Heh, I hope you and Bush are right. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we will get rid of WMD once and for all, and that we will be protected from terrorist attack. I guess I don't have the intelligence like you to see how getting rid of small potato like Saddam in terms of owning WMD, and someone who doesn't have al qaeda link like him will protect us from all those evil. Oh yeah, not to mention hundreds of billion we are gonna spend in the war, rebuild Iraq, all in this crappy economic condition. And all that is assuming we will have short and successful war, with little oil fields distroyed. Heck, we better be perfectly protected with the price tag of going in alone.
Heh, I hope you and Bush are right. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, we will get rid of WMD once and for all, and that we will be protected from terrorist attack. I guess I don't have the intelligence like you to see how getting rid of small potato like Saddam in terms of owning WMD, and someone who doesn't have al qaeda link like him will protect us from all those evil. Oh yeah, not to mention hundreds of billion we are gonna spend in the war, rebuild Iraq, all in this crappy economic condition. And all that is assuming we will have short and successful war, with little oil fields distroyed. Heck, we better be perfectly protected with the price tag of going in alone.
well said, but the US will always maintain the right to act separately in her own interests of security. There are legitimate concerns the WMD he is known to posses could be given to others who would use them against us. I honestly believe if 9/11 had not happened we would not be there, Saddam would be contained and eventaully forced to comply along a uniformly agreed upon timetable, however the knowledge of his links to terrosists, coupled with his complete refusal to comply and destroy or even account for his WMD leaves us little choice other than remove him, or allow him to remain and possibly unleash chemical/biological/nuclear destruction on the world, through his own hands or those he armed. Both he and the groups we fear he might arm have shown the willingness to kill innocent civilians.
I can't understand how ANY resoltuion would have left him in power, full compliance would have left him unchecked again.
I can't understand how ANY resoltuion would have left him in power, full compliance would have left him unchecked again.
I will admit that I have not read this entire thread, I did read the last 25 replies. Has anyone noted that Iraq has not included any WMD on the missles that they have launched. If thay have WMD, why would they hang on to them? What would they have to lose if thay used tham? After all thay are in a war that they are sure to lose, even they are not so crazy that they don't know that. So looking at this situation coldly and clearly, PERHAPS Iraq really doesn't have WMD or at least doesn't have the ability to deliver them
well we now control most of the oil fields so your "concerns" there can be put to rest. You consider 10,000 liters of anthrax and TONS of vx nerve agent "small potatoes".?I'm sorry ou are not aware of Saddam'slinks to terrorism, research his payment to families of suicide bombers, ask yourself why an Al-Queda operative wounded in Afghanistan was making phone calls to his family from a state run military hospital in Baghdad?
Your continous comments about Bush suggest you are just anti-bush, spend the taxes on schools, not the military, YOU AND BUSH?etc.. those are not astute observations about this conflict or the adminisrations policies regarding the war. Your rant is obviously beaucse you are a democrat. Keep your political leanings out of this.
Yeah, put a label on me and you can get away with all the questions I raised here. I am surprised from your "show me" attitude on number of country against the war, that you come up with 10,000 liters of antrax and TONS of vx nerve agent argument. That's the stuff UNACCOUNTED FOR FROM INFORMATION 10+ YEARS AGO. Even UN with their inspector there couldn't make that conclusion and you can. And one al-qaeda member call from a hospital in Iraq established an unmistakable link of Iraq to al-qaeda, never mind Bin Ladin call Hussein an infidel.
BTW, I truely hope Hussein doesn't have that kind of chemical weapon, I hope the soldiers in Iraq won't have to deal with that.
Saddam realizes if he uses them the whole world will gladly be quiet while we eliminate him. The airfields captured today were supposedly a storing and launching facility for WMD, one of them at least, those were the ones pointed at Israel, we will find out soon enough I'm sure if they were there and loaded.
those numbers are UN numbers, know where they got them? Saddam himself.... HELL OUR OWN COUNTRY GAVE HIM SOME YEARS AGO, the burden of proof of not having or having destroyed is his. You think if he had LEGITIMATE proof he had gotten rid of all his WMD he just withheld it so he could be attacked? Yes, why show you are in full comliance, which would lift all sanctions and international oversight and allow you to remain in power when you can hide the ONLY evidence that could save your life..... hhhmmmm that logic has me a bit confused.
Honestly, how many undeveloped countries would have the power to publicly defy the U.S., very few. Without US aid and support they would be in far worse shambles. Countries that have stood up to the US are developed countries that don't rely on the US for economic well being. And countries that support US, how many are actually contributing anything besides their word? Also, these countries may be supporting the US because they actually believe in Bush and they believe in the reasons his administration has provided. Even if they didn't believe, do you honestly think they would publicly state otherwise?
Alistar, you need to get over the numbers, because you're arguing on a weak point. I see that half this boards posts are made by you, so according to your train of thought, you MUST be right, and we don't count. Or maybe that's because we have lives to attend to and you're more focused on this war, or this argument, then even top military officials.
Alistar, you need to get over the numbers, because you're arguing on a weak point. I see that half this boards posts are made by you, so according to your train of thought, you MUST be right, and we don't count. Or maybe that's because we have lives to attend to and you're more focused on this war, or this argument, then even top military officials.
nope wrong ASSUMPTION on your part, but I would like to know if there isa total number of those offficially and publicly opposed, why is that such an incredible request?
