If Saddam Survives

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
etech is an idiot.

vs

etech is a tool.

We are talking about coursed of action to take with respect to the situation in Iraq. You have already demostrated and proven that you are an idiot Moonie, we don't need any further proof but thank you for your contribution.


MartyTheManiak

But surely you don't deny that Bush made war inevitable the minute he made Iraq his top priority.

Isn't this more of a case of which came first? Saddam has defied the UN resolutions for twelve years. I would contend that it is his fault if war occurs for not complying with the UN.

drewshin

on the other hand, what happens if he is taken out of power? they've got tons of this stuff, i'm sure most of it would disappear and resurface again from a thousand different points and be much harder to track, at least we know where everything is right now.

I think the fact that he has "tons of the stuff" is exactly why their is a desire to remove him form power. How do you know where it is and what he has done with it? There were stories that some of it may have already been moved into Syria. I doubt the safeguards are all that high.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: etech

But surely you don't deny that Bush made war inevitable the minute he made Iraq his top priority.

Isn't this more of a case of which came first? Saddam has defied the UN resolutions for twelve years. I would contend that it is his fault if war occurs for not complying with the UN.

I don't think compliance would have stopped Bush. Prior to september regime change, not disarnament, was all Bush talked about.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: etech

But surely you don't deny that Bush made war inevitable the minute he made Iraq his top priority.

Isn't this more of a case of which came first? Saddam has defied the UN resolutions for twelve years. I would contend that it is his fault if war occurs for not complying with the UN.

I don't think compliance would have stopped Bush. Prior to september regime change, not disarnament, was all Bush talked about.

What is the possibility of Saddam turning over a new leaf and reforming his administration? So far after twelve years of sanctions it doesn't seem that likely. The only other recourse is then to remove him from power.

Some people don't see that and still don't. Pres. Bush did.

BTW, Clinton started the regime change policy, he just didn't follow through with it.

"Clinton confirmed a new American policy calling for regime change in Baghdad. "The best way to end that threat once and for all," he said, "is with a new Iraqi government." Indeed, Congress had already passed ? and Clinton had signed ? the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for the United States to help finance efforts by Iraqi opposition groups to overthrow Saddam.
"

 

[lowtech1]

What will happen if Saddam is left in power?

Saddam is old and don't have many years left, and we could hopefully have a more diplomatic replacement.

1) How long can the sanctions on Iraq be left in force?

It would be cheaper if we try a more diplomatic approach, by trading & lessen the embargo (see the collapse of Cuba due to poor diplomatic reasoning).

2) What will guarantee that Saddam will not start rearming as soon as they inspectors leave?

Not thing, and American do believe in the right to keep & bear arms.

3) What effect will leaving Saddam in power have in encouraging terrorists to carry out attacks.

Why would it be any differ from other countries that the American policies suppressing?

4) Will the UN be seen as relevant after having him ignore twelve years of sanctions and then get away with it?

It is not the first time or will be the last time that the UN is being ignored (see India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia, China & the US).

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: lowtech

What will happen if Saddam is left in power?
Saddam is old and don't have many years left, and we could hopefully have a more diplomatic replacement.

Saddam has two sons that are just possible worse than he is. Read up on the power structure in Iraq. Just removing Saddam will not change anything and could possibly make things worse. A new government is necessary for change.

1) How long can the sanctions on Iraq be left in force?
It would be cheaper if we try a more diplomatic approach, by trading & lessen the embargo (see the collapse of Cuba due to poor diplomatic reasoning).

What good would that do? It has been twelve years so far and Saddam still has tons of nerve gas and there are reports of him still attempting to acquire the material for nuclear weapons.

2) What will guarantee that Saddam will not start rearming as soon as they inspectors leave?
Not thing, and American do believe in the right to keep & bear arms.

Even in America there are limits. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are banned. That is what the discussion is about.

3) What effect will leaving Saddam in power have in encouraging terrorists to carry out attacks.
Why would it be any differ from other countries that the American policies suppressing?

Get real please. What "other countries" is America "suppressing"?
No, I believe that leaving Saddam in power will encourage the people that believe that terrorism and nerve gas and such are the way to gain power and destabilze the world for their own ends.

4) Will the UN be seen as relevant after having him ignore twelve years of sanctions and then get away with it?
It is not the first time or will be the last time that the UN is being ignored (see India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia, China & the US).

So, because some are ignored than all of them should be? Why not just disband the UN right now?

 

[SuperTool]

What a bunch of hot air in that article. 95% of it has nothing to do with Saddam and could happen regardless of his removal.

 

[lowtech1]

?Saddam has two sons that are just possible worse than he is. Read up on the power structure in Iraq. Just removing Saddam will not change anything and could possibly make things worse. A new government is necessary for change.?

Agree that it is possible that the sons are worse, but it could be possible that they are can overcome the violent and better the lives of their people.

?What good would that do? It has been twelve years so far and Saddam still has tons of nerve gas and there are reports of him still attempting to acquire the material for nuclear weapons.?

Saddam is not the only person that is seeking weapon, but scores of others blantanly or secretly seeking the same goal, because they feel there is a threat that others that have those weapons have an advantage over them militarily and economically.

?Even in America there are limits. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are banned. That is what the discussion is about.?

We still have scores of WMD still sitting in silos pointing at our neighbors. And, we are developing bunker buster bombs, as well as ?depleted plutonium & uranium? weapon grade shells, that many others deemed as radio active that can have a long term affect.

