*DAMN R6 Forum

President George W. Bush's threat to bomb Iraq for supporting terror and for not allowing United Nations weapons inspectors in the country has divided opinion among members of the international coalition against terrorism.

Iraq has softened its position on the return of UN inspectors, but only after agreement on a timetable and on the locations to be monitored. However, Washington believes this is not sufficient and has demanded unconditional and unlimited access to suspected weapons sites. Would an attack on Iraq be justified or should the country be given another chance? Should other countries support the US? And how should the world deal with Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction?

To sum up a long paragraph i could write.  America should just  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/uzi.gif) them all. mb a little  ::) and  :-[ them,  of course, they got their game plan set already  :P  than afterwards we will  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif) and  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/beer.gif)  America >>>>  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/rambo.gif)

     As with all situations which bear on the Middle East, there's no right path. Iraq is almost certainly building up a weapons stockpile and hiding it from inspectors, not to mention funding terrorism and basically being a buncha warmongering asses. An attack is almost certainly justified. On the other side of the coin, an attack would piss off much of the world, definitely including virtually the entire Middle East. Any attack may push Hussein to use his weapons, in which case we can pretty much say "goodbye" to Israel and anybody else Hussein doesn't like. Our victory is nearly assured. We're very good at this by now. But even if we attacked and won, Hussein's generals (read: the guys who will war among themselves for leadership of Iraq) are even more insane than he is. If we win and immediately pull out, we'll have problems from Iraq within five to ten years. If we win and stay in occupation, install a "friendly" gov't, and do the normal Colonialist America shit, then we'll have problems from Iraq in fifteen to thirty years. If we attack, we bring shit down on our own heads. If we don't attack, we bring shit down on our own heads. Isn't dealing with the Middle East fun?

     My big fear, however, is that an attack will start WWIII, with us as the aggressors. None of this Nazi-Germany-headed-by-an-evil-dictator shit here, no siree. Just plain ol' Dubya and his cohorts, starting a war for their own fun and profit. WWIII will be America's fault.

For the first time in our nation's history, we should actually listen to the rest of the world.  They don't support an attack so we shouldn't attack.  We must NEVER enter battle without the UN fully on our side.  Unilateral action is what makes us target #1 for many people.  Also, if we tried to attack Bagdad it would look much like Black Hawk Down...not very good odds with thousands of civilians running around, many of them loyal to Saddam and armed with no fear of death.

Well being canadian and all I get a slightly different perspective on things.  Bondo is correct.

May I just add though, that if the US invades Iraq, it won't be a walk in the park.  Personally I think Iraq has a strong, large, and loyalarmy.  LOYAL being a key word because if I was drafted to fight in Iraq for example, I wouldn't do shit because I totally don't support the cause.  This is how many other men in the army feel about this.  Personally I think the US would get their asses murdered if they tried street-fighting in Bagdad, considering our army isn't trained well for that sort of thing.

My opinion is, let the fucker(sadam) talk shit if he wants.  But when he attacks someone else, go in and fucking wipe out the entire country.  It absolutely disgusts me that the US thinks it can go and invade a country because they "think" they pose a threat.  It doesn't work like that, I'm sorry.  The USA (and many children brought up in this country) unfortunately thinks they're invincible and that everyone else is inferior to them.

Well l have news for everyone.  It's only a matter of time before the rest of the world gets so pissed at the USA for being such a fucking monopoly that they will all turn against it and tell them to keep their army in it's own country where it belongs.  And when that day comes my brother and I will happily walk back to Canada as citizens, safe and sound.

Bondo, spoken like a true liberal...absolutely disgusting. You cease to look back into history from the Treaty of Versailles that set up the U.N.'s failed predecessor, the League of Nations. The reason why the League of Nations no longer exists today (disbanded during WWII) is because they couldn't enforce their own resolutions - Japan attacking Manchuria, Hitler invading the Sudentenland, both with the same results, nothing being done.

That being said, if the U.N. can't enforce its own resolutions, or doesn't want to, it is a worthless collection of people who debate. Let's move on, shall we? So you want to give Saddam a second chance do you? At first he said through his foreign minister at the U.N. that he accepted the unconditional return of weapons inspectors - but when the U.S. and Britain wanted a resolution with teeth behind it and unrestricted access, he quickly backpedalled and reneged on his statement because he thought he could get away with the same crap as before.

About Saddam's army being loyal? The only ones loyal to him are his "elite" Republican Guard - the rest will surrender once the first tank rolls in or the first Marines hit the ground like they did in the Persian Gulf War. As for his army being strong? They still use antiquated Soviet era tanks and will lack air defenses after the opening salvo of the war has begun - leaving our aircraft complete air superiority and thorough domination of the sky's.

Quickly before I have to go:

It won't be like Mogadeeshu (sp?) from BHD for many reasons including the core of the Iraqi population would have left Baghdad by the time U.S. troops hit the ground and the fact that we would have a greater number of troops and firepower on the ground. You are more likely to see an armor column running through Baghdad than a couple dozen Rangers and Delta force members against thousands of armed enemies.

More to come after I get back from classes today.

lol, i tell this to kid's at school every week!  A couple of mornings ago i was watching a news show were the public called in on what they thought the US should do about the iraqi situation...Most of the people who called in suggested that the US drop a low-yield nuclear bomb on iraq, one person added that the reason they should do it was because it worked so well on Japan in WWII.  How horrible and cruel could someone possibly be???  I now see why some countries want nothing to do with the US because I want nothing to do with the US.  Some of the other people who called into the show said that the US should invade iraq.  I still wonder if those people have a SHRED of concern for their army!  I believe that the US has a great army with great training, but if these people are a fair representation of the American opinion then i really don't think they are worthy of their soldiers' protection


 :( :( :( :(Colin---Cuo

so far none of you had made actually decent arguements, except for assassin and loth. The rest of you are just saying FUCK THE U.S., give Iraq and 2nd chance. Like assassin said.. this is his 2nd chance...

the 1st chance was before the Gulf War, where saddam did the same thing he is doing now. He said sure let them in... but just kept lying and hiding his arsenal. As you see today, saddam is saying the same shit, saying, sure come in and check out my arsenal, but you can only check here and here...

i believe George W. Bush said something on the 17th.. but he totally screwed up cuz he is a monkey, saying "fool me once...shame on .... uh..uh..uh.. shame on you. .. uh.. but  you see the fool cant be fooled again you see."-  foolish president...

