Do You Support An Attack On Iraq?

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Hitro

But it's not just about rationality. For me personally, Saddam is not more a risk factor (to my ideals, my life, etc.) than George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi or Jörg Haider (who visited him btw :crazyeyes ).
If it was just about rationality I could say "Hey, that muslims will most likely leave us Central Europeans alone, so let them kill the Israelis or vice versa, I don't care. Hmm, maybe would could even sell them some nice little nuclear reactors or gas bombs, what did we develop them for after all...". That would be rational in an egoistic sense. So you see that is not all.

And they accuse Americans of short term thinking .

The same logic you are using is the same logic the Soviet Union used when it helped Germany rebuild its military between the two world wars. I would suggest that that decision was not the best one they could have made from a rational self-interst perspective.

 

[Ebenezer1]

I have voted no only for this:
Saddam is a product of the west so who can assure that after his "disappearance" the things are right?
IMO the only different thing will be the name of the leader: "XXX the new threat of the west, his power is a danger for the west and it's necessary to remove him".
I'm for a support of internal dissent and, as a last resource, a fast blitz by highskilled agents
Only my 2 c

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hitro
3. Would Iraq really nuke the US, assuming it had the capability? Defenitely not, as that would be their end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Please don't tell me you believe that. Nobody could be that naive.

No I actually don't, as I said in another post. Don't take it out of context.

Saddam Hussein's days are numbered, and I think he knows it. Any chance to eradicate just a small portion of the "Great Satan" would satisfy Hussein.

Ah, but you're so sure about it? Why?

Originally posted by knowltok2
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hitro

But it's not just about rationality. For me personally, Saddam is not more a risk factor (to my ideals, my life, etc.) than George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi or Jörg Haider (who visited him btw ).
If it was just about rationality I could say "Hey, that muslims will most likely leave us Central Europeans alone, so let them kill the Israelis or vice versa, I don't care. Hmm, maybe would could even sell them some nice little nuclear reactors or gas bombs, what did we develop them for after all...". That would be rational in an egoistic sense. So you see that is not all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And they accuse Americans of short term thinking .

The same logic you are using is the same logic the Soviet Union used when it helped Germany rebuild its military between the two world wars. I would suggest that that decision was not the best one they could have made from a rational self-interst perspective.

"If it was just about rationality I could say ", ,that's what I said. So where did you get the idea that the following nonsense, that you are obviously referring to, is my opinion?
Rational self-interest can be short-sighted, still rational.

Originally posted by ebenezer1
I have voted no only for this:
Saddam is a product of the west so who can assure that after his "disappearance" the things are right?
IMO the only different thing will be the name of the leader: "XXX the new threat of the west, his power is a danger for the west and it's necessary to remove him".

Very true, and well said.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think people are misguided to compare Hussein to Hitler.

Different era, different reasons, different culture and totally different modus operandi.

Yes, saddam is dangerous.
But he is different than the US manufactured taliban.

He is a self-made dictator who will do anything to keep his clan in power.
Anything. This is where the danger lies.

His opposition to the west stemmed from the events in the build
up and confrontation during the gulf war. A conflict that was
fought for dubious financial reasons.

Now, the Saddam regime will end soon anyway, as Hussein has
Obviously not got long to live, having abused his health all these
Years. Yet western jingoism is looking for a new target.
I am NOT convinced Iraq is a threat to world peace, and many
Armchair strategists are pinning unrealistic abilities onto a
Punished people that are barely able to feed themselves.

If the USA is looking for a new target for their righteous
Gun sights, they should begin to curb arms sales to dangerous
Regimes, mainly from their own country, remember Colonel Oliver North?

This shady trade in arms should be stopped.

Also the West should think twice about deciding to attack nations
That they deem 'dangerous'. Who gives anyone the right to just
Barge in and blast the hell out a nation, without higher authority?
Isn't that what we are trying to stop?
What happened to fighting the war on terror in banks, with police?
And with sense? The West is in danger of becoming the very monster it seeks to stop.

