What's your opinion on Iraq?

[Smally85]

Get Rid of Saddam

Yeah sure get rid of Mr Hussien, so you've killed him, what now?

He simply gets replaced by some other madman. Don't get me wrong he should be removed from office (dictatorship dosen't have a great pension plan) bt we need to think about what wil replace him?

If he goes whilst US (and by the looks of it British) forces are there it may be OK, however as soon as they leave whats stopping Iran, or someone else, taking over? I think Tom Clancy dealt with this topic well in one of his books, the Iraqi leader was assassinated and Iran moved in creating the United Islamic Republic. Needless to say it all goes pear shaped from there! And there is a long history of hatred between those two countries.

If he is secretly making nuclear weapons he MUST be stopped. He's probably already got enough Bio & Chemical weapons to make a mess anyway.

On the Bush issue although he is a bit of an idiot, I'm glad Al Gore didn't win, he'd still be deciding what to do about 9/11. And yeah Tony Blair is a complete tit!

My solution, send in a few squads of SAS or the US Delta Force and annialate Saddam and a few others.

 

[KillerOnion]

Originally posted by soopaman luva
ok lets c now what gives the usa the right to drop bombs on another country answer me that ??Where will it end ?r u trying for world domination ?? do u want to stick ur nose into every other country and try and control that country ? what about all the inocent people u have killed with your bombing ?? does the number of inocent people u have killed come to more than that of the people who died on 9/11 answer me that ?what gives u the right to kill inocent people,the number of people that have died from terrorists is a lot less than those that have died from the us bombing raids on countrys

What "right"? How about enforcing consequences for their actions for a start. You play the stupid innocence card. They are taught from about age 3 or so to hate and destroy. You suggest that if you have a nest of wasps under your house you wait till some have bitten you then decide not to kill the nest because not all of them have attacked you yet. They use religion as an excuse for their atrocities and as a recruiting forum within their own populace. They make their schools and mosques into recruiting offices and their houses into bomb factories and barracks. It's a simple tactic of human shielding, which although tragic is nothing more than playing to YOUR misguided sympathy.

You're obviously not familiar with history. Look at the Romans, Persians, Mongols, and just about any other great military force that's come around. They killed everyone just about everywhere whether they had reason or not, and didn't do any of the rebuilding, foreign aid, and humanitarian work that the US does. They just simply went in, squashed everyone, and looted the land. The US rebuilt Germany, Japan, and others and now they are better off than any other defeated foe in the history of the world. Our goal is not conquest or domination but ending aggression against us. We're not after anything they have.

 

[Subterfuge]

Dumb moral relativism philosphy being taught to your children in schools. That's why most of the grammar is bad that say that we should sit back and let an evil country change us.

 

[Buddha 3]

Originally posted by Baca Loco

When 99%+ of the people have no say whose country is it? Is it "theirs"? I don't think so.

If you would feel a sense of relief and western gov'ts are all scared what is everyone so afraid of? Doh! That if Saddam actually gets the capability he'll use it, right? First you deny the rationale and then just rephrase it.

Re: Pakistan. Prior to Afghanistan you might very well have been correct BUT the Pakistanis have made a series of choices that demonstrate a practical and pragmatic flexibility. They were concerned about radical Islamic influence (in Pakistan) and India and decided to opt for a different course than the one they had been on.
Does it all of a sudden make them "good" guys? Nope, it just changes the equation. (And if Saddam had thoroughly complied with the original resolutions and done what was asked of him without reservations odds are we'd all have been out of Iraq for awhile now.)

We all thought Iraq was a great place? C'mon, Jay, that's just silly. What we thought was an highly radicalized, unstable regime had taken control of Iran's 2 million man plus army and had announced their intent to use. Saddam simply proved to be a willing firewall.

What were western diplomats supposed to say?

Baca,

You've been too involved in your conspiracies. All I did was state the way I feel. Feelings do not have to have a basis in rationality, they are in fact the opposite.
As I see it, I'm still right about Pakistan. Only because there was the very real threat of bombs flying around their ears did they decide to be 'chummy' with the US and it's allies. All this can easily change, once the storm has quieted a bit, and the Pakistani people start to stir.
And when I talk about good guys and bad guys, and people being all nice about Iraq in the past, I'm obviously being a bit sarcastic.
Throw me a freaking bone here...

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Buddha 3
Baca,
You've been too involved in your conspiracies. All I did was state the way I feel. Feelings do not have to have a basis in rationality, they are in fact the opposite.

I hear ya bro but you know how I get.
PS--I tried to stay out of this, I really did.

 

[Buddha 3]

That's like teaching women not to nag. Impossible!

 

[Justin Owen]

>>>> Personally I do feel a bit apprehensive about attacking Iraq. No matter how you put it, they are their own country, and we have nothing to say about them. On the other hand, I would feel a sense of relief if Saddam would catch a Paveway smartbomb in his morning cereal.<<<<

No one wants to take the country from "them." The only issue here is dealing with a very real THREAT. Because nukes are involved, the other cheek simply can NOT be turned.