Colin - you say FUCK THE U.S because you guys fucken Nuked Japan in WW2... it seems you forgot why we did that... 1st off we had just created the 1st atomic bomb, and 2nd we did it to avoid an amphibious and air assault, which would have cost the lives of millions of american lives

to get back on this forum.. the only way i feel an attack will be justified, if we get 100% of the UN security council to back us up on an attack on Iraq... and if the U.N weapon inspectors find weapons of mass destruction.. and saddam refuses to disarm them.

the one problem i have with this whole situation, is that, i feel  that the US is just looking for an easier target... its like saying during WW2  when Pearl Harbor was bombed, we went, "OH SHIT, LETS INVADE AUSTALIA!" -John Stewert =D and i also i think we want to do it so we dont have to rely on sadia arabia for oil

 (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/so.gif) Yes oso, assassin and loth are the only ones that make sence... first off, a nuke? why would we nuke them? we would be killing are oil supply. also, the U.N. is behind us, we do not want to let that out to the public yet becaues saddam will know he is going to be attacked. and yes he watches US news. when i was in the gulf war the US said over the news we were going to attack iraq by sea raid... so they lined up on the shore and we came from behind...

    Great britan is right behind us if we go to war. and if anyone is wondering how i am writing this, it's because my friend shiped me his ibook  (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_bluh.gif) but if we go to war i can not write back, or be on GR anymore... and yes USA will cream Iraq!  

Iraq------>    (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/ukliam2.gif)      (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/rambo.gif)  <----USA

Oso, in the future, reading my post more than once might help you understand what i am saying.  I never said i was against dropping an atom bomb into Japan (i wasn't alive back then), the point is, this guy know that the US already did that, now he's suggesting (along with other people) that the US DO IT AGAIN and kill possibly millions more, i go further by defending the US soldiers by saying an invasion shouldn't happen when others say that "we should just go in and wipe them out", the point is that there are tons of better alternatives than to do what these people are suggesting.  I AM saying "FUCK THE US" as you put it, if the american population only consists of these morons!  Maybe u didn't read my whole post or maybe u got confused but don't twist the shit out of my words!


 :D :D :D :DColin---Cuo

Since i hate political arguements (and reading pages posts before this) i'lll jus say what i think.
Iraq has shafted the World for to long. The UN needs to let their balls drop and take action against husien. If they fail to do their job the US and england will clean up the problem. It seems that the advantage to having other countrys helping the war against terror is to limit the cost.

Also you haters who say bush will ruin the country...
We have a war powers act that limits the presidential power in a full scale war, he can move troops and do things faster than congress. then the congress must aprove his actions within 40 days of the start.
The congress is the only body of government that can declare war, the president 's main job is to enforce the laws. If Congress doesn't declare war and defies bush the only harm would be a political embaressment.
Its called checks and balences bitches, we wouldn't be such a great country if it wasn't for that
I'm glad gore isn't here cause he would just be fingering his puss while other countrys walked all over us.
jeb
ps. Can't we just have clinton again????

WTF Oso, because I disagree with you I don't make a good point.  I acknowledge points counter to my own as good points...not better but good.  All I said is we need to act with the support of our allies, not against their wishes.  The U.S. is one of 250 or so nations in the world, just because we make the most money and have a strong military doesn't give us the right to always act on our own judgement outside of our country.  Only a fool would say that having other countries support us is a bad thing.  Are you a fool Oso?

first off, the eagerness of people to use nuclear weapons against iraq appals me. they may be good for a piunch line in a joke or in starcraft, but in the real world, they are the single most distructive force on this planet that man can command

they are NOT to be taken lightly

nuclear weapons are not an instant effect like a conventional explosive. after detonation, radiation will add mant thousands to the death toll from the initial blast. the area will be uninhabitable for many decades to come, and the fallout will effect many more innocent victims.

if you want to piss off the world and get WWIII going, a nuke will be an excelent way to start it.

now, on to my feelings about the isssue at hand.

the us should not move in with out un support. unfortunatly, what the world seems to have forgotton is that the arms inspections were a condition of a CEASE FIRE. technicaly, ee're still at war with iraq, and the moment he refused the first inspectors, the un had  the full right to go in and pound hussein's ass into the sand.

unfortunatly, due to current circumstances, the us is operating from a weakened position. by atacking iraq under the pretexts of the war on terrorism, we will give  the impression that after we go after sadam, then we're dcoing to go after cuba, or perhaps another country on our nations 'hit list'. as loth said, damned if you do, damned if you dont. the only advantage to going in with un backing is that it means that a smaller part of ther world hates us for our actions.

First I never said we needed the UN's HELP, I said we need their APPROVAL.  Big difference.  I don't see why you guys are having so much trouble understanding that cooperation is the only way to peaceful situations.  War begats war, it doesn't vanquish it.  That is why the War to end all wars was as silly a name to give to WWI as anything.

Secondly, I didn't mean that Bagdad would be identical to Somalia, but I do feel that it will be a battle that can't be easily fought like many Americans feel.  We can't just go in and bomb Bagdad like we did the terrorist camps in Afgahnistan.  There are too many civilians to just eliminate the threat using air support.  We will have to go in with troops and vehicles, and despite our strengths...when you don't know who is just a civilian and who isn't it is a bad situation...just like in Somalia, just like in Vietnam.  No it won't be a complete disaster, but it will still be bad.

And if you think this point lacks validity, I ask you to go back to a thread maybe a week ago about this topic where Mauti posts about attacking Bagdad and how that would be.  If you are going to claim Mauti doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to military stuff, then I really have to wonder about you.

Well Bondo, seeing that I took some MS courses at Westpoint, I think I can argue about military tactics with anyone here on these forums. Out of curiosity Bondo, did you read the Dossier that Britain released a couple days ago?
I see that you ignored my point earlier, but it is most likely that Iraqi civilians would have fled Baghdad by the time the U.S. Marines or armor comes around. Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard is digging trenches about 20 miles from the city, so that will nullify some of the threat of bombing civilians.
Taking over Baghdad won't be that hard for many reasons...in the opening salvo of the war, what target's do you think are most likely to get hit? Answer: AAA/AAM batteries, Barracks, RADAR facilities, communication equipment, suspected WMD sites, and Saddam's Palace's. Last time we did this in the Persian Gulf War, we annihilated 2/3 of Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard from the getgo and the rest of the army surrendered once we cut the head off of their leadership (commonly known as divide and conquer).
To also make things easier on us, we are currently training the Shiite's inthe south and the Kurd's in the north to participate in a "liberation" of Baghdad - something very similar to what the northern alliance did in Afghanistan.
Personally my feeling is that this will be like what happened in Grozny (I bet only Cossack knows of this place) with all of the civilians clearing out and only the two sides brawling...except this will be a massacre by the U.S. troops. Because unlike in Grozny, Saddam's forces are less equiped and not as determined as the rebels were in Chechnya. Believe, once Saddam is dead (and he will be shorty after war breaks out) all of his "loyal" soldiers will throw down their arms and surrender - I doubt they are stupid enough to fight for someone who would already be dead.

