A thought on Iraq...

[Orsorum]

Just had a thought earlier... it's the concept of a rat in a corner. A rat will generally run or evade an adversary, until it's forced into a corner - then it fights, and it fights hard. Or maybe it's rats in a sinking ship.

The analogy is the same with Iraq. If we know that Hussein is aging, anyway, why not let him live out his years and let the Iraqi people straighten it out? If we attack him with little or no provocation to us directly (as a sovereign nation), who's to say that our direct military aggression won't force him into using a nuke?

Not justifying anything one way or another, just a hypothetical.

 

[GoodToGo]

You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

 

[Mrburns2007]

Cause the reigme is as bad as he is, when Saddam dies someone will take over and run the country the same way Saddam does or worse.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Cause the reigme is as bad as he is, when Saddam dies someone will take over and run the country the same way Saddam does or worse.

Why not let his own people remove him?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

Germany . . . Japan . . . ?

 

[sean2002]

We can let him live out his years, but then what about his sons? Do we wait for them to die too? Right now he more than liklely does not possess a nuclear weapon, thats why we need inspectors in now, with full access to anywhere with out prior notice, and let it be known the the first time he even tried to deny access it will rain J-DAMS, and daisy cutters, carpet bombs on bagdad (SP), and if he decides to use chemical or bio weapons on US or any other troops that we will take off the white gloves and get down and dirty. Also let it be known if they try to launch an attack against Israel that we will not ask them to refrain from fighting back.

Let it be known that I support inspections first and formost, but I honestly don't think Sadam will agree to the term of the US/ Brittish resoultion on weapon inspections

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

The answer to the question is no, countries like Japan and Germany have prospered but they were not exactly free from external influence. What matters is what the Iraqi people want and right now its very unclear to determine that. If I was a Iraqi, I would trust Saddam rather than USA because I guess a domestic tyrant is better than a foreign friend. Plus they think of USA as the "Satan". Trust me military action against Iraq is a very bad idea.

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

The answer to the question is no, countries like Japan and Germany have prospered but they were not exactly free from external influence. What matters is what the Iraqi people want and right now its very unclear to determine that. If I was a Iraqi, I would trust Saddam rather than USA because I guess a domestic tyrant is better than a foreign friend. Plus they think of USA as the "Satan". Trust me military action against Iraq is a very bad idea.

Then what do we do, just sit and wait for a 15kiloton bomb to go off in LA, or an outbreak of smallpox "which he has"? We know he's trying to get uranium

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

The answer to the question is no, countries like Japan and Germany have prospered but they were not exactly free from external influence. What matters is what the Iraqi people want and right now its very unclear to determine that. If I was a Iraqi, I would trust Saddam rather than USA because I guess a domestic tyrant is better than a foreign friend. Plus they think of USA as the "Satan". Trust me military action against Iraq is a very bad idea.

Then what do we do, just sit and wait for a 15kiloton bomb to go off in LA, or an outbreak of smallpox "which he has"? We know he's trying to get uranium

He had all this material from a long time back. I think he started acquiring uranium 2-3 years after the gulf war(the UN inspections stopped that time) and has been doing so all this while. Why should USA suddenly consider attacking Iraq after so many years?? Plus Iraq has never threatened to use thse devices against USA. I am sure they will use it against Israel but developing missile of that range to reach USA is way beyond their reach. Also why not attack countries like North Korea who also have nuclear weapons?

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

The answer to the question is no, countries like Japan and Germany have prospered but they were not exactly free from external influence. What matters is what the Iraqi people want and right now its very unclear to determine that. If I was a Iraqi, I would trust Saddam rather than USA because I guess a domestic tyrant is better than a foreign friend. Plus they think of USA as the "Satan". Trust me military action against Iraq is a very bad idea.

Then what do we do, just sit and wait for a 15kiloton bomb to go off in LA, or an outbreak of smallpox "which he has"? We know he's trying to get uranium

He had all this material from a long time back. I think he started acquiring uranium 2-3 years after the gulf war(the UN inspections stopped that time) and has been doing so all this while. Why should USA suddenly consider attacking Iraq after so many years?? Plus Iraq has never threatened to use thse devices against USA. I am sure they will use it against Israel but developing missile of that range to reach USA is way beyond their reach. Also why not attack countries like North Korea who also have nuclear weapons?

