POLL: Iraq, Yes or No

Remove all ads!

First off I think that Chamberlain did the right thing back then, he did all that he could to avoid a war and that is a worthy effort. Would it have made any difference if the war had started a few years earlier? War is war and it is horrendous, even to postpone is a good thing in my opinion.

Not to mention that there arent very many similarities between Adolf and Saddam. Paranoid me actually sees more similarities between Adolf and Bush actually but that is of no consequence, hopefully.

What I really wonder is what is the rush to go wack Iraq? It is not like it is going anywhere, and believe me. It wont be much of a fight. The US led alliance biotchslapped Iraq senseless during Desert Storm and that was when Iraq was one of the topten military nations in the world now they some infantry and some outdated tanks. Will not be much of a fight.

 

If they took care of Hitler right from the start, it would have saved countless lives. If we take care of the terrorists, those that harbor and support terrorists, and those who have the potential to destroy freedom, then less people will die than if we let those ****ing morons hijack another plane and fly it into another building.
How can you compare Hitler to Bush? Hitler was a madman bent on controlling the world. He wanted everyone to be in his eyes what he deemed was perfect. He didn't just kill Jews. He even killed people for not having what he believe to be the right hair color.
Maybe it because 9/11 happened in my country. Maybe its because I had family die in the World Trade Centers. But I am sorry, if someone is a terrorist, supports terrorism in their country, or threatens my livelyhood and freedom, I say nuke the mother-****er off the face of this planet.

 

@Elios: Obviously, you have suffered great loss and I condole with you. But it's difficult to debate with emotion rather than reason.

Anyway:

1. The world should have moved when Germany annexed Austria and invaded Poland. Building military should not be construed as an act of war. The country with the most arms and arms manufacturers is the U.S.

2. While Saddam is an evil man, I don't recall hearing substantial proof that Saddam has links to Bin Laden. (I can check CNN for the transcripts of Powell's speech.) Bin Laden is still alive and if one is looking for retribution, he's the one to get.

3. If you nuke the mother f**ker, you nuke millions of INNOCENT people as well. They wouldn't like a nuke in their backyard either. The U.S. would also be threatening their livelihood and freedom as well as their lives.

4. If there is war, it will be one like we haven't seen. It will be a rout. Then there will be another war like we've never seen. Imagine urban guerilla warfare in the U.S. mainland. It will be another excuse for attacks on the American public. There may not be another World Trade Center-sized attack but imagine several suicide attacks in all 50 states, in schools, amusement parks, churches, parks, ballparks and many more.

But if you still don't agree, there was still the suggestion to assassinate him. For all the money being spent in the mobilization, surely the U.S could afford to get Saddam and Saddam only. There would then be a change in leadership. That would allay fears that it isn't only for oil.

But it seems that there will be war anyway. Just remember the saying: Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

 

The only problem with assasination is the US (stupidly) made it illegal years ago.
As for emotion, show me one person who never brings emotion into a debate? Our whole exsistence as a species, all our actions are based on some form of emotion.
I should have gone a step further with the arms comment. Building up arms for an intent such as Hitler's intentions. The Us may be the country with the most arms, but we don't intend to use them for purposes of genecide.
How much proof do you need that Saddam and Bin Laden are on the same side? Bin Laden has admited it many times over. I don't remember the actual report or statement, but a little over a year ago, Bin Laden admited to having ties with Hussain.
The fact that they have a common enemy, right there.
Yes, you do end up killing innocents. Unfortunatly that's inevitable. In fact, some of those soldiers we kill are innocents. Some may not have a choice in being there.
My family suffered a loss. So did many other families. Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed at our government as well. They had the intelligence reports, most of all this mess the world is in now could have been prevented.

 

Bin Laden is fond of saying that Saddam is an infidel dog that deserves to burn in hell if I remember correctly. Now Bin Laden have voiced support for Iraq and done his best for get the war rhetorics to flame higher and higher. Because you see Elios, a war in Iraq against Iraq by the western world is exactly what the people that planned 9/11 wants. They have hopes of an all out arabic 'revoultion' and an ensuing jihad. An attack on an arab nation, no matter how vile their leader is would be perfect for the islamic fundamentalistic fantatical terrorists in their quest to get people to join their cause.
Who would have thought that Bin Laden and Bush II would be on the same side in any controversy a year ago?

