Should we attack Iraq?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
RE: Possibly

Iraq can be compared to Israel and turky without Much effort.

If something should be done with them- it should be left to an
international concensis to decide what that should be.
The US is Waaayy out of line.
 
RE: Possibly

Unlike the Israel and Turkey regimes, however, Saddam has violated Chapter 7 UN resolutions. Chapter 7 status gives members of the security council the right to enforce them.

As for the US being out of line, that simply isn't true. Resolution 1441 which passed unanimously said that there would be severe consequences if Iraq didn't immediately disarm, and there were no illusions as to what was meant by severe consequences. It's now 5 months later, and it's taken an invasion force massed on Saddam's doorstep to get him to cooperate with inspectors, who shouldn't even have to be searching the country in the first place. The simple fact is that Saddam has not cooperated, and thus has opened himself up to these consequences. That France, Russia and China -- all of whom have very lucrative oil contracts with Iraq -- don't want to enforce it is moot. We don't need their approval now to have the legal backing of the UN because Resolution 1441 already gave it to us.
 
RE: Possibly

Iraq IS co-operating with the inspectors, why cant the US just listen to them and let them do their job.
I can perfectly understand a frightened country wanting some defense when the grat hordes com'a piliging.

What i dont understand Is the US and UK holding up 5billion worth of aid, bought with their own oil(minus the 26%(cash) sent to Boing and other companies) Through the UN and continuing to starve a *now* poor country.

The US crimes are Great and varied, but they have UN veto power.

Have you looked at the reasons for Iraqs Kuwait invasion?
Read any (Nobel peace prize winning)Noam Chompsky?

It helps to be informed.

No offence, and forgive my Spelling-if you can.
 
RE: Possibly

Did you read my post? It took an invasion force to get the Iraqi government to co-operate. We can't afford to keep hundreds of thousands of troops there to make sure that Saddam keeps it up, and I don't believe for a second that Saddam will keep it up if we remove them. Now if France or Germany wanted to put some troops in the Gulf to make sure Saddam co-operates, then they're entitled to do that. However, I seriously doubt that they have the will to do so.
 
RE: Possibly

America cant aford this at all.
What about Frances Hyper upped Inspector, with UN troop Proposal.

Irq co-operate with what?

The Arab states would have been happy with what the US feared.
A puppet Government in Kuwait.
Incidently, do you know how Kuwait provoked their Invasion?
Which Iraq informed the US about and thought had approval from.
Who gave Iraq the Weapons?
Israel has Nukes....what if France wanted to invade there?
 
RE: Possibly

You clearly don't read. Whatever. When you're willing to actually discuss, I'll still be here.
 
RE: Possibly

Read what?
Discuss what?

The main thing i pick up from the news is a morbid depression.
I can only take the war talk in short bursts.

This isnt my news source or anything...
http://www.punkplanet.com/
But theyve got some good articles from their corespondent in Iraq.



Please Forgive all Spelling/Gramatical errors.I was sick that day...
 
RE: Possibly

Somehow Agent Orange know much about this....
Okay Doyle, here are some facts:
1. The Records showing Iraqi generals voice are fake. The guys there got very bad Arabics. My friends confirmed that, and someguy here also confirmed that (check some replys) Do you speak fluent Arabic Doyle?
2. The photo could also fake. Besides, why US show them to the public? Not to the UN mission so they could check themself?
3. US Authority are silly. How they could say an Ultralight plane are "Biological Weapon" capabe of spraying toxins?
4. Biological weapon? Why US can't gave us an authentic proof?
5. Powell says something about caves. Well In Iraqi there were only few caves (And i only know one! The Ali Baba's and 47 rogues one! With voice recognition password: "Open Sesame!"). Hell!! Iraq differs from Afghanistan! THey only got SANDS in desert!!! There were no caves network like Afghan!!
6. Do you read some of my post about Islamic History and Culture review? Placing a Shiite Leader in the middle of Sunni Arabic Nation is completely nuts!! What Bush wants huh? Another Iran!!
7. If he place Kurdis people, The Turk will surely invade Iraq before Iraq invade them.
8. And interview with chemical weapons victim from Iraq. If she really from Kurdi's region, Why the hell SHE DIDN'T WEAR A HOOD!!!! (Jilbab said the moslems) What I know Kurdi people were fanatics Syiah Moslems!!