The only way to fight hate is to take away the reasons that cause
Hatred, when will the West wake up and realise this fact?
How many tragedies like 11/9/01 will it take?

I just hope President GW Bush, will exercise caution and restraint
Like he did before the Afghanistan campaign...
But this talk of 'Bush's nuclear hit-list' makes me fear for the future
Of our relations with the world....
We are entering a dangerous era, and the USA and the West as
A whole are set to make many new foes, with this foolhardy and
Gung-ho policy...it will end in disaster.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
If the USA is looking for a new target for their righteous
Gun sights, they should begin to curb arms sales to dangerous
Regimes, mainly from their own country, remember Colonel Oliver North?

This shady trade in arms should be stopped.

Remember him??? Jesus H., he's a freakin' hero to half the nuts in this country. The fact that he broke the law the way he did really gives the law and order crowd here in the US a fond, warm, fuzzy feeling. They really, really do like the felon.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
We are entering a dangerous era, and the USA and the West as
A whole are set to make many new foes, with this foolhardy and
Gung-ho policy...it will end in disaster.

Probably my biggest fear (other than being vaporized by a suitcase bomb) is that Dumbya is going to totally fock up and destabilize the world.

All of his bullsh!t, WWF style smack talk and sabre rattling has the rest of the nations on this earth freakin' quaking in their boots. And we here in the US just eat that sh!t up.

USA! USA! USA! USA!

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
...remember Colonel Oliver North?

Yeah. He made Saddam Hussein much less powerful in the Iran-Iraq war than he would have been.

 

[VoodooAce]

See!

 

[andycapp]

It never ceases to amaze me how easily these sort of discussions go off the rails into tirades against the 'crimes' of the USA or gungho statements about the USA having the right to do what ever it wants.

How about focusing on whether or not an attack on Iraq:

1. is necessary because of the risk Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction pose to the rest of the world?

2. is morally and legally justifiable?

3. can be prosecuted without huge casualties to Allied troops and Iraqi civilians?

4. can be prosecuted without turning it into a larger war involving other nations eg Israel, Arab and Muslim nations?

5. after destroying Saddam can he be replaced with a stable and more enlightened regime?

6. if such an attack can meet all the above requirements what are the implications for future world order?

I've already stated that I think the West (eg the US and Allies) should get rid of Saddam and the only effective way I can see is through a military campaign. I'll expand on the points above when I've got a bit more time.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Remember him??? Jesus H., he's a freakin' hero to half the nuts in this country. The fact that he broke the law the way he did really gives the law and order crowd here in the US a fond, warm, fuzzy feeling. They really, really do like the felon.

Was that Clinton you were describing?

 

[Pellaken]

I voted think we should eahtier:
leave iraq alone, drop all sanctions
or
attack, and replace the gov.

sanctions arent working. change is needed

 

[VoodooAce]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Clinton, blah, blah, blah....

Lol....bring up Nixon, they bring up Clinton.
Bring up Reagan, they bring up Clinton.
Bring up Hoover, they bring up Clinton.
Bring up North, they bring up Clinton.
Bring up Buchanan, they bring up Clinton.

You get nothing for originality there, RM.

 

[amadeus]

How about Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy? Was he ever charged with manslaughter for the death of the woman in the back of his car? No. He's a Kennedy. He's invincible.

How's that for originality?

 

[Pellaken]

perhaps if democracts critizised democrats and republicans critizised republicans more, the 2 wouldent hate eachother so much... clinton DID do wrong, but so did nixon. etc...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by VoodooAce


the rest of the nations on this earth freakin' quaking in their boots.

Well, nations like Iraq, anyway.

I don't think Europe, Russia or China have any reason to fear America.

 

[Pellaken]

EVERYONE fears america... some are just to scared to say it

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Hitro

"If it was just about rationality I could say ", ,that's what I said. So where did you get the idea that the following nonsense, that you are obviously referring to, is my opinion?
Rational self-interest can be short-sighted, still rational.

