Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

Important question for those against the war with Iraq?


igloo

Recommended Posts

I would like an objective answer to the following question:

Aside from military action, how do you deal with Saddam?

Emotions and politics aside, please take into consideration that he refuses to take the UN seriously, he will not cooperate with inspectors, sanctions are ineffective, and this game as been going on too long...

I would guess this is not up for debate, since I would wager that their is significant consensus on that...

So, to my friends on this board, what is your solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first of all i want to say we're not the only country in the world. People in this country have a tendency of seeing things from our perspective only, without a global outlook. The US and UN aren't necessarily the best of friends.

Second, how much of a threat is Saddam really? I mean, back in the Gulf war, military action was legitimate, even though we never succeeded in the ultimate goal of overthrowing him.

But today, with the recent Terrorist uprising and national security issues (to go along with a slew of other National issues that need work) i don't see how RIGHT NOW is a good time for military action.

So, until we have hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, there are FAR more other issues to be dealt with than solely Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gmccookny

Well, first of all i want to say we're not the only country in the world. People in this country have a tendency of seeing things from our perspective only, without a global outlook. The US and UN aren't necessarily the best of friends.

Second, how much of a threat is Saddam really? I mean, back in the Gulf war, military action was legitimate, even though we never succeeded in the ultimate goal of overthrowing him.

But today, with the recent Terrorist uprising and national security issues (to go along with a slew of other National issues that need work) i don't see how RIGHT NOW is a good time for military action.

So, until we have hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, there are FAR more other issues to be dealt with than solely Iraq.

Thanks for the response....

But Iraq is a problem, and must be addressed....you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away (Clinton tactics with Iraq and Al-Qaeda)...

I agree there are other important issues as well, but I believe Iraq does constitute a national security issue....

If on Sept 10th, if Bush went before the UN and American people, and said that we need to launch a pre-emptive strike against Al-Qaeda and the Tailban, what would have been the response?

Think about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by igloo

Thanks for the response....

But Iraq is a problem, and must be addressed....you can't just ignore it and hope it goes away (Clinton tactics with Iraq and Al-Qaeda)...

I agree there are other important issues as well, but I believe Iraq does constitute a national security issue....

If on Sept 10th, if Bush went before the UN and American people, and said that we need to launch a pre-emptive strike against Al-Qaeda and the Tailban, what would have been the response?

Think about it

Yeah, but Al Queda and Iraq are two completely different animals. Al Queda has been launching attacks against the US and its citizens WELL before Sept 11...as far back as 91(?). Their stated goal is to kill as many Americans as possible and thus pose a clear and present danger.

Not so in Iraq's case. I have never heard any statements from Saddam saying he wants to hit against the US...nor do I see any reason for him to do so (if he wants to stay alive). I mean, doing so, would be like giving the US his own head on a platter, because no matter what, he will not be able to win that war. Also, the difference between AL Queda and Saddam...the former is an organization, thus killing the top member will not make the organization crumble...whereas Saddam is a single entity...if he's taken out, nobody really is going to take his place and keep contemplating attacks against the US.

The "evidence" that Saddam and Al QUeda are in league is dubious at best. As far as I know the Al Queda chemical testing lab is(was) in the Kurdish controlled north.

My 2 cents.

I don't deny Saddam is an evil dude, but the timing of this war is wayoff...it will probably sink the ME in chaos if it happened now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gmccookny

So, until we have hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, there are FAR more other issues to be dealt with than solely Iraq.

but isnt Iraq constantly violating UN sanctions with their chemical agent production? the WMD havent been found....YET...i would hate to be kicking myself in the ass, knowing that we could have gone in and taken this guy and his biological weapons out when we had a chance...if terrorists get a hold of some of these biological agents...we are in a world of shit...but Korea is extemely pressing as well...do u guys remember what Saddam said after the towers went down? and we were trying to rescue what survivors we could? cuz i do....:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ig,

How do we handle this? The man has been defiant for 12 years. He has wiped his ass with a dozen resolutions. What get's me is countries say that we should give the inspections more time, why? more deception, and more games 1441 says that he must disclose the weapons and he hasn't = MATERIAL BREACH!

GM,

The threat is very real man. You said that we have domestic issues that we have to handle is the economy 1 of them?

I can't even begin to imagine what would happen if another terrorists attack happens. The 911 attacks shut the economy down for almost a week and cost billions in economic activity, lets face it the economic situation although not that bad today would be alot better if Sept 11th didn't happen. The economy is the backbone of our strength with out it we are nothing so that's why we have protect it by preventing another attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by raver_mania

Yeah, but Al Queda and Iraq are two completely different animals. Al Queda has been launching attacks against the US and its citizens WELL before Sept 11...as far back as 91(?). Their stated goal is to kill as many Americans as possible and thus pose a clear and present danger.

Not so in Iraq's case. I have never heard any statements from Saddam saying he wants to hit against the US...nor do I see any reason for him to do so (if he wants to stay alive). I mean, doing so, would be like giving the US his own head on a platter, because no matter what, he will not be able to win that war. Also, the difference between AL Queda and Saddam...the former is an organization, thus killing the top member will not make the organization crumble...whereas Saddam is a single entity...if he's taken out, nobody really is going to take his place and keep contemplating attacks against the US.

The "evidence" that Saddam and Al QUeda are in league is dubious at best. As far as I know the Al Queda chemical testing lab is(was) in the Kurdish controlled north.

My 2 cents.

I don't deny Saddam is an evil dude, but the timing of this war is wayoff...it will probably sink the ME in chaos if it happened now.

I only have a quick second, I will hit you up again later, but

I really disagree with you on the threat of Iraq.....and the links with Al-Qaeda....

Read some of the books from respected terrorism experts (not US experts either).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my oppinion this has all been a wag-the-dog type of deal. iraq and korea are being used as a distraction from the war on terrorism failing. if saddam is such a threat then the rest of the world would be bothered too. israel, spain, and many other countries have had terrorism and not decided to start wwIII. I think diplomacy should have been used first before all the threats are made, but that didnt happen. The U.S. is following the policy of might makes right, and thats is going to bite us in the ass in the future. my bet is that not much happens in iraq, saddam does not die, and bush loses the next election to someone whos policies are more aligned to the middle than the extreme right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by igloo

I would like an objective answer to the following question:

Aside from military action, how do you deal with Saddam?

Emotions and politics aside, please take into consideration that he refuses to take the UN seriously, he will not cooperate with inspectors, sanctions are ineffective, and this game as been going on too long...

I would guess this is not up for debate, since I would wager that their is significant consensus on that...

So, to my friends on this board, what is your solution?

well there are plenty of alternatives out there.

-first off, fully cooperate with hans blix and the other inspectors, give them all the support they need. share actual intellegence with them. blix questioned many of the things that colin powell brought up in the un, saying they found no info pertaining to those specified sites. remember, the inspectors never had a chance to completley finish their job. while there is a common perception is that saddam had kicked the inspectors out in 1998,

it is a myth. according to the Washington Post, 12/18/98, the inspectors, led by richard butler, left iraq VOLUNTARILY, in anticipation of a military attack.

-restructure the sanctions, such that humanitarian aid can be delievered, while a military sanction is intact. under the current conditions, up to 30% of the money generated from the oil for food program is given to the un and kuwait as reperaitions for the gulf. this cut severly prevents need supplies from being aquired. also, it is the un and the state department that determines what iraq can buy and what it can't. the state department has put alot of restrictions on what iraq can buy, that even basic neccessities like chemotheraphy drugs can't be brought into the country. also the us has prohibited NGO's from bringing in medicine to help the needy. as a result over 500,000 children had died due to the sanctions. by ending the sanctions or at least the humanitarian sanctions, you would undermind saddam's popularity.

-have the bush addministration sign on to the ICC, and file charges against saddam. it is time that the bush administration and the rest of america realize that we are part of a global community, whether they like it or not. through joining we can show legitimacy in our claims and gain the support of the international community. plus, if we can get milosovic and the nuns & priests that took part in the rwandan genocide in court, why not saddam.

-expose the corporations that have supplied saddam with weapons' technology in the 1980's during the iraq-iran war, as well as government officials that help create the tilting policy towards iraq.

-implement un resolution 661, that makes the middle east a nuke free zone, and that includes israel.

-before starting another war, solve the current israeli-palestinean conflict. where a palistinean state is created with the gaza strip and the west bank, while a un peacekeeping force seperates the two sides.

"Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies."

yitzhak rabin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gmccookny

Second, how much of a threat is Saddam really? I mean, back in the Gulf war, military action was legitimate, even though we never succeeded in the ultimate goal of overthrowing him.

saddam is a threat to those who he percieves is a threat to his power. meaning, only when he is threatened, he'll attack. hell, he killed his own son-in-law, because he defected to jordan. saddam has a stalin-like paranoia that makes him too concerned about maintaining his own power that he doesn't have time to expand to other areas. this guy is no hitler, becasue hitler's mission was to expand the third reich. he's stalin, who just wanted absolute power over what he already had.

he invaded iran, but only after iran tried to assinate high ranking iraqi officials, carried out border raids, and called for spreading the revolution to iraq. remember, ayotollah ruhollah khamienie was exiled in iraq during the shah's regime.

meanwhile, kuwait had issues with iraq, such as war debts and oil prices. when the us embassy in baghdad said it will not interfere with inter-arab issues, saddam was given a green light to invade.

another thing to consider, is that all of saddam's victims were isolated and could not match his strength. the kurds, the shittes, other iraqi's, all couldn't match his power. even when launched scuds at israel in the gulf war, he was able to do it, because he knew israel won't retaliate. he will not use wmd's, because we have bigger and better wmd's, and so does israel. sharon has made it clear, that he will not think twice of retaliating, should saddam attack israel again. the guy is neurotic, but he's no idiot, he knows what would happen if he attacked the us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...