Iraq: Yay or Nay

[irbodden]

Originally posted by AcemanPB


Saddam can't be that bad if the majority of his people support him, If he was as bad as we make him out to be someone would have overthrown him by now...

Trying to devolp nukes and has chemical weapons? Well who was the ONLY country to use a nuke on another country? We are getting on Saddam for having nukes when we have bunkers full of 'em.

Chemical and biological weapons? We used plenty of those in Vietnam, pretty nasty stuff...the chemical and biological weapons we have are alot more gruesome than some smallpox or anthrax...

Saddam has the support of the majority of the people because he is a 'dictator', therefore if someone was to speak out against him, they'd be killed.

We used nukes to save young American lives, you realize what the death toll would have been if we were to invade Japan?

They can't devolp chemical weapons regardless of 'how bad' they are because of past resoultions. What's the point of UN resoultions if nothing happens, we are rendering the UN useless.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by irbodden


Just a quick point, because there is a ruthless dictator that is trying to devolp nukes, has chemical WMD, killed his own people and broken countless UN resoultions, DOES make it right.

Since you responded I will post this.

Those are actions to act. Not actions to go to war. That is the problem, most Americans think action means war, which it doesn't. I guess it is the culture or something, I could never understand it and I am a military brat.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Those are actions to act. Not actions to go to war. That is the problem, most Americans think action means war, which it doesn't. I guess it is the culture or something, I could never understand it and I am a military brat.

What should we do then?

Send in inspectors to play cat and mouse? What's the point?

We KNOW he has them, what do we need inspectors to do?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by irbodden


What should we do then?

Send in inspectors to play cat and mouse? What's the point?

We KNOW he has them, what do we need inspectors to do?

I don't know, I know how, I would do , I know what is the best way to get rid of saddam, but just to get rid of the weapons we think he was. I don't know.

But when war will not do anything, you have to move to something else.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I don't know, I know how, I would do , I know what is the best way to get rid of saddam, but just to get rid of the weapons we think he was. I don't know.

But when war will not do anything, you have to move to something else.

Well until you can provide a diffrent option, your whole anti-war movement is useless unless you want to start arguing Sadamm is a good guy and NOT a threat to the global community..

[AcemanPB]

Originally posted by irbodden

We KNOW he has them, what do we need inspectors to do?

Then where is the evidence? I don't KNOW he has anything...

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?" does this ideal that our country was founded on only aply to Americans?

Edit - Let me clarify something, I'm no anti-war peace loving hippie. But I do know there are certian times for war and right now Iraq is not one of them.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by AcemanPB


Then where is the evidence? I don't KNOW he has anything...

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty?" does this ideal that our country was founded on only aply to Americans?

Did you listen/watch Powell's speech?

Every time we release evidence, a bridge is burned. By that, he means every time we disclose information the Iraqis find out where it was leaked from. Understand?

The UN inspectors have been infiltrated/bugged, so we can't share information with them either. The US gave them some information regarding some place with some WMD and the next day, the Iraqis moved it! We have spy planes all over, and they just decided to move it or do you think they had the heads up?

And no, we don't have to prosecute Sadaam in a public trail..

By the way, he has undeniably broken multiple UN resoultions.. So that isn't the question here. Everyone from the far left to the far right KNOWS he has these WMD. Why else would his drops be getting gas masks and suits. Why else would liberals be saying, "If we invade, we give him reason to use those chemical agents!" Wait, WHAT chemical agents? The ones he claims he doesn't have?

[irbodden]

Originally posted by AcemanPB
Let me clarify something, I'm no anti-war peace loving hippie. But I do know there are certian times for war and right now Iraq is not one of them.

Then what should we do?

Do you agree he is a threat to the world community? Should we just leave him alone till he has nukes then deal with the problem when it has become infinitly harder?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by irbodden


Well until you can provide a diffrent option, your whole anti-war movement is useless unless you want to start arguing Sadamm is a good guy and NOT a threat to the global community..

I am not arguing that we should do this or that. I am saying we shouldn't go to war.

What will war solve?

Answer that question.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
What will war solve?

Answer that question.

Hmm..

Israel and Kuwait, two of our allies won't be in danger any more. Although he hasn't done anything to Israel yet, you can bank on it once he gets some nukes or a larger aresnal of WMD. He also already invaded Kuwait and burned their oil fields. 10% of their population was taken by Sadamm and brutally murdered (some my still be alive as POWs), their people live in constant fear. And guess what? Their stock market went up 35% when Bush decided to deal with Iraq. Guess why? They don't have to live in fear!