?Get real please. What "other countries" is America "suppressing"?
No, I believe that leaving Saddam in power will encourage the people that believe that terrorism and nerve gas and such are the way to gain power and destabilze the world for their own ends.?

I could be wrong but America had a trade embargo with Cuba for a couple of decades & 19.5 years against Vietnam until recently that crippled their economy. I?m sure that there is more reasons than just culture, religions, and jealousy for the world to be annoy with us (see our unfair trading practice with our partners).

?So, because some are ignored than all of them should be? Why not just disband the UN right now??

What is the point to have the UN when they ignores people that truly needed their helps? (see Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Tibet, Israel, Palestine, etc...).

 

[etech]

lowtech

Agree that it is possible that the sons are worse, but it could be possible that they are can overcome the violent and better the lives of their people.

Possible but very doubtful. Pick the links that you want, they are all quite consistent.
Google

Saddam is not the only person that is seeking weapon, but scores of others blantanly or secretly seeking the same goal, because they feel there is a threat that others that have those weapons have an advantage over them militarily and economically.

Saddam is the one under UN sanctions for using them and invading another country. They others do not fit that criteria.

We still have scores of WMD still sitting in silos pointing at our neighbors. And, we are developing bunker buster bombs, as well as ?depleted plutonium & uranium? weapon grade shells, that many others deemed as radio active that can have a long term affect.

What's your point? That the US is as evil as Saddam?

I could be wrong but America had a trade embargo with Cuba for a couple of decades & 19.5 years against Vietnam until recently that crippled their economy. I?m sure that there is more reasons than just culture, religions, and jealousy for the world to be annoy with us (see our unfair trading practice with our partners).

Again, what's your point. Is the world or the US perfect, no, neither one is perfect. This discussion is what should be done in Iraq. I believe that Iraq is on a completely different plane than the events you are talking about.

What is the point to have the UN when they ignores people that truly needed their helps? (see Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Tibet, Israel, Palestine, etc...).

So perhaps it is time for the UN to stand up and try to help some people that need it.

 

[StageLeft]

If all this money and manpower will be spent we better see him in a bodybag at the end, By God!

 

[Moonbeam]

Boy oh boy, if you do a search on 'Bush's sons torture' like etech's 'Saddan's sons torture', it comes up pretty ugly too. Looks like we need some army to come in here and clean out the Bush league.

Google

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Boy oh boy, if you do a search on 'Bush's sons torture' like etech's 'Saddan's sons torture', it comes up pretty ugly too. Looks like we need some army to come in here and clean out the Bush league.

Google

You really should take your meds today Moonie.

Pres. Bush has two daughters. He has no sons.

They question was whether Saddam's sons could be worse than he is. The search I posted shows that it is not only possible but infact quite likely.

I'm sorry that you have such problems dealing with your family's history but you really should get some help to get over those feelings of abandoment. They are obviously still causing you problems.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Boy oh boy, if you do a search on 'Bush's sons torture' like etech's 'Saddan's sons torture', it comes up pretty ugly too. Looks like we need some army to come in here and clean out the Bush league.

Google

You really should take your meds today Moonie.

Pres. Bush has two daughters. He has no sons.

They question was whether Saddam's sons could be worse than he is. The search I posted shows that it is not only possible but infact quite likely.

I'm sorry that you have such problems dealing with your family's history but you really should get some help to get over those feelings of abandoment. They are obviously still causing you problems.

You want to get into Bush's family tree?

 

[Moonbeam]

Hagbard, you need to study history. Ther are two President Bushes even though only one was elected.

Edti: Sorry Hagbard, I understand now. It was the Genius that started it. Hehe, My apologies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, Red, I can contribute the poison. You wanna chip in, well, you know...

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

Whose viagra, Moonies? He'd have to start liking girls first.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

Whose viagra, Moonies? He'd have to start liking girls first.

I prefer women.. you know females over 18?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

Whose viagra, Moonies? He'd have to start liking girls first.

I prefer women.. you know females over 18?

So do I, but then I've been married to the same girl for over 20 years now so it is limited to one female.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

Whose viagra, Moonies? He'd have to start liking girls first.

I prefer women.. you know females over 18?

So do I, but then I've been married to the same girl for over 20 years now so it is limited to one female.

Do you have a link to back that up?

 

[Moonbeam]

She is pretty good.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Isn't there a way we could poison his Viagra?

Whose viagra, Moonies? He'd have to start liking girls first.

I prefer women.. you know females over 18?

So do I, but then I've been married to the same girl for over 20 years now so it is limited to one female.

Do you have a link to back that up?

Just the gray hairs!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
She is pretty good.

Yes Moonie, my wife is very good. She's a wonderful woman and a very good mother to our children.

Perhaps if you weren't still living with your mother you might actually meet a female sometime.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hehe, just curious as to how far down you like to play, etech. I see the gutter's a second home. I cede you the territory. I'll just wrap my homosexual ass up and head on home to Mommy. What foods these morsels be.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hehe, just curious as to how far down you like to play, etech. I see the gutter's a second home. I cede you the territory. I'll just wrap my homosexual ass up and head on home to Mommy. What foods these morsels be.

Moonie, please point out where I said you were a homosexual. I just want to know why you thought that I did.

 

[etech]

C'mon Moonie, I want to see why you allege that I called you a homosexual.

Normally I don't feed a troll like you but this time you have aroused my curiosity.