The Looming Question.....War? Yes or No!

[Radical Edward]

I think it would be relatively easy to overthrow saddam without destroying the country, since they are very weak anyway. However since US companies are already bidding to rebuild iraq, we can see where the oil and the oil money are going to go.

[rahul_rudani]

But, are they really going to find Saddam. Saddam has almost 50 palaces and 3 of his own identical men. How far can the US dig in to find Saddam ???

[fafalone]

Yeah our record with finding top enemies is appalling...

[Radical Edward]

do you really have to hammer at the submit button just because your connection is slow?

 

 

<sayonara made my comment look stupid >

[fafalone]

me? i'm on a oc-3.

[Sayonara]

He means Rahul.

 

There were 3 identical posts - I snipped out 2 of them.

[atinymonkey]

So the answer is:-

 

War? YES!

 

 

All hail the conquering heros. :bravo:

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Rossonero

It is the topic of the town all over the world. Do we support the US? Should the US go to war (invade) Iraq? Is America Power Hungry? Is GB a gready oil merchant?

Some of these questions can still be discussed I feel.

[Matzi]

No, the US should not have attacked Iraq and they should not invade the country. Yes, the US is - in my eyes - power hungry (but not only since today).

That's my opinion, though, I think this won't change anything. No one can stop them anymore. Sad.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Matzi

No, the US should not have attacked Iraq and they should not invade the country. Yes, the US is - in my eyes - power hungry (but not only since today).

That's my opinion, though, I think this won't change anything. No one can stop them anymore. Sad.

 

but Saddam is a tyrant, and has killed far more people than will probably die in this conflict. How can your conscience live with knowing that in not going to war, you would allow someone like this to carry on killing and opressing his people with impunity.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

How can your conscience live with knowing that in not going to war, you would allow someone like this to carry on killing and opressing his people with impunity.

 

Because in their mind only what they do matters, if they advocated peace even when peace isn't possible, they feel comfortable, as long as bloodshed stays off their hands and on the hands of tyrants.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

but Saddam is a tyrant, and has killed far more people than will probably die in this conflict. How can your conscience live with knowing that in not going to war, you would allow someone like this to carry on killing and opressing his people with impunity.

 

Right, tell me with actual figure gained from a reliable source how many Hussain has killed outside of war. I can find 5000, which is 495000 off the predictions for casualties of the current conflict.

 

 

Originally posted by fafalone

Because in their mind only what they do matters, if they advocated peace even when peace isn't possible, they feel comfortable, as long as bloodshed stays off their hands and on the hands of tyrants.

 

No, we agree that action need to be taken, we just want America to keep the hell away without UN backing. Given Americas shitty track record in these types conflicts its a quite reasonable request. American has no right to be there, no ability to cope with the outcome, no support from any middle east countries and no support from the population of Iraq. Plus they are the country most likely to unite the middle east in defiance of the West, and start the next world war.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

Because in their mind only what they do matters, if they advocated peace even when peace isn't possible, they feel comfortable, as long as bloodshed stays off their hands and on the hands of tyrants.

 

Are you likely to get any blood on your hands, boy? You sit there baying for war and presume to know what's in the minds of those opposed to it (some of whom have marginally more experience with the realities of armed conflict than you do), when most of what you have said suggests you have no idea, because you either aren't listening or don't want to hear?

 

Does Iraq need to be disarmed? Yes. Does Hussein need to be removed? Yes. Therefore some intervention is required. Does this require a full-out war? No. Most people realise that to engage in war before exhausting all other options is a failure.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

but Saddam is a tyrant, and has killed far more people than will probably die in this conflict. How can your conscience live with knowing that in not going to war, you would allow someone like this to carry on killing and opressing his people with impunity.

See atinymonkey's post. That's the way I see it and that's the way my conscience copes with that.

 

And to fafalone:

I think there has to be as few blood shed as possible. This war killing thousands of people could have been prevented. I think, glider is right.

I mean, tell the Iraqi soldiers and civilists that you rescued them from Saddam before you kill them. They will certainly be thankful.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

Right, tell me with actual figure gained from a reliable source how many Hussain has killed outside of war. I can find 5000, which is 495000 off the predictions for casualties of the current conflict.

 

I can find that in Halabja alone.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

I can find that in Halabja alone.

 

That is the point, it is Halabja alone.

 

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/16mar03km.html

 

 

Find a different substantiated example, or don't quote more than 5000.

[YoungStrife]

I'll be honest, I didn't read a word of the section, but here's my share of information anyways:

 

Hisotry Lesson:

 

Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979, and removed from office all those who dared oppose him. He then put his portraits in every village, city and town presenting himself as the rightfull sovereign of Iraq leading his people to victory and defending against "infidels" But the truth is since his reign his country has fallen into economic turmoil, and fell very far from its potential.

 

The Iraqi people can not revolt or demonstrate because freedom of speech in Iraq is non-existant. The youth of Iraq is brain washed to believe that the U.S. and Israel are Satan...they...are a lost people.

 

Throughout his reign he supported terrorism by giving $25,000 to the families of the ones who "die in the name of allah" and commit a terrorist act. He also exported weapons to the west bank to be used for terrorism.

 

This ruler that loves his people has used biological and chemical weapons against them, destroying entire villages in some instances.