We eliminate a safe harbor for terroists which is good, we also eliminate a major threat to the delicate balance of world power. What do you think would happen when this guy gets nukes?

Your idea is to leave him alone? Give me a break.

[AcemanPB]

Originally posted by irbodden

And no, we don't have to prosecute Sadaam in a public trail..

Yes I know this, but I just find it ironic that we always talk about defending freedom, freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty, etc, etc until it applies to a situation like this.. just saying it's a little hypocritical of us

Yes I would agree Saddam does have chemical weapons, probably leftovers. But I don't believe he has these nukes or weapons of mass destruction you talk about. I don't see Saddam as threat to the US. N. Korea on the other hand IS a REAL threat to the US, and going over in Iraq is not making that situation any better...

Like it was stated above I do not see what war will solve other that give Saddam an excuse to use all these weapons you say he has.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by AcemanPB
Yes I know this, but I just find it ironic that we always talk about defending freedom, freedom of speech, innocent until proven guilty, etc, etc until it applies to a situation like this.. just saying it's a little hypocritical of us

Yes I would agree Saddam does have chemical weapons, probably leftovers. But I don't believe he has these nukes or weapons of mass destruction you talk about. I don't see Saddam as threat to the US. N. Korea on the other hand IS a REAL threat to the US, and going over in Iraq is not making that situation any better...

Like it was stated above I do not see what war will solve other that give Saddam an excuse to use all these weapons you say he has.

What's ironic about it? He isn't an American citizen, we have proof he has violated resoultions, what's the matter?

He doesn't have nukes yet, but he will eventually if we just leave him be. North Korea isn't nearly the same threat as Iraq because they have NEVER acted irrationaly with their weapons. Don't ya wish ya could say the same about Iraq?

We should just leave him huh? Real effective. They are weapon "I say" he has? Give me a break. We all know he has them.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by irbodden


Hmm..

Israel and Kuwait, two of our allies won't be in danger any more. Although he hasn't done anything to Israel yet, you can bank on it once he gets some nukes or a larger aresnal of WMD. He also already invaded Kuwait and burned their oil fields. 10% of their population was taken by Sadamm and brutally murdered (some my still be alive as POWs), their people live in constant fear. And guess what? Their stock market went up 35% when Bush decided to deal with Iraq. Guess why? They don't have to live in fear!

We eliminate a safe harbor for terroists which is good, we also eliminate a major threat to the delicate balance of world power. What do you think would happen when this guy gets nukes?

Your idea is to leave him alone? Give me a break.

First my idea is not to leave him alone. Again war isn't the only action that can be taken. Do I know the best one, no I don't, nor should I.

Kuwait and ISreal will be in greater harm when the government appointed by the US gets overthrown and Iraq turns into terrorist central. Most of the terrorist in Iraq now are protected in the northern fly zone by the US.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


First my idea is not to leave him alone. Again war isn't the only action that can be taken. Do I know the best one, no I don't, nor should I.

Kuwait and ISreal will be in greater harm when the government appointed by the US gets overthrown and Iraq turns into terrorist central. Most of the terrorist in Iraq now are protected in the northern fly zone by the US.

Whaaa?

I'd love to see any group of terrorists overthrow the Iraqi government we put in place considering we will have troops there for many years to come, until the region has stabalized.

And if it did turn into 'terrorist' HQ, we'd go back and fix it again making sure there is more millitary presence.

This is the real world bud, sure, you might not like war, but there is no other alternative.

Countless UN resoultions, nada.
Weapon inspectors, nada.

What's gonna work huh? I forgot, you don't know, no left wing hippy has ANY idea what to do! Hussein needs to be stopped, what's going to do it? Not UN resoultions, not weapon inspectors. When you can come up with away to liberate the Iraqi people without a 'war' (Also known as a day or two of light fighting as most of the Iraqi army is gonna ditch him), let me know. Otherwise you are nothing more then a hippy.

.."war isn't the option dude, i dunno what is tho man"

[Kevmaster]

Originally posted by irbodden
By the way, he has undeniably broken multiple UN resoultions.. So that isn't the question here.

But he breaks them only a **little** so its ok. I mean, those missles, they were PRACTICALLY within the rules...so they are ok