Why now, Sept. 11th, the fact that he's trying to shoot down our planes on a daily basis, the fact that we know he supports terrorism, that he will use the chemical weapons (just ask the kurds), the fact that Turkish officals intercepted a shippment of uranium last week 150 miles from the iraqi border. Iraq may not have threatened us with weapons and his first target would probably be Israel, but do we sit around and let that happen? As for North Korea, they are willing to have talks with the US and south Korea.

I ask you this, what do you propose we do. Just sit around and wait for Iraq to give some of it's weapons to a terrorist group to use on Americans. Then
when the attacks happens, are you going to be one of the liberals who say why didn't we do anything about it before hand, we knew he had the weapons?

 

[etech]

Zakath15

Read this.


Qusay Hussein

It will answer your question of "Why not let his own people remove him?"
"?It?s run by family members, tribal members, second cousins, their sons, their nephews ? It?s a tribal system that [runs] the country and family relations is the most sure to loyalty, in the system and a guarantor of having no coups, no assassinations from within,? he says.

Outside of the family, loyalty to the tribe, and especially to Saddam, is enforced by the ruthless eradication of all possible sources of opposition. "

The continued repression under Saddam may be a sign there remain many powerful people in Iraq critical of the regime, and possibly willing to someday do something about it. Then again, the repression may have successfully eliminated those most able to seize power from Saddam?s circle.

?My personal opinion is that there is very little well-placed opposition in the higher circles right now,? says Rick Francona, a retired U.S. Air Force intelligence officer who specialized in Iraq. ?There have been some really serious purges since 1996 and I think they?ve been pretty much weeded out.?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Why now, Sept. 11th, the fact that he's trying to shoot down our planes on a daily basis, the fact that we know he supports terrorism, that he will use the chemical weapons (just ask the kurds), the fact that Turkish officals intercepted a shippment of uranium last week 150 miles from the iraqi border. Iraq may not have threatened us with weapons and his first target would probably be Israel, but do we sit around and let that happen? As for North Korea, they are willing to have talks with the US and south Korea.

I ask you this, what do you propose we do. Just sit around and wait for Iraq to give some of it's weapons to a terrorist group to use on Americans. Then
when the attacks happens, are you going to be one of the liberals who say why didn't we do anything about it before hand, we knew he had the weapons?

Where is the link to September 11th? AFAIK, that link has never been provided.

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

 

[glenn1]

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: sean2002

Why now, Sept. 11th, the fact that he's trying to shoot down our planes on a daily basis, the fact that we know he supports terrorism, that he will use the chemical weapons (just ask the kurds), the fact that Turkish officals intercepted a shippment of uranium last week 150 miles from the iraqi border. Iraq may not have threatened us with weapons and his first target would probably be Israel, but do we sit around and let that happen? As for North Korea, they are willing to have talks with the US and south Korea.

I ask you this, what do you propose we do. Just sit around and wait for Iraq to give some of it's weapons to a terrorist group to use on Americans. Then
when the attacks happens, are you going to be one of the liberals who say why didn't we do anything about it before hand, we knew he had the weapons?

Where is the link to September 11th? AFAIK, that link has never been provided.

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

when I mentioned Sept. 11th, I was not saying he was involved but rather the times have changes since then and we really need to cover our ass, sorry for the confusion

 

[Buz2b]

Plus Iraq has never threatened to use thse devices against USA. I am sure they will use it against Israel but developing missile of that range to reach USA is way beyond their reach.

So, GoodToGo, are you saying that we should just sit back and watch while he "nukes" a couple of million Israelis?? No problem right? As long as it isn't our country! Or perhaps you would want to wait while he hands over one of his hastily built BIO weapons to some eager al Qaida member to smuggle to our shores. I mean why not?? After all, he hasn't threatened us with them, has he?? That would give him a perfect "out". Saddam, "I never detonated that weapon in the US. I have no knowledge of it and the world community cannot prove that I provided this weapon that killed all those people. Of course, I never lit the fires in those oil wells while my army was leaving Kuwaiti either. Oh, and by the way, I never gassed my own people either. And since we are talking about it, I was PROVOKED into invading Kuwaiti. They were the aggressors."
Yeah, lets all wait and see what happens. After all, Saddam has NEVER threatened the US. God help us!

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Buz2b

Plus Iraq has never threatened to use thse devices against USA. I am sure they will use it against Israel but developing missile of that range to reach USA is way beyond their reach.

