US, Iraqi conflict.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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

[Bondo]

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).

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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:

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

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.

[Bondo]

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.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

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?

[Ace]

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.

[Oso]

Sin,
      It is disgusting that you look down on Europeans.

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[Bondo]

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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(sic) because quite frankly, that is how many in the European populous feel on the issue of us attacking Iraq.

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.

[alaric]

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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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)

[Bondo]

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.

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.

[Cossack]

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.

[Ace]

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.

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.

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."

[Cossack]

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?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[Bondo]

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."

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.

[Oso]

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?

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.

How does it help us defeat Al Qaeda?

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...

Iraqs done nothing to deserve an invasion yet. They haven't attacked us. Why should we attack them?

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.

Hey oso why don't u GET A F---ING ACCOUNT instead of being a guest all ur life.

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!