Last but not least, here a quotes from Mr. Abdullah Gymnastiar -a friend, teacher, mentor, tutor of me (he once appears in TIME last year. With the title "Holy Man". One of the most influential and famous people in Indonesia.)- letter to George W. Bush.
" In History there were peoples whom written with Gold ink. The people who create peace and stop the war. There were also peoples whom written with blood. Which one you are belong Mr. Bush?"
 
RE: Possibly

I'm not going to bother defending the evidence that Powell presented to the UN, but I don't even have to. We know -- yes KNOW -- that Saddam had a certain amount of chemical and biological weapons. Despite UN resolutions, he will not account for these weapons. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Mr. Bhass.
 
RE: Possibly

Ok, so its been established that Iraq had at one point Biological And Chemical weapons.
These were documented in the Large report isued to the UN along with the source of these weapons (the US if you need me to spell it out).

Now the Esential question I think that America should be asking itself is: "Do We want to bomb the hell out of this country that weve
been starving to death for the last ten years?(a country who's -previous to the Gulf war-Most common health problem amoung children was obesity(sound familar?)).
Do we want to do that for crimes, of which we are far from inocent ourselfs?"
 
RE: Possibly

Israeli got nukes and Biological weapon, India got nukes, China got nukes, North Korea got nukes!
And Israel & North Korea has violated a lots of UN Resolutions!
Why not attack them instead? Or start by dismantling your US Nukes, Isn't US got lots of nukes? It just like say "Please don't smoke" but you are a heavy smokers!
Besides, with the whole world behind him (except US, Brits and Spain) Saddam won't launch his missiles. Even a fools will do that.

All you guys can say, Iraqi got weapons! But didn't gave any proof. During the war you could plant an old Soviet Nukes in the middle of desert and claimed it to be Iraqi just to "save Face"! (don't argue this. US done lots of these back in Vietnam. PRU, Phoenix program, Air America, brrrr....)

And US got bad reputation here Doyle. Lots of dirty works in Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, and Cambodia, not counting in the other part in the world. Thats why Nobody here trust US. Well US done no good to us you know, supporting dictators like our former President, then in 1998 when he seems to fall and will replaced by person who didn't pro -US, Place an EMBARGO TO US!!
Tell me! Why US do that? Human Rights! I dont see any Human RIght Violation here! There were some in Aceh and East Timor for 30 years but IT IS SUPPORTED BY US!!!
East Timor? Who supports us to strike East Timor? Gave us guns, advisor and training?

And do you see how those Iraqi people suffers last 12 years! With Full Embargo without Medicine, foods etc? How a country like US who proclaimed themself "free, civilized and democratic country" do this?
All just for Oils! Oils! Oils!!!!

God damned! This sounds like the start of Fallout II.
 
rararara

I dont care what Indonesia/China/USA or whatever fucking nations say, if they wanna go to war so be it, just not drag my homeland Singapore into it.

The Bush can go and tear its hair out by putting some crapping leader on Iraq after its gone.

Putting a

Suni Muslim = dead (end of democracy)
Kurds = Turkish invasion (Turkey is a US ally so how should the US react ?)
Your run of the mill Iraq civillian = economic chaos
Victim of Saddam's Brutalizations = Mass executions

ASEAN > USA
 
Being an american taxpayer,..