So, GoodToGo, are you saying that we should just sit back and watch while he "nukes" a couple of million Israelis?? No problem right? As long as it isn't our country! Or perhaps you would want to wait while he hands over one of his hastily built BIO weapons to some eager al Qaida member to smuggle to our shores. I mean why not?? After all, he hasn't threatened us with them, has he?? That would give him a perfect "out". Saddam, "I never detonated that weapon in the US. I have no knowledge of it and the world community cannot prove that I provided this weapon that killed all those people. Of course, I never lit the fires in those oil wells while my army was leaving Kuwaiti either. Oh, and by the way, I never gassed my own people either. And since we are talking about it, I was PROVOKED into invading Kuwaiti. They were the aggressors."
Yeah, lets all wait and see what happens. After all, Saddam has NEVER threatened the US. God help us!

Woah, calm down, you will blow an artery or something. First of all in very simple words, USA cannot fight wars for other countries. I mean China wants to "reclaim"Taiwan and they are prepared to do anything to achieve this. So lets go ahead and send the marines to china. Secondly fighting for Israel will piss off the other "allies" of USA (Saudi Arabia, friendly arab countries) Even though nuking Israel is drastically wrong, they will view it as the best act by an Arab and will rally behind Saddam (trust me their hate for jews is monsterous) Thirdly there is no "solid proof" that nuclear wepaons are actually present in Iraq. There are theories and god knows what not but no one can actually prove that nuclear weapons exist in Iraq.

 

[gopunk]

not that this is very relevant, but saddam's son kidnaps women and tortures them until they cave in and have sex with him :|

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

The US has done worse to their own citizens. Not justifying his actions, but they were his actions. If anything, the US should be held to the same standard.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: gopunk
not that this is very relevant, but saddam's son kidnaps women and tortures them until they cave in and have sex with him :|

Apparently, he can't get any.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: glenn1

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

The US has done worse to their own citizens. Not justifying his actions, but they were his actions. If anything, the US should be held to the same standard.

when? i don't consider the tuskegee incident to be worse.... equitable maybe, but not worse.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: glenn1

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

The US has done worse to their own citizens. Not justifying his actions, but they were his actions. If anything, the US should be held to the same standard.

when? i don't consider the tuskegee incident to be worse.... equitable maybe, but not worse.

Not just that, also the radiation exposures, etc.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: glenn1

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

The US has done worse to their own citizens. Not justifying his actions, but they were his actions. If anything, the US should be held to the same standard.

when? i don't consider the tuskegee incident to be worse.... equitable maybe, but not worse.

Not just that, also the radiation exposures, etc.

oh that... bah, a little radiation never harmed anybody

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: glenn1

Saddam has absolutely no reason to use nukes; the only thing that could conceivably force him to use them is if he were physically (militarily) backed into a corner, which we are in the process of doing.

Was Saddam "backed into a corner" when he used VX toxin on the Kurds?

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading. There's plenty of places where we don't like the regime, but simply hold our nose and mind our business. And some leaders can actually learn how to somewhat behave after a little bit of "percussive maintainence" via a F-111 bombing run.... you haven't heard too much from Libya's Moamar Qaddafi lately, have you?

The US has done worse to their own citizens. Not justifying his actions, but they were his actions. If anything, the US should be held to the same standard.

when? i don't consider the tuskegee incident to be worse.... equitable maybe, but not worse.

Not just that, also the radiation exposures, etc.

oh that... bah, a little radiation never harmed anybody

But, doctor, it's glowing green...

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: GoodToGo

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
You have a good point, unfortunately Saddam has a son (think his name was Uday or something) who is more psychotic than Saddam himself. So the suffering of the Iraqi people will continue whether Saddam is alive or not.

So, here's a question... has any country ever been liberated from a despot or tyrant by another country (i.e. the US) and prospered afterward? Not counting conquered territories (i.e. after WWII, etc).

The answer to the question is no, countries like Japan and Germany have prospered but they were not exactly free from external influence. What matters is what the Iraqi people want and right now its very unclear to determine that. If I was a Iraqi, I would trust Saddam rather than USA because I guess a domestic tyrant is better than a foreign friend. Plus they think of USA as the "Satan". Trust me military action against Iraq is a very bad idea.

Then what do we do, just sit and wait for a 15kiloton bomb to go off in LA, or an outbreak of smallpox "which he has"? We know he's trying to get uranium

need i remiond everyone that we still don't know who is responsible for the Anthrax letters!!!!! Also, west nile virus is one ofhte biological agents Saddam has in his inventory! Coincidence?????