And Elios, which weapon is the one most likely to be used, the one you have or the one you dont have? I have to admit not trusting the US fully, it may still be rather benevolent and reasonable democratic but things can change quickly. It took Hitler less than a decade to turn a pretty democratic state into a horrible dictatorship. It may very well happen again.

[ February 18, 2003, 17:09: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

nuke iraq?? dont be silly, imagine the door that would open, wait until some suitcase nukes get detonated in the US, the world isnt exactly at apathy with the US as it is, without encouraging more acts against them.

and the problem with assassination isnt that its illegal (duh), but its with the fact that someone would rise to take saddam's place, someone who would rally the iraq people behind the monsterous US assassination of their president, and then things would be worse then they are now.

jaocqin definately gets the cornflake for his paragraph about bin laden though, he saw right through that affair

 

Unfortunately for the islamic fundamentalistic fantatical terrorists that is not how most of the people over there would react. Most of the Arab nation's leaders were meeting to call for an emergency Arab summit to press Saddam to comply with the US disarmament demands. Unfortunately the meeting broke up, but still. Saddam is a threat in the region, I honestly think that when we do attack, most nations over there will support us.

I dare you to come over here to the US and say that out loud. On the same side? The only thing was if Bin Laden was still against Saddam. But given reports of what Bin Ladden is saying and transcripts of his messages being broadcast, I don't think so. You don't give advice to someone's army on how to win and defeat an attacker if you don't like them.

 

A military buildup IS an act of war when said buildup is in direct violation of treaty. If the country is willing to violate one part of the treaty, it's a pretty good bet they'll violate the rest of it. Everyone knew that Hitler was using the Spanish civil war as a testing ground for his war machine. But all the appeasers just sat back and let the treaties and international mandates be mocked, just as the world seems willing to do now will Saddam. We will reap the whirlwind if we do not firmly enforce the sanctions levied against Iraq.

 

Elios

Don't you think that is exactly the way the people in Middle East are thinking about U.S.? I mean that they think "Hey, these American bastards are selling weapons and technology to Israel, which kills our muslim brothers. So let's attack them with every way we could in order to stop doing that."

Their leaders will support you not the nations and they will support you because they don't want to be your next target not because they think that Iraq is a threat for their safety.

Finally, the only reason England and France didn't attack Hitler after the invasion in Austria and Chechoslovakia (sp?)is that they saw him as a barrier against the Soviets. This is proven by the fact that after the invasion in Poland, they didn't attack (despite that they declared war against Germany and despite the fact that the majority and the elite units of Wehrmacht were in polish front) because they still believed that Hitler's next target would be Soviet Union.

 

I had the unique opportunity to meet a student over here on a student visa when I was in school. That is not how they see us. Or at least that is not how my friend and people he knew saw us.

What about the rest of the world?

 

England and France were the countries, which had the military means to face Germany. I don't believe that you think that countries like Holland, Danmark, Belgium etc. had the power to make a stand against nazi Germany. In addition many european countries (Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Yugoslavia) had goverments that had friendly relationships or similar political ideas with Germany. As for the U.S.A., they had the same opinion with England and France and don't forget that they just had come out of the economical crisis of 1930 and therefore they were not willing to have another adventure just for humanistic reasons.

My experiences are different. We have many Arabs here and the majority of them seem to believe the U.S.A are the most evil thing of the world. Also, don't forget the big percentage of uneducated people in these countries, who can be manipulated very easily.

 

@dmc

If Hitler had been killed in 1940 another "madman" would have popped up, it was just not one man behind the whole genocide.. It was a whole nation behind the genocide. The whole world was going through a recession, Germany even more since it had to pay the bills for the party they had in the 1WW, while the Jews were living of the riches they had gathered (not to have something against Jews, but try to think about you as a hard working German with a *bleeped* up life and your boss who is member one of the most hated minorities in Europe)
Now try to say the Germans were "evil"

In the end Hiter and his henchmen became the "black sheeps", victims of the masses..