It can be, but not as short-sighted as you are making out. You indicated that Saddam was not much of a risk factor for you, and I believe that that is short sighted.


Curt, considering you are responding with a different view, and have already been challenged, I would be interested to hear your reasons as to why Europe, China, and Russia don't have any reason to fear the US?

I can guess as to why Pellekan and Voodoo think the ENTIRE world fears the US, but I'll ask for their reasons as well.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It seems that in the beauties of our western liberalism, democratic ideals, and comparative removal from the battlefield, that too many people are forgetting the old saying, which is eminently suitable to this situation:

"Do unto others as they would do unto you, but do it faster, more often and better."

Saddam Hussein, the evil terrorists, and the other tin pot rogue states want to cause harm to the West, to the United States, and to all within.
There is no use smugly hoping you will not be attacked because you are not opposed to him. They are after everyone.

Hussein's idols are Stalin and Hitler. He would not hesitate in using any capacity he can get his hands on to "burn Israel to the ground", and to attack the United States, Europe and all the other evil, imperialist, satanic nations. If the situations were reversed, do you think he would lose a moments sleep or peace over destroying his enemies utterly.

He must be killed. His cronies must be killed. His military must be destroyed. A terrible example must be set - DO NOT F*CK WITH US.
Then, we build up the nation and shepherd it to democracy, prosperity and food.

A cancer must be removed, or it spreads its corrupting tendrils insidiously and inexorably. If we leave the situation, it will grow to the stage where we will have to deal with it, and it will be a hell of a lot more bloody.

To hell with the poncing about, talking about international legality.
This is doing something that is right, and destroying an evil that is not fit to be on the face of this earth.

 

[VoodooAce]

"....the rest of the nations on this earth freakin' quaking in their boots. "

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Well, nations like Iraq, anyway.

I don't think Europe, Russia or China have any reason to fear America.

Not directly, no.

But its obvious that, understandably, there is a lot of concern with Bush and his over-the-top hyperbole.....his incessant sabre rattling. His tendancy to spew utter irresponsibility from his pie hole, ie the 'axis of evil'.

I wouldn't use the word fear, though. And, er, 'freakin quakin in their boots' may have been a littler, er, well, anyay....

Let's say most everyone would fit somewhere between that and merely 'concerned'.

Of course, there are those that should, like Sadam. Nobody is more concerned that I about civilian casualties. I am, however, fairly confident that, thanks to the fact that people aren't afraid to stand up and let it be known they will not stand for an abusive army or high civilian casualties, the US Army is fully aware of, and work diligently to reduce, civilian casualties. As it should be.

Let's face it, civilian casualties in Afghanistan weren't but a fraction of what we....or at least I.....feared that we would see.

Going after Sadam should have been done after he dissed the UN inspectors.....the risk is too great. This is the only justification we do have, though.....I don't see any others. I say the heck with it, though...better late than never.

Wonder what he'd say if we demanded he accept inspectors now?

 

[VoodooAce]

Just asking; don't know, but....

Is perjury like Bubba did a felony?

Does it matter what kind of case or court?

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Hussein's idols are Stalin and Hitler. He would not hesitate in using any capacity he can get his hands on to "burn Israel to the ground", and to attack the United States, Europe and all the other evil, imperialist, satanic nations. If the situations were reversed, do you think he would lose a moments sleep or peace over destroying his enemies utterly.

Well, for the last 20 years Hussain has had all kinds of bioweapons and the neccesary missiles to use them on Israel. Despite this he's never done so, so your statement is clearly wrong.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
He must be killed. His cronies must be killed. His military must be destroyed. A terrible example must be set - DO NOT F*CK WITH US.

Exactly how has Saddam 'f**ked with us'?
The US supported him during the Iran-Iraq War, and aparently the US Ambassador in Bagdad gave the nod to his invasion of Kuwait.

I agree that Hussain is a lunatic which the world would be a lot better off without, but it's hard to see wether the effort required to get rid of him is worth the risks.