Brain: I think whoever brought up tactical nuclear weapons was joking, even if we were hit with a chemical or biological warhead, I still doubt we would nuke them.

oops, sorry, hit the modify button instead of quote. i think that's all of your message back, but i'm not shure

okie.. i dont know if this is true or just a rumor, but i heard that the civilians that are "used" for "protection" around Iraqi bases, will be considered "working for the enemy" and will not be considered civilian, but rather enemy... and killed during bombing with no sympathy toward civilian casualties.

is it true?

and for bondo... if you read what i said, i never said bondo i dont agree with you, so your points are invalid, i just said you didnt make a good arguement on the situation, but i too said we should have 100% UN security council to back us up, like Ace said it was mostly on your comment about it turing into another BHD situation.

colin, maybe i said this wrong, or didnt add this into my earlier post, but about the nuke thing, i probably meant "this is now and that was then." ...then no one else had an atom bomb, so there was no worries for us about another country nuking us back for retaliation for the Japanese. Now, other countries have nukes also and we know the penalty for using one on a country... and any way, the US already stated that they wouldn't even consider using a single Nuke on either The War on Terror, nor The War with Iraq.

Hi I am a Democrat:


I believe that Iraq isnt any bigger a threat now then since September 11. The only reason Bush is stessing Iraq is to take everyones mind of domestic issues he can't or won't resolve and the fact that our glorified war on terrorism is falling apart. This man stong arms the UN places which defeats the purpose of the UN and he shouldnt be in office anyway (remember way back that big election thingy????)

Well Oso, you said no one but a few specific people made good points, you didn't say I made some good and some bad points you basically said I made no good points...and I'm sorry I wasn't clear on what I meant with the BHD reference.

Zait, just goes to show that Republicans can "Wag The Dog" just as well as the Democrats.  I'm certainly not a democrat, I consider myself liberal...and if I need to associate with a political party it is the Green Party.

i used  the mension of NBC weapons as a way  express my general dismay at the american populus with out going off topic too much. i was mainly speaking about the average amaricans relative ignorance if the full effects of what they want the country to do. all the public wants to do is simply drop the bomb

Zaitsev, that is a purely European point of view, care to back it up with facts or are you just going to leave a baseless comment out there? I am rather sure that I can shoot down your arguments, so give me a shot at it.

The one thing you did mention - Bush strongarming the UN, wtf are you smoking? The UN has shown that it is too pussy to act on its own, so we have to do it for them. If the U.N. can't enforce it's own resolutions, then they are worthless, plain and simple. Iraq has violated its terms of cease-fire and countless other U.N. resolutions, and it is time they paid for their ways. You may say to me "well how come the inspectors didn't find any WMD when they were there originally?" My response to that is that there were numerous "restricted zones" where the inspectors wouldn't go - one of them outside of Baghdad was the size of London and all of the weapons were hidden in these areas.

We can't bank on the Russians helping us out in a Security Concil vote because they have too many economic ties to Iraq: Read up on the $40 Billion contract they signed with each other a couple months ago. In turn, if you want to get something done right, you have to do it yourself.

Welcome to the US bondo:
 

   We have currently two parties that count and although I do not by any means full ly (sp?) support the democrats I too am I liberal and thus do not Bush at all. I agree with you on unilateral action and I believe that the Citizens would not leave becuse they are so used to being under S.H. that they would not rise up against him but against us. My feeling is that Bush is no bigger a threat now then he was years ago. Whatever happends lateral tensions. Such as in the cold war when Russia could Nuke the USA and visa-versa. Lets face the fact the Nukes are the thing that kept us out of War. S.H. should have nukes like us and I gurentteee that we have chemical weapons even if he doesnt. My hopes that bush stresses this and commits political suicide.

 The UN was made for a purpose. That purpose is called Collective Security. A place for countries to talk things out befor resorting to war. Then we ban Iraq and North Korea and so they cant talk to us. All the countries we've had wars with recently have no voice in the UN due, in large part, to the conservetives America sends to the UN and thus we cause wars and sign the deaths of soliders. What? You thought Bin laden randomly attacked the US? No it was payback for ditching Arfganistan in the 70's and then being all big and bad in the middle east. If we attack Iraq 10-20 years from now when 9-11 has lolled down, which it will, we will be attacked again and thats simply clear to me.

Pshyco:

1. I am not European sorry I just was accepted in anyway

2.I dont call saving lives and wanting to talk things out pussy

I love how Sin calls you European like it is a bad thing...the Europeans' (Western Europe and Canadians that is) have much better social systems than the US, the standard of life is better without having to work your ass off constantly like in the US (cutthroat isn't a good thing).  And big shock, in the past 50 years the only civilized country having real wars was the US (with some UN and UK support here and there).

I said that is  European point of view, not meant to be said in a good or bad way...it is a European point of viev because quite frankly, that is how many in the European populous feel on the issue of us attacking Iraq. The sad thing is, many leaders (not just European, but around the World) don't want us attacking Iraq because they are afraid of a spike in oil prices - France and Germany admitted that much a month ago when the war drums were getting hit.

Zaitsev, I am still waiting for facts backing up your first statement...anyone can throw statements around, intelligent people can back them up with facts.

Also Zaitsev: are you truley that naive to think that the citizens would not leave Iraq? Even though they are used to Saddam in power, they dislike him and would leave at the drop of a hat once the first bombs started to fall on Baghdad - I think they care more about living than remaining comfortable under Saddam.

I just saw this:


Zaitsev, us attacking Iraq will in the long run, save lives. All of the money that Iraq is getting right now in the Oil for food program is going to Saddam's personal piggy bank and not ot the people of Iraq. He is buying palaces and saving up his own food supply. In turn, they are starving to death and have miserable lives accompanying it. Not to mention that Saddam has not even flinched when testing out chemical weapons on his own people and his enemies, thus killing more people. Once Saddam is out of power and a Democracy is installed, Iraq will be a rich and vibrant country powered by the large amount of Oil they have.

Sin, what will happen is we'll put a puppet government in that is friendly to us and will give us all the oil we want so we can have nice low prices.  The people will be somewhat better off but it will by no means be like the life in the more well run oil-rich Arabic nations.  Then the people will be bitter, a new dictator-type will rally them, probably someone who worked with us to overthrow Saddam, and things will be back at the same place if we ever leave and if we don't there will certainly not be real peace either.

Sin,
      It is disgusting that you look down on Europeans. Trust me if I had the chance I would move there from the USA. Secondly Your views of the world are as curropt as I dont know whos. I think that if we had a national idiots day you and Bush could be the two list toppers. The US did INFACT say that we will attack with or without you weak UN. What else is strongarming? Is there any way to strong arm any MORE?

Zaitsev, you call out Sin for looking down on Europeans but then you trash America by saying that you would rather live in Europe. If that's the case, I'll help you pack your bags and ship out.


The US is not strong-arming the UN; we are merely asking that they uphold the ceasefire that was negotiated 10 years ago. It explicitly said that if Saddam would not allow weapons inspectors in, we would go back in. Technically, we should have gone back in a long time ago. Bush is merely doing what Clinton didn't have the testicular fortitude to do.

Bondo, we will do exactly what we did in Afghanistan: allow the people to democratically elect a government. I can guarantee you that their life under this government would be a lot better than under Saddam. They will be allowed to trade freely, thus boosting their economy and their standard of living. Could something happen down the road? Sure it's possible, and given the nature of the Middle East (for thousands of years, long before the US was ever around) it is likely there will be some sort of trouble. However, this is all speculation. The only cold hard fact is that Saddam is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has directly refused to honor the agreements of the ceasefire. Not only that, he sponsors terrorism and most likely has weapons of mass destruction.

It's times like this that I'm proud to have George W. Bush as my president.

omg he said it was a EUROPEAN POINT OF VIEW!!! he didnt say anything bad nor good about you guys... like he freaken stated above!!

freaken read!!

ok now to topic, Bondo, i disagree on some points you made, i do agree that when we remove saddam, we will appoint a leader that is friendly to the U.S, so we too can get oil out of this.

I dont think that the people will grow bitter and another dictator will come into power over Iraq and things will be back to where they are because once we actually push all the way toward Baghdad, we arent just going to pull all military out of there, we will probably still keep men in there to keep it safe from another evil dictator to come back and thus repeat all that has happened.

Christ almighty, thank you Oso for reading my posts...

I never said I was looking down on EUropeans, I said that is how Europeans view this matter you dipshit Zaitsev. I am still waiting on the facts to back up your baseless arguments...that would make you the idiot, not me. I can argue politics, military, and anything else on this forum as good (and probably better than most) anyone here, so I want you to back up your pussy claims so we can debate.

In response to a whole dictator thing...arising if we install a gov't...I guess Konstunica in Kosovo has turned into a dictator, hasn't he Bondo? heh. It will be a similar Government that we install in Iraq and quite frankly, it will turn out better due to their enormous wealth from Oil reserves. As for the People not living better Bondo, all you have to do is look at the Kurds in the north...they have built numerous modern cities with plenty of skyscrapers and for the most part, all people are well off (certainly better off than the rest of the Iraqi population) because we allow the Kurds to sell oil on the world market. I suspect Kurdish Iraq will be a model for the rest of Iraq once Saddam falls.

To look down on one's point of view is to look down on the person...the two cannot be seperated Sin.

Ace, if you'll help me with the financial problem that would occur, I'll take you up on your offer to help move me, a person who would much rather live in Europe than the US, to Europe ;).  Or even Canada if you feel like Europe is too expensive.

I have a feeling it was directed to Zait, but I've backed up my points just as well as anyone else in this discussion.  My points have merit based on historical events.  When I say that another dictator will arise and nothing will change...that is exactly like Germany, exactly like a number of things.  Maybe I won't be right but I certainly have given justification for all of my views.  Either way, we are talking about a future thing so there is no right and wrong.  That can only be decided in hindsight.

Bondo, let us analyze what I said here. How is this looking down on Europeans? Please detail for me how I am looking down on them. Please don't act like Zaitsev and throw statements around without backing it up.

All macho American ideas about kicking some Iraqi ass aside, why do we want to attack Iraq anyway?

Yes, Saddam is a bad dude. Yes, he does some pretty evil shit. Yes, if I he was standing in front of me and I had a gun I'd probably off him and not think twice about it.

Using the cease-fire arguement, we have more than enough justification to take military action against Iraq. However, just because we can doesn't mean we should. What makes Iraq such a threat anyway? (Yes, I did read the UK's dossier. There was no new information in it. I'm still not convinced.) Ok, granted Iraq has NBC weapons, so what? Has he shown any intent to use them? If Iraq is such a threat to world peace why can't anyone seem to show one reason why we have to attack NOW. If it's so important to attack now, let us know why. What is it about the current situation that makes Iraq an immediate clear and present danger to the US or it's allies. From the evidence presented so far, Saddam is more of a threat to his own people than to anyone else.

If there is a reason to attack now, let everyone know. Otherwise it's not a good idea to go against the will of the rest of the free world. That won't make us any more friends, and right now, we need friends more than at any time before in US history. Look at the current world situation right now. Every country other than US, UK, and israel seems pretty much against attacking Iraq right now. Hell, even Kuwait doesn't want us to attack Iraq. If we alienate our allies isn't that like cutting off our nose to spite our face? How does attack Iraq help us in the long run? How does it help us defeat Al Qaeda?

My thinking right now is: Let sleeping dogs lie. He's not fucking with us right now. Until he does fuck with us, get the UN to demand action first. If evidence does come out that he's providing NBC to terrorists or is planning to use them against the US or it's allies, then consider blasting him.

In addition, what right do we have to invade a sovergien nation anyway. Iraqs done nothing to deserve an invasion yet. They haven't attacked us. Why should we attack them? If we make a policy of invading people we don't like, we're no better than the evil governments we try to invade. It is just not civilized to whack people who get in your way. That's the whole reason the rule of law was invented. To make sure that the person, or country, that is bigger or has more guns, does not rule the world.

MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT.

Militarily, we don't have the troops to safely attack Iraq. Sure, we've got enough to get the job done. But what if China decides to attack Taiwan? Or North Korea decides to attack South Korea? We would certainly defend Taiwan and South Korea, but would we have enough power to do so?

Our economy is on unstable ground as it is, is it wise to strech it to what may beyond the breaking point? If our economy falls, what then? Who will police the world then?

Invading Iraq just doesn't make sense right now. Not from a military, political, economic, or civilized point of view. Maybe at some point in the future it will, but right now, it's just not the wisest course of action.

I like how Alaric is very detailed in his thought process, that is how other that I complain about should post when launching a rebuttal to an argument. I'll respond to alaric when I get back from my Globalization study group (don't ask about it)

Ok, you may not have said that the European point of view is bad directly, but you obviously disagree with it so that is in essence putting it down.  And then you just have to read what I said about it in my post before this to show why I claim you are looking down at Europeans.  It isn't that I didn't back my statement up, I just left some bits unconnected to make it shorter and thought they would things others could connect on their own.