If Hussein was killed in 1990, who would have popped up then?? Heck, the CIA just installed another dictator like they have done before, and then the oil was in American hands and noone cared about the surpressed people

...........................................

Yup

*sarcasm on*
the Iraqis will be cheering when you´ve freed them from they´re dictator, oh yeah, especialy after all the bombings, embargos, the "missing" POW´s who have been dumped in the Saudian Arabian desert, Iraq-Iran war and the propaganda they have got thrown at their ears I´m sure they´ll be cheering
*sarcasm off*

......................................
@Elios

For the countries outside Europe, did they care??
For the countries in Europe, fighting with what? it was a recession Elios, Holland still was waving around with 1WW weapons, there was no money nor the means to fight

............................................

Oh yeah sure, and theyre allied with the commies as well

Saddam and bin Laden are not on the same side, while bin Laden is fighting for his religion, Saddam is using the Islam as a tool.. bin Laden hates Saddam plus the fact that the Saddam nowadays is a product of Americas "connections" with the "Rest of the World"

.........................................

In the End the whole situation is the aftereffect of Americas failed "divide and rule" game, just about oil..

[ February 18, 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

I would gladly come over and say that Elios, simply because it is true. Both Bin Laden and Bush wants the US to start a war with Iraq. That means they agree on that point and are on the same side in that controversy, they might differ alittle bit in other ways but this one thing they both agree on.

First off so wasnt the genocide of jews, gypsies, handicapped, mentally ill and all other 'different' people not an issue until after the war when people realised the scope of it. Heck many people in both neutral and allied countries approved of killing off the 'scum'.
Secondly hindsight is always perfect, today we might say that Chamberlain was wrong, but if I had lived back then I would have agreed, just for the possibility to avoid a war.

But either way so isnt this allegory valid on Iraq and Saddam. The west generally and the US in particular is so vastly more powerful than *all* the rest of the world put together that even if large chunks of the arab world would unite they would still only be a light snack for the western military. We have plenty of time to wait for a war. To make really sure that it is unavoidable.

[ February 18, 2003, 17:43: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

I don't want war on the world... But how can I stop it....

 

RuX, we just have to hope. I don't want war either. America has to stop being world police. And the need a peace-ful president.

 

I want to be hopeful like you but I live in Turkey. I know everything. Turkey is in a bad position. We can't win anything from Iraq.

 

Us neither. Rottin' in lil' Estonia.

Walks off, mumbling 'Rotten Lil' Estonia'

 

I am to sad becouse of that war. It will be too hard for us. We sent minimum 35000 soldiers to Iraq. What happened to them. I know they are soldiers their work is defence country in war. But America just wants petroleum

 

I have to admit when this all started I thought it was a good idea to go into Iraq.Now I am not so sure.I have benn thinking alot about how the US goverment has handled these things in the past.
Remeber when we helped the Shah take over Iran years ago.We knew he was a brutal leader who did terriable things but we supported him anyway in hopes he would help us stablelize the region.Some years late when he was overthrown(for good reason)it was easy for the new leaders to stir up anti-American feelings in the people beacuse we supported this man that had oppressed them.
When the Shah fell from power we turned our attention to Saddam and sold him weapons,helped him get a better hold on his country and backed him with money.We also knew at this time that he did horriable things to his own people but hey he was our evil dictator.
A similar thing happened in Afghanistan.When the Russians invaded we gave money and arms to a man named Osama Bin Laden.We trained his troops and helped him to fight off the Russians.
Maybe we have to rethink how we are handling these situations,they always seem to come back and bite us.
I just dont know anymore if going to war with him is the right thing to do.It wont be much of a fight and he isnt going anywhere with the UN on his doorstep.
Also what happens afterwards do we occupy the country indefinately?Do we prop up anther puppet dictator that will turn against late?I just dont see any good in this.