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-03 AT 04:15PM (GMT)]...let me just say that so far I have received no evidence that my money and money of millions of other taxpayers are being well-spent. I am not convinced that Iraq presents a danger strong enough to justify war spendings that could've been spent on better things. In case someone didn't notice, there is a recession going on, with companies going bankrupt and people losing jobs in hundreds of thousands. Then there is the drug war, both on the streets and abroad, war with crime and poverty, and "war with terrorism" (which seems much more legitimate than ousting Saddam). And while we're on the topic of fighting evil foreigners, how about sorting out the mess that is Immigration and Naturalization Service if you are so bent on finding arab terrorists who live on american soil? Like firing crack-smoking receptionists and eliminating 10 y.o. waiting line for a Greencard?

Now, there are benefits to having a democratic regime in Iraq - we would get oil fields under our control, which is very good, and democracy means more consumers and cheap labor for the american business. If we'll have an american committee governing Iraq for at least two years, they could restrict access of cheap chinese goods and sell american products to iraqis. And after Iraq there will probably be Iran. And did I mention OIL?

But there are costs too. Iraq 'colony' is a good long-term goal, but we'd have to pay for the recovery, as well as maintaining control in the highly antiamerican region (Iraq is not the only hostile country). I support the idea of war in Iraq, but LATER, when the economy will stabilize.
 
RE: Being an american taxpayer,..

War. War. War. And say that one more time. A lot of people these days(esp. media) throw that word around like a pinata', and yet I have trouble trying to figure out if any of them knows what it means. War on drugs, war on terrorism, war on Iraq. And people see it so simply, there is a winner, therefore there is a loser. The person with the bigger gun "wins". But many people don't realize that there is no "winner" in war. Once the confrontation starts, everybody loses something. The Art of War says the best general wins by not losing and by not fighting at all. I've been told this was a required study in War College by top brass, but I don't know if anyone gets it.

There is no "clean", nor "fast" war. What takes 10 seconds of bombing to destroy can take years to rebuild. War doesn't simply mean the confrontation itself, all the before and after effects are also part of it. The proposed occupation and nation building is going to take at least US billion, 24,000 troops, and more than half a year(it does not includ the actual cost of the fighting, and what is costing currently). The proposed food aid of US million is going to cover 1-10 Days of food and supplies for the Iraq people. War is never ever cheap. America is a wealthy country for sure, but how long can they afford to waste resources and money when their domestic problems are rising?

There are also no heros in war. If you were to talk to war veterans with metals or honors, none of them likes to talk about how they really get it. A lot of them will tell you that they went there to do their job, and that was what happened. They don't wanted to be reminded of the "enemies" they've killed are fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, sisters, mothers, daughters, and wifes. It's no longer "virtual", or "simulations" anymore. If you killed a person who was alive, breathing, and talking, with all the brain, guts, and blood splatter all over you, you'll be affected.

The battlefield has to be seen to be believed. For those interested in a graphic describtion of what can happen on the battlefield, they can pick up books like "The Rape of NanJing".

I lived in the US for 4 something years. I traveled a lot during that time. Maybe I was naive then, but I couldn't believe that even in the most democratic nation on Earth, the choice of few still dictates the lifes of many. What of the Freedom, choices, and justice, I thought? What does that say about us as a specie, as a society, as a planet?

I am not a religous person, but I thought it was interesting that the Pope, the representative of Catholic faith - has released a statement saying this war is morally repulsive. Then I thought of Bush, Nixon, Rooservelt, and all those leaders. What was going on in their mind when they made that decision to go to war? What was weighting on their mind? Can I make that decision? Do I HAVE to choose between one fo the two lesser evils?

Up to this point, I don't know if I can care anymore. I am numb. Numb from all the press, media, people talking, radio, music, and so on. When your body is in too much pain, your body shuts off, so I guess I am doing the same for my judgement. If I try hard enough, maybe I can pretend none of these ever happened, and I can go on with my life. But reality usually bites me in the ass instead.

cheers!

*drinks tea and lost in thought*


Posted this in some other threads, thought I might get an interesting response here. The funny thing is - people wants to talk politics, but not war. I wander why?

:rolleyes:

Is welsh still around?
 
Back
Top