I speak to you as a Russian, not as an American on this topic. Iraq should be left alone. No, the Iraqi people dont like Sadaam, but you know what they hate even more??? US invading their territory. Lets look at Iraq ethnicaly. In the north their are Kurds (they hate Sadaam and will be on America's side) in the middle are Sunni Arabs ( they will be loyal to Sadaamn) The Sunni arabs in Bagdad will most likley fight the Americans. This is what my country and America's mistake were in past wars. In Afghanistan we (Russia ; Soviet Union) lost because we went against the civilian populous. Same thing happened to you fellows in Vietnam. This may be the case in Central Iraq, where women and children blow themselves up to kill Rangers. Now lets take a look at southern Iraq. It is occupied by Shia Arabs. The Shia Arabs are in a uniquley screwed position seeing as how they hate both Sadaam and America (they are more closley tied with Iran). [p] As for the ethics of an attack. No, not unless they attack another country first. Oh by the way, no released information if Iraq has nuclear weapons. The military probably does know something we dont, and if they do have proof they should show it. Now lets go to post attack Iraq. The United States has won! Yay all is right with the world while we mass our troops against England and Sweden for supporting terrorists, Iraq is a land very unhappy with America. The Arabs are angry (the people not the government). There are widespread protests in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, Egypt, Europe, Russia ,China,awww fuck, the whole world against the United States action. Angry Pakistanis and Arabs join Al Queda. Attention has shifted away from AlQueda and they start massing thier forces and indoctrinating new conscripts. Remeber the US Cole? I do. Remeber when we started to ignore al Queda? 9/11 happened! Here is another great point for the anti-Iraq cause. MANY OF AMERICA'S TOP MILITARY BRASS ARE AGAINST THE WAR, COLIN POWELL IS, EVEN GEN TOMMY FRANKS!!! Now if the UN does give the US the go ahead for such an attack, then I see it as leagal and legit, eventhough it is still a bad idea. Containment should be our policy. After all we didnt attack the United States when we thought they were a threat to us in the Cold War, neither did the US. Assasin and Ace make very good points, but I think it is correct to only attack with the UN permission. We would be breaking the UN laws to attack Iraq because they broke UN laws. Kinda hypocritical dont you think? Dont fret Amis the UN will be bought off by your corporations so you can attack Iraq. Its just a matter of time before the UN gives the go ahead.

Oh shut the fuck up already. You pompous arrogant hypocritical piece of shit. You put down America every chance you get. You just want to be some snobby European socialist bastard who thumbs his nose at America for our "warmongering."

Oh by the way Sin. Putin has told Sadaam to obey the US. Putin wants to see Russian oil wells in Iraq wich Sadaam wont allow. Another question is will France and China approve???? They are securty council members that seem to be anti war too. Another thing. Why should the United States risk their boy's lives for some international orginization?

Yeah, I know about Putin, but if you look at what I said, I said that he wouldn't want an attack on Iraq due to his financial interests...again, read about the $40 Billion he signed with Saddam's Government.

As for France and China, China is opening up to our position, and France is likely to give the go ahead and let us attack because they feel that they owe us something for 9/11. Chirac (French President) was quoted on the one year anniversary as saying "we owe a debt to the United States, and France knows what it has to do." Keep in mind that this was around the time of the war drums getting hit by us and the reference was most likely related to the Iraqi issue.

As for your theory that the people of Baghdad would fight against us, are you kidding me? During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi army surrendered in droves once out Marines and armor hit the ground. These soldiers were all of the same ethnicity as the residents of Baghdad, and if they weren't willing to die for Saddam, the women and elderly in the city sure as hell wont. When rumor was being spread that we were going to march into Baghdad, the populous fled in fear of a siege on Baghdad. It is more likely that history will repeat itself and they will run from an oncoming modern-day "Blitzkrieg" if you will.

For clarification, the Shiite Muslims in the South are receptive to an attack on Iraq mainly because we have protected their ass from aerial assault fo rthe last 11 years with our No-Fly Zones.

Also, every country has told Saddam to obey with us because they don't want to be branded as enemies of the United States...however, it is clear that financial interests take precedent over what is justifiably right. As for Powell being against a U.S. strike, not exactly. He wanted to run the diplomatic route to see if Iraq would budge, but they obviously have not, so he is on board for an attack. As for Gen. Franks, he was never at any time against it, he just wanted to make sure that it was logistically possible because of what is also going on in Afghanistan.

Another thing I saw: No one is accusing Saddam of having NUclear weapons, only Chem and Bio warheads...they are accusing him of trying to obtain components for Nuclear weapons, such as Uranium and the pieces needed to enrich it to weapons yield.

Woah, take a chill pill.  That reply was completely uncalled for.  It also violates the forum guidelines against personal attacks.  I guess I should give you a warning.  I have made no personal attacks in this thread, just debated what I believe and when it was said to be unclear I tried to help those questioning it understand at least what I was saying, even if they don't believe.  You on the other hand have been exciteable and hostile.

alaric, if i am not mistaken, the threat is that he might obtain Nukes and use them on his neighboring countries or if not, us. And i do believe he has every intent to use any weapon that he feels is an advantage to him on his enemy, like he has with his chemical weapons in 1991.


what the president says (which can or cannot be true) is that Saddam is aiding the terrorist with weapons, to help fight us, so Bush feels we need to cut the supplier, in order to help us defeat Al Qaeda and rid the world of terror...


I think it has to do with the cease-fire treaty, that they are violating and not allowing "unconditional" weapon inspections by the U.N inspectors, which makes us think he is harboring weapons of mass destruction and plans to use them.

I could be wrong, but those are just some facts that i have read.


Gorf, that has been a question that has plagued mankind for ages... actually i think i posted why in another thread somewhere, when i believe Deadlocked asked me.

 GO SEARCH!

Well... I started the first page of posts and realize that I really am too lazy to read what you people say (as most of it was already flaming on page ! I don't even wanna bother reading the flames on pg 2 and 3)

Anyway... I think most American's aren't asking enough questions...

WHY would we want to go into Iraq? Seems to be this is a personal vendetta from Bush... Look at when the information came out... just 2 days ago they said Iraq was terrorist, this is after the public stopped supporting his opinion... I disagree that this is a war on terrorism... I think Bush is trying to take our feelings from 9/11 and redirect to Iraq for his benefit...

Next, from where I read all you patriotic people were talking about how this would be a walk in the park? 2 Words: Uber BS! Although Suddam doesn't have nuclear weapons, he does have chemical weapons, and when attacked, he will use them. Do you guys even want to think of the effect of Mustard Gas? Honestly, this is not going to be anywhere CLOSE to easy. Iraq will go all out to defend themselves... Biological warfare included (Gulf War syndrom... mustard gas... dude... this list WONT end)


Also, have yah fellas noticed where their weapons factory's are?! In the middle of FRIGGIN TOWN! No chance a missle is gonna be used to take those out... Our marines will have to go on foot through a hostile city (which might I add, if we shoot anything up we're not supposed too, Iraq has several complains against us, and the UN can punish!) and into the weapons factory to kill all the people involved in "the axis of evil" :)... Not to mention there have been reports of Red Cross's right across the street to the weapons factory... if we so as much damage a Red Cross building, not only would we become public enemy number 1, but also punished greatly...

Next, you guys must look at the string of countries that are pissed off at us! The whole east side of Asia is totally pissed at us (just think of the international screw ups that we committed there...) Seriously, they hate us... Most Americans seem to think we are well liked... Hell, its what I thought before taking AP Global Government. Iraq and China both are using censorship... Only their side of the story is being told. Internet sites such as "www.google.com" have been banned. Due to these impending facts to people in China, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, and several other Middle Eastern/Asian countries, Bush is the devil incarnate... We are his followers. America is literally one of the most hated nations in the world... Look at the world and see how they feel to us? Japan... Nuked... China.. Comunist... Malaysia, we forced them to let us build bases there... Dude... I didn't even start on Middle East! To them Middle Eastern society we live premiscuous lives... The one cure for this in the future would be for America to look at the countries history and feelings... To the Middle East we desecrated their sacred grounds... Personally, I could understand why they would bea little pissed... If someone went to my church and started cussing out my God, talking about how they were so much better then me, I might not be too happy about it...

One thing I find funny is the fact that America forces other countries to take the Republican or Democratic form of government when we defeat them in war... Why is the USA... 200 years old... Forcing Middle Eastern countries (like Afghanistan) to be Democratic... Maybe Democratic doesn't work for them! The Arab's have been around for over 2000 years! Who was the strongest race on earth in the early centuries of the AD? Arabs... The fact that they exist shows their form of government works well for them... We shouldn't force our own form of government upon them...

A question should be asked about these attacks... If we win (afterall we have 4 very strong countries supporting Iraq against us while only 1 strong country supporting us) what will we do?! There are 3 Muslim groups that are in a constant fight for power... Suddam's group of muslims is much stronger then the other two groups... If we take out his regime... Would we leave our men in there to take care of Iraq for another 5 years while we rebuild their towns and quell their resistances?! Will we pull out immediately? Leaving immediately would leave Iraq in a Civil War... Millions of innocents will die.

When countries such as Kuwait, who were literally invaded by Iraq years earlier, are against us invading  Iraq, doesn't this seem a bit odd?

More Next post!

Ben

Now to my opinion,

Frankly, I still haven't made up my mind... I think it will be a huge mistake to go into Iraq and fight, but I'm as patriotic as the next guy... I'm even a republican (so you'd think I'd agree with Bush)... Frankly, I'm just wonderred at what price will we be willing to pay for this war... I think the US should continue it's war on terror or beef up her homeland security... Not spend it's time on Iraq... Then again, Suddam is a moron who keeps taunting the US... Basically, I still can't make up my mind... I just don't believe it will be as easy as everyone else believes... I can't think of much else to say...

I think we DEFINATELY should focus on Homelands security and foreign affairs... We seriously need more allies if we are going to survive in the world today! In the mean time... Globilization Globilization Globilization... Get that money!

P.S. Hussain is horrible... but even if he gets nukes, what will he do?! Mass produce of course... But still, if he fires only one the reprocussions against Iraq would be horrible... I can understand him wanting nukes... He wants to become a superpower or at least be able to defend his country in that extent! (Note: America is the world's only Superpower today!!!!)

Just one thing I'm adding as a modifier.... Hehehe I love how America was asking "Should we be allowed to use torture on these terrorists..." The polls results answerred negative... All the sudden, 2 days later, the terrorists who didn't say a word are confessing everything... Hehehe... I just got an instinct that America used torture...

Ben (awaiting to be flamed, because anyone on the first page who said this wasn't a cakewalk... and was serious shit seemed to be flamed... Well... Least I argued respectively and coherently :))

Sin, many countries have financial assets in Iraq. France, China, Russia (the evil countries) e.t.c. Anyhow back on track with Iraq. Fighting will be harder, and from a logistical view we should finish the Afghanistan War first. I am still concerned on the DIPLOMATIC implecatons this war will have on our relations with the rest of the world, especially the Arab world.  Militarily we will spank them. That is not the hard part. We then have to rebuild Iraq, and will they be open to it? I state this again: This war adds more instability in an already unstable region. Sooner or later the aggresion of the U.S. will catch up to it. All these small wars and incursions in the name of NATO and the UN will give the US a black eye as its aggresion puts hate into more people around the world.

     The stupidity of the world being at the mercy of the Middle East for oil has always appalled me. There's a simple long-term solution: dedicated wartime-style research into electric power, fuel cells, solar power, wind power, hemp oil power, and all the dozens (if not hundreds) of alternate power sources which aren't being exploited. It wouldn't happen overnight. But with ten years or less of hard research into those technologies, especially if it were undertaken by many countries, it would be done.

     Not only is it just asking for trouble to rely on the Middle East for power, but there is a finite supply of oil left in the ground. Or, y'know, we could just wait another fifty or hundred years until the oil runs dry, and THEN start working on the transition while industry and the interconnected web of modern society falls around our ears. Which is probably more or less what will happen, since most people and all leaders seem to be unable to plan or consider more than five years ahead.

     Besides which, think of the panic in the hearts of all the Middle Eastern oil barons when they learn that America (and perhaps others) had begun research into making them obsolete. If Saddam's ever gonna give us a good pretext to kill Iraqis, that news would certainly push him to it.

     ::shrug:: Not strictly on the topic, but our dependence on them for oil has been a huge, treetrunk-sized thorn in our side for many decades now. Let's nip the problem at the root, hm?

Shoot down my Arguments you may Sin, but the fact clearly remains:


1. As long as US troops are present in the Middle East we are the first choice of target by the USA.
2. We whine because we are attacked when this happens to people everywhere. Don't camp troops in the middle east, either help the people that need it or Leave completly.
3. We have Nukes, And my guess is we have Chemical bombs as well but we don't use them, why do we assume that he will? He is in the position of power to his country and abroad why senselessly throw that away with an attempt to kill Americans. S.H. is stupid and needs to change but he won't commit suicide.
4. The US is clearly strongarming the UN by threatening to act Unilaterally. An over night development Bush made a countdown to war. He is making a statment that if the UN doesnt get a tough proposal passed he will go in with out them, ALERT ALERT sin thats called strong arming. Shoot me down but go shoot this website down as well. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest/09/27/us.iraq.un.language/index.html

Sure, you have nukes but he is in a different position then you are. He is a dictator and he has nothing to lose. He can probably consider that the USA will win and overthrow him. So, he has nothing to lose by nukeing us. Even if he doesn't have nukes but has Chemical weapons, they can be just as effective (VX kills in about 15 seconds from contact.) If we attack Iraq they will use any weapons they have.

Also, the only reason we care about the mid east is that they give us oil. Otherwise it is just a region where people fight.

1) Our own soldiers aren't the target of our own country. Now I assume that you aren't that stupid to mean that, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. We are already public enemy number 1 in the eyes of most countries in this world due to use being the only economical and militarial superpower remaining on the planet. Being the best makes you the top target, period. Look at where Al Qaeda attacked us - the symbols of American Economical and Military power, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon. If it wasn't for the passengers on the other plane that went down, they would have attacked our political structure by hitting the U.S. Capitol building, or the White House. Point being, people hate us for being the best, and they hate us for the lifestyles that we live.

