you think it would be wise to let The Inspectors do their thing and have the military build up? If it was not for the military build up Saddam would not of let the inspectors back in. Progress is being made.
See above. I agree that the military build-up has contributed to Saddam letting the inspectors back in, but further building up might cause him to think the attack will happen regardless of what he allows them to inspect. A 'preemptive strike' by Saddam on the US with womd (if he indeed has any) that might happen in this case would be, in my opinion, an irony par excellence. It would also be stupid, but if he's anything like you picture him (and I do hope he's not entirely like that), well, he just might pull it off.
QuoteGeorge W. Bush has been doing a great job so far on this matter and I stand behind him proudly.
This is a matter of political principles, so I won't try to argue with you on this specific subject. Just remember that by supporting him you will be indirectly responsible for the deaths of half a million people if the war starts.
Gawain 0
QuoteThe U.N. estimates the number of direct and indirect casualties of a US attack would be around 500.000.
This is the same organization which appointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee (or Commission) for the UN. The UN has lost its value.
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Quoteyou will be indirectly responsible for the deaths of half a million people if the war starts.
Surely not... "All we have to do is kiclk in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse"


Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
rgoper 0
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"
QuoteThe reason he did not go after Saddam is because he showed compassion and mercy on the Iraqi people,
Really? Because in the interview I saw of GB, Sr. on the history channel special about the Gulf War last week, he said they stopped because they didn't want to lose support of the other Arab nations by going beyond the UN resolutions. He didn't mention a thing about compassion and mercy.
alpha 0
12bhi 0
I said that out of spite...It just seems to me
that the U.S has the bow before us,or we will kick
your ass attitude with these little countries.What
happened with North Korea,and Osama.Who exactly
are we pissed at?
p.s. what was the outcome of vietnam,
because all I can really think of is alot
of dead people!!!! >>>>>peace
rhino 0
QuoteAs far as I can tell, there isn't any reliable evidence showing a significant payout or support by Saddam Hussein of the type of terrorism that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There isn't any reliable evidence showing governmental support by Iraq of Al-Qaeda.
One example... Saddham openly admitted to paying families of the Palestinians that walked onto a crowded bus blowing themselves up in Israel.
I think Exiling Saddham is even a worse idea.. He needs to be charged for international war crimes. Either he gives himself up to face the consequences of his actions or we kill him..
The people that have actually made it out of Iraq say they HATE Saddham. If you say anything against him in that country the death squads lead by his own sons will hunt you down killing you and your whole family.
Even his body guards are waken up in the middle of the night with hooded men holding guns to their heads saying "are you with us?" Anything other than a life sacrificing NO gets your head blown off. People follow him out of SHEER TERROR facing the consequences. He is a mad man.. What Saddham can and will do if exiled or not killed will make Bin Laden look like a girl scout...
If we do this right this time and Bush follows through on Regime change an interum government will be set in place allowing the Iraqi people to PROSPER. If we do this we are abligated to see that country into prosperity..
Rhino
QuoteIf we do this right this time and Bush follows through on Regime change an interum government will be set in place allowing the Iraqi people to PROSPER. If we do this we are abligated to see that country into prosperity..
Like we're doing in Afghanistan?
wmw999 2,485
QuoteOne example... Saddham openly admitted to paying families of the Palestinians that walked onto a crowded bus blowing themselves up in Israel.
That makes it Israel's problem.
Other countries have governments that "disappear" people; Argentina (not commonly thought of as a terrorist state) even has the term "desaparecidos" for those who left and never came back.
Just because
we don't like them, they're not like us, and they have something we want, and we have God on our side
is not a justification.
There are justifications; we just don't pass the stink test.
Wendy W.
rgoper 0
i agree with what you said about the Iraqi's living in sheer terror of their own leader. (who in my opinion is a "hitler wanna be") but i maintain that if we attack Iraq without the consent of the U.N and the WHOLE world community, it will be hell to pay. i agree, if we could arrest him, charge him and make him pay for his crimes, there would be way less bloodshed, but this will never happen. by the way, have we forgotten selling arms to the contras during reagen/wyubya' sr's reign? are we any better? why do we have to constantly impose our will upon others? Saddaam isn't bothering anyone right now, so i say let's be patient and let the U.N. inspection team finish their work. by the way all this time were focusing on the middle east, our nabors in cuba could be up to god knows what.
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"
rhino 0
Because others will sell nukes and anthrax and anti aircraft missiles that will knock down buildings and kill your children...
Rhino
rgoper 0
QuoteThat makes it Israel's problem.
their problems are our problems as well, albeit unfortunate, we created that situation ourselves.
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"
jerry81 10
QuoteQuoteIf we do this right this time and Bush follows through on Regime change an interum government will be set in place allowing the Iraqi people to PROSPER. If we do this we are abligated to see that country into prosperity..
Like we're doing in Afghanistan?
Nope... Worse. The majority of Iraqi people live in cities and a lot of them live off government support, as opposed to the Afghans who are farmers and are to some extent self-reliant. Bombing cities and destroying Iraq's infrastructure (not to mention their government) will cause widespread famine rather than prosperity (which may or may not follow. In a few decades). If you are really so set on helping them, an operation to overthrow their government from the inside, assassinate Saddam and expose the people to western propaganda/humanitarian aid would be much more efficient.
Yet, you say that G.H.W. Bush should have finished the job and removed Saddam, exceeding UN resolutions? Granted, we'd still piss off the world, but when are they not teed off at us for one reason or another?
Personally, I think time is on our side as far as military options go, and I would like to see a presentation similar to what Adlai Stevenson did during the Cuban missle crisis (whether to the UN or the world at large, I don't care). Having said/wrote that, we and the world have been more than patient, and we can no longer simply hope it will go away with appeasement and diplomacy (it didn't work with Iraq, DPRK or Vietnam).
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites