*DAMN R6 Forum

The time has come to impose severe damage upon Iraq.  Rest comfortably, Mr. Hussein.  HE LUVS IT!!!!

 How about some information to back up that statement, GOD? Or did you just feel like making a random dumb post?

As stupid as he puts it, he does have a point. Looks like we are marching to war within the week after reading some quotes from GWB in his summit in the Azores.

Yeah typhy you dumbass, watch the news.  Last 24 hours for UN to do something?  That kinda means war in case you haven't been paying attention to cnn for the past month or so.

Typhy doesn't have a tv ass. ;D

whatever, typhy sucks

yeah, its go time! go kill some iraqi citizens! like u did before, all over the world!

...but dont be complainin' when a couple of 747 hit ur mommys house, militaristic retardo...   ::)

ever heard that war doesnt solve any conflicts?

Heh. . .yeah we're going to war to prevent a war - brilliant if you ask me.  

I'm flying on Saturday  ???
I'll blame Bush if I die and I'll come back as a ghost and torment him endlessly.  ;D

I'm so glad Bondo and Loudnotes arent running our foreign policy......

We arent having "a war to prevent war" and if that is your summing up of the situation, loud, it just proves my point. This is an opportunity to remove a serious threat to the security of the US and our allies, protect our strategic interests and, potentially, change the picture of the entire mideast. If you don't want to defend americas interests abroad, there are ppl in the goverment who do.

As to your other thread about "isnt a war gonna make saddam use wmds?".....the only people who are genuinely threatened by this are iraqi kurds, especially if there wont be US forces invading from turkey. our troops all have NBC protection suits and are trained for dealing with such attacks. but if you really cared about iraqi kurds, then you would support the overthrow of saddam, since he has killed more of them in just the past ten years, as the impending war could ever cause. i heard a kurd say on the bbc that even if half of iraqis die, it will be worth it just to overthrow saddam.

so dont make this about Bush, the GOP or the stupid oil companies they collude with. their motives for starting the war are likely to be cynical, agreed, but no more cynical than the motives of france or russia in preventing it. you cant have a double-standard in judging a governments motives here. When it comes down to it, this is about Saddam Hussein, not george Bush, jaques chirac, vladimir putin or anyone else. For over 30 yrs, saddam and his cronies have been diverting iraqs oil money (which would be enough to make every iraqi filthy rich) and using it to murder, torture and terrorize iraqis and to threaten the world and its security with wmds. and the only way to stop him is by force......and if it makes our SUV run a couple extra miles per dollar, all the better.

Why are the Kurds more important than the Iraqis?  Most of all, I don't understand why it is the US government's role to decide that.  Especially over the objections of almost all the rest of the world.  Perhaps if the world (through the UN) agreed that the Kurds needed help, then it could be undertaken.  But why does the US get to just determine it's the situation and control everything?

If Saddam has these weapons, why wouldn't he use them on the Kurds, on Israel, or on anyone that doesn't have a protective suit?  And if he doesn't have the weapons, why are we attacking him?

It is my view and I've stated it before, that the domestic affairs of other nations are not our business.  Just because I think Saddam is a horrible leader that does horrible things to his people, I don't see anything that he is doing to those outside so it isn't our place to interfere.  The UN is the place that decides international affairs.  Basically, the US should politically deal with domestic affairs and participating in the UN and that is it.  If these political issues are handled outside the UN, then it becomes about power, and the US will always win.  We have checks and balances within our own country to prevent tyranny, I think it makes sense that international politics also have checks and balances...if they did have effective ones then perhaps the US wouldn't be the tyrannous international presence that it is.  It is essentially the dictator of world affairs.  I find that to be tragic.

Anyway, it can be no wonder the rest of the world hates us...after all, we wouldn't expect the people of Iraq to like Saddam...or at least we claim they will celebrate his removal.  The US needs to remove itself as the dictator of international affairs and have it be a democracy like we say is the way to go and have every country have equal say, majority rule, minority right.

MY view is that Rabid could have mb done better then Bush at being prez but thats cutting it real close... But really this is Bs if he wanted to go to War with iraq since 9/11 Then there is something else Besides the threat of Chemicals There is something else we dont know about and its not like "We"(US Goverment) Dont have many more Bio-Weps then them so why dont we disarm then if we are making them then we should to.


Just the thoughts of a 14 year old From a little Town in Alaska
Casper
Btw: If bush starts the next world war he can burn in hell for all i care...

Next to Hitler and the guy who assassinated that dude that started WWI?  I agree. (its been a while since I took World History so the name has slipped my mind)

Loudnotes: Nice job not understanding Iraq. Kurds ARE Iraqis (about 25-30 percent of the population), but they are excluded from the government and have their own autonomous region in the north since 91. Are they more important than other iraqis? No. But keep in mind that Sunni Arabs, who are also only about 25 percent of the population, like Saddam have dominated the government since 58 and kept Kurds and Shiite Arabs out.

You place a lot of faith in the UN for some reason. While i agree its an important institution, it has missed out on a lot of opportunuties lately because there was deadlock between the members of the SC or noone cared to intervene at all (e.g. Kosovo, Rwanda). I keep mentioning that the SC is supposed to have its own task force to be able to enforce its resolution, but it is a dead-letter.

Bondo: That space in hell is reserved for saddam and his sons. Other countries domestic politics become our buisness when they pose a threat to our security or our interests. Power is what maintains world order, not the UN.....and right now, the US has the most power. This is how things work.

A serious threat to our allies huh? They are barely able to keep their own country together, much less invade or strike anyone. You yourself in the same post said the only people he can use his WMD against are the Kurds. Not the Turks, British, or Americans.

its not americas job to act as the world police abe. if u believe that ur just a dazed nationalist. its the balance of power... and with one country takin all the power u create conflicts, not solve them.

we will see how the fundamentalistic arabs react to this war. prepare for some 747s goin down on ur ass. not that bush/rumsfeld wouldnt deserve it...

peace

The only reason Kosovo was not a UN action was that everyone knew Russia would veto it the first chance that they get.

Bush isn't much different than Osama Bin Laden...think about it, I don't think Osama has killed anyone, he simply funds plans that kill people.  Same with the mastermind guy.  The are just behind the 3000 people who died on 9/11.  Bush isn't killing anyone directly, but he is the one supporting an action that will add the number of innocent people who have died as a result of his actions.  I have no doubt that by the end of this war he'll have killed at least 3000 people as a result of the actions he uses.  Why is it so different, because Osama killed Americans?  Collateral damage is collateral damage.

I support the UN for essentially the reason Silverblade gave - to avoid any country having too much power.  As such, the veto system needs some reworking.  Even though I'm against the war, I don't think France really needs a veto, for example.  But regardless, the world needs some kind of check against unilateral military action such as this war now.  

Hypothetical example:  China (a superpower of sorts like the US) declares war on Saudi Arabia (a country with strategic oil reserves and an absolutist repressive government).  The US and every other major country opposes them, with the exception of a few nations China has bribed or exerted its trading influence over.  Now, how is this different from Iraq?  Wouldn't we then need the UN to be a binding authority to stop such an action.

However, I understand Iraq just fine - there are different perspectives, however.  First of all, Kurds are only 15% of the population.  But if they have their own autonomous region, they are essentially rebels - analogous to the South during the US civil war.  Whether they are justified or not, I can understand that Saddam has used weapons against them - I don't condone it, but I don't consider it so inherently evil that the US needs to remove him from power.  His government, although absolutist and not the best for Iraq by American standards, does represent the majority of the population.  While the Kurds are disenfranchised from the Iraqi government, they also have their own government.

Bush is different from Osama because he's the leader of a nation, who was elected because of the flaws in the American electoral system... you can't really compare him to a wicked man like Osama.

LoudNotes, what's so evil about it was that he used chemical warfare against civilians who couldn't defend themselves against it...