2) You have no fucking idea what happens to us if we withdraw our troops from the Middle East, do you? People like Saddam Hussein take the world hostage again by blowing up oil fields across the Middle East. The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia would fall because they would lose our physical presence to keep them proped up against terrorists and extremists. Not to mention, the new Government would shut off the Oil to the West and truely fuck us over. The World would plunge into a recession because of everyone's dependence on oil. So unless you want to pay $50.00 a gallon at the pump and $10,000 for your next Television, pulling our troops out is the worst possible scenario.

3) We don't use our WMD because we have restraint and the smarts to know what the repurcussions of using them has. He doesn't use them because he doesn't have enough to launch effectively on all of his enemies. It won't be long before he acquires the stuff needed to produce more, and possibly build a Nuclear bomb.

4) Read this article!!! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20020928/ts_nm/iraq_dc)

That already shows that Saddam wants to pussyfoot around under the older resolutions and play the same old shit as before. Read the title of that article a few times..."Iraq rejects U.N. Draft" He is already shooting down a U.N. resolution, and if the U.N. can't get something passed that he won't accept, what are we to do, just let him be and laugh at the world some more?


Mr. Lothario: I like your argument, and quite frankly, I agree with a lot of it.

     Sin seems to be the only one to have any smarts. Saddam has chem weapons, we have proof. they are in bunkers, army trucks (constantly moving) and in some cases in civillans homes. as far as the nukes. he the equpitment to make them, hes only missing the plutonium. we expect he to get the plutonium in at least 1-2 years. hes probley building the silos right now as we speak.
   And zaitsav, in your post, #4 i quote..."The US is clearly strongarming the UN by threatening to act Unilaterally. An over night development Bush made a countdown to war. He is making a statment that if the UN doesnt get a tough proposal passed he will go in with out them, ALERT ALERT sin thats called strong arming. Shoot me down but go shoot this website down as well."

   What you people don't know is that we have the UN's go ahead. we are just waiting and gathering intell. the press and the president are running a show, so to speak. so if saddam sees the news he wont think we are going to attack... but as soon as the UN tell the public they are behind USA, expect a attack in 1 hour...
     And as far as "Don't camp troops in the middle east" what do you give a shit for? it's not you, it's me sitting here with full gear on and it's 100 or so degrees. all you people do is bitch about whats going on... but you take it for granted... you can turn on a comp, PS2, Xbox, TV, go out for a ride in a car when ever you want... sleep when ever you want and get up when you want... if you like living like that, or living at all for that matter, you should really start to think. what if saddam(hitler) gets nukes... what do you think would happen... all i have to say is history repeats it slef... saddam=hitler    nuff said...

  Listen to this "Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz warned that the United States would sustain huge losses if it attacked Iraq and that his country would fight a "fierce war."" HAHAHAHA huge losses... such bs, all they have is out dated AK's and soviet tanks, and anti aircraft which only go as high as 1000 feet or so... and are F-18's can fly and drop bombs at 5000 feet... fierce war... ha! i can't wait till i go into iraq... they are saying that a squad of marines... will be killed... LOL! i doubt that will happen. anyways, thats is what my unit is packing, 6 men... 2 with M4's (one is me), 1 with a SAW, 2 others with M16's with m203's. and one marine sniper... it's a M16 with a 20 round clip with a scope, and single shot fire... anyways...  Should be called fierce running. thats what they will do is run... damn chicken shits...

Loth is right on when he talks about the need to give a full effort into researching renewable energy sources.  Bush would claim that it would be bad for the economy...but you want to know what is bad for the economy?  Reliance on fossil fuels.  The key word here is sustainability.  What is sustainable is ALWAYS economically beneficial in the long run.  We need to accept that the economy won't be awesome right now but we need to put loads of money into wind, solar, hydro power plants and into fuel cells and hybrid cars.  The only way to bring the prices down on all those things is to do so with economies of scale which means investments.  Once we put this effort, the prices for these things will get insanely low and we'll think back at how stupid we were paying for oil and coal to get energy all the while polluting.  We could be rid of our dependance on foreign oil in 5-10 years if we actually bothered to.  Sadly it won't happen with a moron in the White House, which at the moment is the case.

It is my feeling that in the next few hundred years, humankind will either finally figure it out and we'll have a utopian world where everyone is happy and we don't abuse the environment...or we'll be extinct.  Right now extinction looks much more likely.

Why has no one responded to my  points? What about the god damn diplomatic implecations? What about the added unstability? BTW America is in for another Vietnam sooner or later. It might not (probablly wont) be this war with Iraq, but eventually America is gonna get a knock in the face if you keep doing these military actions like Kosovo. I am in pupport of kicking Sadaam out, but by revolution not by invaison. I know it did not work right after the Gulf War. This time we should do a "Guantameno scenario" In other words do what the Bay of Pigs was ment to do but in Iraq. Start a mass revolutionary movement (the Kurds occupy Mosul right now), and then recognize this movement as the legitmante government and send troops to do a "police action" in Iraq. All politics.

The chief problem that I recognized when reading the majority of your previous posts was the complete lack of perspective contained in almost all of them. There are those looking at the conflict through a jingoistic military view (such as Assasin and Oso) and those looking at it through the perspective of international relations (such as Bondo and Ben). Obviously the issue isn't that simplistic or two-sided but generally the themes of this discussion revolve around those sides.

This war is proposed because Saddam won't let the UN inspectors in to look at his nukes. Why? Because the rest of the world decided that Iraq isn't allowed to have nukes. So the United States (especially since Bush took office) stockpiles arms like its 1955 and that is perfectly alright. We try to demonize his possesion of biological and chemical weapons (which hasn't been proven) as if we don't secretly develop the exact same types of weapons. Its alright for other nations to have arms too, as long as they do it in accordance with the United Nations (AKA the West). Its also acceptable for the US to attack Iraq since they have actually put up a resistance to the United States' attempted complete dominance of the world. No matter that thousands of civilians would be killed or harmed, because they're Muslims. As long as they worship Allah and not God, who cares if they die?

Obviously my sarcasm is extreme, but I believe that in global political issues people need to take a step back. People need to look at issues from not their personal point of view, not the point of view of the white house or the US, not the point of view of the UN or Western Europe, but a GLOBAL point of view. I can't stand reading the opinions of people who, however well informed and intelligent they are, still look at things from their own selfish and stagnant point of view. So when discussing arms, consider not the value of the weapons but the value of something much more important: human life. There is no reason for an attack on Iraq that supercedes the fundamental value of human lives, and there is no authority, anywhere, that can provide the US with a justification for such a barbaric act.

Tasty, read up on my post where I said a was on Iraq would save lives in the long run. Hundred's of thousands of Iraqis die each year because Saddam takes the food and money from his Oil for food medicine for himself and building his own Presidential palaces. With Saddam out, the money would be distributed for the needs of the people and life will be beter for Iraqi citizens. Like I said earlier, look towards Kurdish Iraq and how they have fared when able to sell oil openly on the global market and how their cities have done. Their mortality rates are lower, age of life higher, and quality of life is better. That is probably one thing you can count on happening in Iraq once Saddam is out of power.