>>>> One of the reasons that is given for attacking Iraq is a bit hypocritical in my world. They have a weapon of mass destruction programme. Hmmm. So does the US. What gives NATO the right to decide which country is allowed nukes, and which one isn't? Don't give me that BS about 'their intention to use it, and their support of terrorist cells', because then the next country onto the flamegrill would be Pakistan, which, oddly enough, is now considered an ally. Let's face it, our only justification is that we are scared ****less of old moustache man. Works for me, but stop beating around the bush with rethoric.<<<<

It's not hypocritical in my world, and what your "scared ****less of the moustache man" comment hits the nail on the head. We're scared of him BECAUSE of the threat he represents. NATO's not trying, nor have they ever tried, to "decide which country is allowed nukes." In Iraq's case, it's about denying them specifically to one man who officials feel would be a serious and legitimate threat to current lack of nuclear mushroom clouds should he aquire a nuke.

As for Pakistan, they are now considered an ally because of their actions...while it's Saddam's actions which have brought this upon him.

>>>> In the early 80's we all thought that Iraq was a great place. Why? Simple, they fought against that 'cesspool of evil', Iran. So we gave them money, the French went over to build hangars, the Germans showed them how to build bunkers, and so on. But in the meantime they were working on a nuclear programme. Israel was worried sick about that (and for good reason), so decided to launch an airstrike against the Iraqi facilities. And knocked the Iraqi nuclear programme out. Ten years of work down the drain. At the time the whole world was shouting boo and hiss at Israel. I guess 20 years onwards we might want to send them some flowers with a 'sorry' note attached.<<<<

Yes, you're right. At that time we were still largely ignorant about Saddam and his methodology.

>>>> We live in a strange world. There is no good and evil. There is only evil, and really really evil. <<<<

I strongly, strongly disagree.

Lotsa love,
~J~

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by Buddha 3



As I see it, I'm still right about Pakistan. Only because there was the very real threat of bombs flying around their ears did they decide to be 'chummy' with the US and it's allies. All this can easily change, once the storm has quieted a bit, and the Pakistani people start to stir.
A

I have to dissagree with u on this one!!


Im not sure if it was the threat of bombs flying around their ears but more of the lifting of sanctions imposed against them after the testing of their nukes by becoming an ally in the war on terrorism..

Pakistan has been nothing but helpful since the the fall of the Taliban..Since coming on board the U.S. has caught Osama's chief financial officer,and just yesterday caught the alleged 20th hijacker and finacial planner behind the Sept. 11th attacks all with help from Pakistan...Pakistan is working with the tribal leaders to have suspected terrorists turned over and to the U.S...The Pakistani govt has shut down Islamic schools that are havens for future Al Qaeda terrorists..

And now with Pakistan seemingly becoming the hot spot for Al Qaeda, this union seems to be a big benefit for U.S. attempts to wipe them out..

And does the idea that Pakistans Islamic militants could rise up and take control of their nukes scare the hell out of me??Sure it does..But this country never got anywhere by being pushed around and Mushareff seems to have a pretty tight lock on those groups anyhow..

Pakistan has been a welcome ally in my eyes

 

[Micah]

Originally posted by KillerOnion
You're obviously not familiar with history. Look at the Romans. They killed everyone just about everywhere whether they had reason or not, and didn't do any of the rebuilding, foreign aid, and humanitarian work that the US does. They just simply went in, squashed everyone, and looted the land. The US rebuilt Germany, Japan, and others and now they are better off than any other defeated foe in the history of the world. Our goal is not conquest or domination but ending aggression against us. We're not after anything they have.

Not that I am one to give YOU a history lesson or anything, but the reason that the Romans were so sucessful with their invasions was that tehy went in, killed the armies, then built Roads and Aquaducts and taught the people about irragation and farming and such. They also taught them about religion (which I personaly think all religion is a crock but that is for another post) and politics. So the invaded had little reason to HATE the roman ways of life, because the ROMANS made life better. We need to do the same if we are not to be hated. Give them a taste of the good parts of capitalism, they'll like it.

We can make their lives better. They they will have little reason to hate us.

On the flip side to that there will always be a few who are jelouse that they couldn't do it themselves and will be resentful. I see that argument coming ...

-Micah

 

[Baca Loco]

Hate to be a bore, but--

Originally posted by Micah
Not that I am one to give YOU a history lesson or anything, but the reason that the Romans were so sucessful with their invasions was that tehy went in, killed the armies, then built Roads and Aquaducts and taught the people about irragation and farming and such. They also taught them about religion (which I personaly think all religion is a crock but that is for another post) and politics. So the invaded had little reason to HATE the roman ways of life, because the ROMANS made life better.

Yes and No. The early conquests in the Italian penninsula were more or less as you describe with a few exceptions, resistance by cities was met with desolation typically. After all, the cultural foundations of Roman society were Etruscan and how much was left of them once the Romans were done with them? The Romans absorbed the best and most useful elements of those cultures they conquered and the purpose of the roads was the maintenence of control by the legions. In the extended realms of the imperium they routinely slaughtered the 'barbarians' wholesale until suitably subdued and the political prizes of the empire were governships in the provinces; Spain being the most coveted as the governors were responsible for order and delivery on an annual basis of X amount of talents worth of goods and gold and whatever they squeezed out of the place beyond that was theirs to keep.
In Gaul and to a lesser degree in parts of Germania they made every every effort to "Romanize" the population because, among other things, nomadic, clan based culture wasn't very profitable and more inclined to rebelliousness. And the "Romanizing" took two standard forms; villages and cities that grew up around Roman outposts because of security and economic activity and Roman favor including on occasion citizenship for local rulers.
And the principle reason the conquered populations usually didn't object too strenuously is because the Romans didn't fool with local cultures much less exporting their religion, etc.
Must remember too that "Rome" underwent a variety of political changes too with an early kingdom, a republic of sorts, and the imperium.