 

1982- Israel destroyed his nuclear core built by the French.

 

1990 and 1991- He invaded Kuwait, we stepped in, and he created the largest man made disaster of all times by setting fire to the oil wells...he insists Kuwait was a victory for Iraq.

 

1997- He produced biological and chemical weapons he was not allowed to produce, and we disarmed him.

 

Risk:

 

Saddams army is 1/3 the size it was in the gulf, and his military capabilities have diminished as ours have increased.

 

The main risk we face is a product of our own technology. A type of chopper that has proven to be inneficiant, overly expensive, and extremely dangerous.

 

Civilian death, there will be some civilian casualties in Iraq, but for now, then ends justify the means.

[atinymonkey]

Originally posted by YoungStrife

1990 and 1991- He invaded Kuwait, we stepped in, and he created the largest man made disaster of all times by setting fire to the oil wells...he insists Kuwait was a victory for Iraq.

 

Hmm, was the greatest man made disaster:-

 

A) Hussain setting fire to the oil wells in Kuwait

B) The nuclear radiation disaster after a meltdown in Chernobyl.

C) Setting off two atomic weapons in Japan.

D) Destruction of the rain forests.

E) The US opting out of the Koyoto treaty.

 

 

The discussion as it stands is not really about the justification for war, rather the US setting a president of instigating war without the backing of the UN or any other major power (and I know I am classing the UK as being not a major power here). The argument is the US doesn't really have a right to interfere, espeically if they are justifying it by stating UN sanctions have been broken and ignoring the UN.

[YoungStrife]

The UN always has been and always will be a joke. With every decision it has made concerning war, it never chose to back it up. France and Germany have interests in Iraq...they don't give a flying F about anything else then that..they too threatened to oppose the U.S. and haven't.

 

Ever since WWII the U.S. has been the international police force, since we imposed justice and democracy (or tried to) since then.

 

Who cares about the UN. Even back in 1947 when a ewish state was voted for and Israels war of independance occured the UN stepped back and you guessed it...did nothing.

 

That is all I have to say until I get my information orginised and have a little more examples (aiming for around 30).

[atinymonkey]

Well, the UN is only a joke becaue it's member states don't agree and so a resolution is never really enforced. What we need is for the major member to sign on to the idea of the UN without the local politics. The UN would be a significant power if the US could agree with the majority of the members.

 

I am aware that I'm being hopelessly naïve. But I'm still hoping for steps towards a global effort to peace, instead of politically self motivated goals of nations.

[Matzi]

Originally posted by YoungStrife

[...] France and Germany have interests in Iraq...they don't give a flying F about anything else then that [...]

Interesting... Germany's interest in Iraq... I can't think of one. But have me updated.

Besides, I think the US have an interest in Iraq as well. I mean, what is going to happen after the war. What about the bidding for oil stuff etc.? (Actually I think that's one major reason why this war is going on. Saving national security is really ridiculous.)

[Matzi]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

[...]I am aware that I'm being hopelessly naïve. But I'm still hoping for steps towards a global effort to peace, instead of politically self motivated goals of nations.

Me too. I mean, how will this situation change when those who state the UN is a joke don't do anything about it. I have the ipression that the UN does not mean anything for some countries and this not because of the selfish interests of these countries.

[YoungStrife]

We stated before the war that we would not exploit it's oil for whatever that's worth. Our interest is democrcy, and capitalism to be instated in Iraq, as we wanted tohave in Vietnam 30 years ago.

 

Germany's interest: stronger yet alliance with France.

French interest: oil....so they can drink finer whine and smoke more.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by atinymonkey

Find a different substantiated example, or don't quote more than 5000.

 

here is a few thousand more:

 

 

"Saddam Hussein's record of brutally suppressing even mild dissent is well-known. When the March 1991 uprising confronted his regime with the most serious internal challenge it had ever faced, government forces responded with atrocities on a predictably massive scale. The human rights repercussions continue to be felt throughout the country.

In their attempts to retake cities, and after consolidating control, loyalist forces killed thousands of unarmed civilians by firing indiscriminately into residential areas; executing young people on the streets, in homes and in hospitals; rounding up suspects, especially young men, during house-to-house searches, and arresting them without charge or shooting them en masse; and using helicopters to attack unarmed civilians as they fled the cities."

 

 

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

 

do you really need me to carry on?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by YoungStrife

We stated before the war that we would not exploit it's oil for whatever that's worth. Our interest is democrcy, and capitalism to be instated in Iraq, as we wanted tohave in Vietnam 30 years ago.

 

Germany's interest: stronger yet alliance with France.

French interest: oil....so they can drink finer whine and smoke more.

 

please try not to be too naiive. The US interest in Iraq is not as altruistic as some would have you believe. the first round of contracts for reconstruction (a billion dollars worth) were only given to US companies. the aid distribution contract has been given to a US company. US companies have their eye on the lucrative grain contracts, that if given to them, would cost Australia (one of the willing) hundreds of millions of dollars. It is only with pressure from the UK and other allies that the US is giving in a little and might allow other coalition countries to bid for some of these contracts.

 

futhermore, your slating of france is unwarranted. please don't allow these debates to descend to that kind of level. people only start getting upset, and then personal insults start flying, which is not good for anyone, and definitely not constructive in putting ones point across.