As for the U.S. stockpiling arms, wtf are you smoking? We have recently been sgining arms reduction treaties with Russia (SALT, START) in hopes of reducing our arms pile. We have had no need to increase the amount of arms that we have, because as it is, we could end life on this world as we know it.

Also, the reason we don't want Saddam with WMD is because he could single handedly hold the world hostage if he treatens neighboring Saudi Arabia's oil supply or gives them to terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Chechen rebels, etc.) to use against larger countries such as the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, etc. He signed off on his right to develop these illegal[/u] weapons (yes, chem and bio warheads are illegal according to international law) when he ended the Persian Gulf War with his cease-fire agreement.

As we reduce the number of nuclear arms from the Cold War we continue to develop new weapons constantly...new chemical and biological weapons.  After all, the things like VX and Anthrax, etc that Iraq has that we consider a problem...they were created in the US first.  We have always been the innovator in new dangerous weapons but we aren't the ones using them, those that hate us are the ones who in the end will use them.

Sin I agree with that post entirely, except for the fact that their lives are bad souly because of sadaam. Our Sanctions on Iraq have been a major reason why their life and their amount of food sucks. Then again, the Iraqis can thank Sadaam for that.

Our sanctions are in place because of Saddam...it all goes back to Saddam, Cossack. We have already stated that sanctions would be revoked if we had a friendly Government in power.

You read my post?

I disagree that people hate us because we are a superpower. I think that is totally false however the fact that we are a superpower and abuse our power is what makes people hate us. We are to ignorent to look into history mistakes (seeing as US history is whitewashed) and thus we believe we did nothing wrong in the middle east. The US trys to play the role of the picked on rich kid. Any clear seeing person, tends to be us liberals that notice,  you can always trace all hatred of the US to something wrong we did. Bush is just a codename for modern day imperialism who is seeking re-election after piggy backing into polotics on his fathers shoulders with worse grades in the same college as my very parents.

Saddam is rich and thats all that matters to him. He will sit on his riches until the day he dies and will not be ousted. The worst can happen for him is the US attacks and so he has to nuke them back and eventually he dies. the best that can happen for him is nothing and however crazy he may be I am quite certain he knows this and thus will pull for peace.

Bush says it is time for the UN to wake up but if I am not mistaken the UN stands for United Nations. And believe it or not there is an "S" on the end of that and thus the United States must stop trying to own the UN. An attack on Iraq would be asking for a 9-11 repeat.

all i have to say is we have to stop them NOW


9-11  =  the contry and the world is astounded by the blow to the WTC towers and others


now think what would happen if he realleses chem weapons in NY or LA think

antrax, smallpox, plague, hell he could have it all

thosands if not MILLIONS of people would die if he got a large quantity of chem

-SK

Here is something to chew on Zaitsev, and I am curious of your response to it. If we aren't being attacked for being a superpower, why hasn't Great Britain or France been hit? Those two countries, especially Great Britain, have about as big of an interest in the Middle East as we do. The Brits have bases, troops, and weaponry in the Middle East as we do, but they weren't hit, we were. We launched some of our air incursions over Afghanistan from British air bases, including Diego Garcia. What other outstanding factor besides us being a Global superpower makes us stand out from other Western countries with similar interests in the Middle East?

As for the rest of your post, Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons, although he is trying to get them (I wouldn't be surprised if the 33lbs or so of Uranium intercepted in Turkey was headed to Iraq). As for the whole UN, etc., look at my other posts, that pretty much sums up my position on the issue.

Sin, Russians are critics of america becuase you go around acting as if you own the world. No offence, but in forign affairs America sucks. As for Britain and France, well they havent been attacked yet. To sum it up. People dont hate America just because it is a superpower. That is a immature stance to take (although it might have to do with some of the hate)

Sin I tip my hat to you on the briliance of your comment which implies that all countries are alike and that Other countries have done more shit to them then the US has. Brittain is a super power however they dont pick and prod, they arent greedy. We all know the #1 reason we are in the middle east is for oil thats greed not help. Maybe if we helped the people as opposed to trying to rob them blind it would help

why the fuck have we not taken over the middle east? PLZ theres a bunch of shit over there and we just need there oil, bomb the fuckers and take it all!

Dude... WTF... I laid out a hige post and no one even responds to it? Was it just so dumb a post just to respond to or too good that there was no counter? Either way we shoulds top the debate.

Ben

Modified:

Forgive this if it upset you.. ^ Bad weekend... Still it sucks that no one counterred or even... took note of a post I spent a while to type out...

Well Ben it was pretty long why not  summurize a bit eh? Now bush's countdown to war makes it like a game. He is such a damned imperialist! and the thing that scares me is half the country, like sin, supports him!

I do believe that Saddam is making biological and chemical weapons and is hiding it from UN weapons inspectors. Its really stupid in a way for the inspectors to even be there. We all know Saddam will hide them and not let us find them. You all say an attack would just be plain stupid. Time is of the essence. Saddam's one crazy fuck. He tapes executions and watches them at the dinner table. What makes you think he won't want to pull a Hitler. I agree that we should at least have support from the UN. It only makes us look bad when we try to accomplish foreign objectives alone (without support).

Like sin?....If anything the democratic party is sin.

See, that is the thing, I never said we shouldn't attack...I just said we should only attack when we have UN support.  Sin seems to both disagree on the need for the approval of the other nations of the world, and the difficulty in which we'll have to take over Iraq.

Well, I'm going to jump right in without having read the other 4 pages. . . ;D

I think it's obvious to anyone that the U.S. could pretty effectively annihilate the government and/or territory and/or people of almost any and/or all the countries of the world.

After you've sorted through that rather broad statement, ask yourself the question I keep running into, "Why?"

Yes, as a superpower we have the capability to do whatever we see fit, but why do we see certain things the way we do?

I'm really very puzzled by the Bush administration's sudden vilification of Iraq.  I can't think of anything to defend that nation with, but so what?  Why should we attack them just because we can?

I won't go into any of the practical considerations of why wars are unnecessary, this one in particular even - I'm struggling with its justification.  And yes, any nation (such as the U.S.) that wishes the moral high ground needs justification.  Not just from the UN, but from its own people.

I'm wondering why our people aren't questioning this a little more closely.  The government claims Iraq is a huge threat to our national security, but I find that statement frankly preposterous.  See my first paragraph.  Is it not true that the US has the power to destroy any nation of the world??

And if so, is there then any legitimate threat against us?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. . .but before we start killing people, innocent or otherwise, we need a damn good reason.

Yay JN! I'm completely of the same mind.

Ben

I share a mind with Bondo / ben/ loudnotes


To blindly follow Bush as sin is suggesting is corrupted communism leading us undoubtedly to killing and marking my currently clean concenius

Sin an exciting new update which scratches the record of your "flawless" Uncle Sam




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_bioweapons_2