I will agree there is most likely a majority against, I would just like to quantify that as well, and I need the other number..
I will agree there is most likely a majority against, I would just like to quantify that as well, and I need the other number..
Oh, so now you are using logic to guess why Hussein did or didn't do something now? I wonder why you don't use logic for number of countries against the US, and insist on wanting to see the official number. I bet I know why, it doesn't fit your theory.
Hussein may or may not have WMD, and I believe it is UN inspector's job to find out, and they were making progress before the war start. Now the war has started, I don't agree with the reason it was started, but I do hope it ends quickly with our victory and minimune death on both side.
Emphasis mine, and now I'm not harping on your spelling.
Do you know what a jihad is? That's an ongoing declared war against the US. It doesn't justify terrorist attacks. Of course, to us they're terrorist attacks because we're the victim. Right now, Iraq is looking at the picture and calling it a terrorist attack. We're looking at it and saying all's fair in love and war... well, war at least. It's all a matter of which shoes you happen to be wearing at the time.
Stuff like this probably happens every day, except this time, instead of the CIA, Bush sent the whole military.
It looks as if so far the doomsday predictions of the anti-war side have NOT happened. What are the thoughts from that side now? What is going to be the new rallying point?
It is apparent that a majority of the countries in the world are opposed to the war. Anyone in support has all ready stated it publicly except for the 15 countries who agreed to help us but don't want their names publicly known. Anyone who supported the US position would surely state it as they'd expect some good to come from their support in the way of aid or whatever in the future. If you use the argument of significant vs. insignificant countries, the coalition of the willing has a majority of the world's military power. However, that is not the best way to frame the issue as each countries opinion should hold some merit.
That being said, the UN resolution proposed by France et al with a 45 day deadline (I believe Chirac was willing to discuss a 30 day deadline) would not have included an ultimatum. France did not want Saddam removed - they've invested much time in their relationship with him and have much to lose when he is removed.
This war will only help Bush politically if it is found to be justified. If the war is proven frivolous, he's gone. This fact leads me to believe that there must be enough evidence to justify military action.
On a side note, it seems very likely that Iraq has fired some SCUD missiles (heard it on the news, not certain of it's validity). They were never declared.
To criticize the US government structure is ludicrous. It has proven to be the most stable government in the world for the last 200+ years. The electoral college is likely an artifact of the time when the popular vote could not effectively be counted immediately on a national scale. As such, each state would count their popular votes and the electors for that state would cast the votes accordingly (apparently, they do not have to vote with their states popular vote; however, they usually do so).
That being said, the UN resolution proposed by France et al with a 45 day deadline (I believe Chirac was willing to discuss a 30 day deadline) would not have included an ultimatum. France did not want Saddam removed - they've invested much time in their relationship with him and have much to lose when he is removed.
This war will only help Bush politically if it is found to be justified. If the war is proven frivolous, he's gone. This fact leads me to believe that there must be enough evidence to justify military action.
On a side note, it seems very likely that Iraq has fired some SCUD missiles (heard it on the news, not certain of it's validity). They were never declared.
To criticize the US government structure is ludicrous. It has proven to be the most stable government in the world for the last 200+ years. The electoral college is likely an artifact of the time when the popular vote could not effectively be counted immediately on a national scale. As such, each state would count their popular votes and the electors for that state would cast the votes accordingly (apparently, they do not have to vote with their states popular vote; however, they usually do so).
Two things to throw in the pot. I've heard France may have been VERY concerned about their sizable Islamic population turning to terrorism if they backed the forced disarmament. A valid concern, if true. Better than the monetary loss from trade with Iraq, being their overriding issue. Not sure where I heard that, and can't find a link, but I stumbled on another interesting one.
Second, we've set a precedent that will be very advantageous in the future. From now on, we won't have to send 250,000 troops halfway around the world to help drive home the point that we'll do what we say. No empty threats, unlike some organizations I know of.
Might be a real money saver when dealing with North Korea...
Second, we've set a precedent that will be very advantageous in the future. From now on, we won't have to send 250,000 troops halfway around the world to help drive home the point that we'll do what we say. No empty threats, unlike some organizations I know of.
I can't decide if I'm for or against the war. On one hand, I'm fairly certain I'm a liberal (but not a peacenik by any means) and I am disgusted by Bush's policies and attitude of acting unilaterally on important issues. On the other, his reasons for going to war are fairly solid.
But if I was an Iraqi... I would most definitely want a change of regime... Hussein is president in name only - he's a dictator, and he and his sons rule with an iron fist. His being reelected with a 99% vote in the "polls" is the biggest sham ever...
And thats why I'm leaning towards the idea that we're doing the right thing - in the name of democracy.
But if I was an Iraqi... I would most definitely want a change of regime... Hussein is president in name only - he's a dictator, and he and his sons rule with an iron fist. His being reelected with a 99% vote in the "polls" is the biggest sham ever...
And thats why I'm leaning towards the idea that we're doing the right thing - in the name of democracy.
Originally posted by: Ornery
Two things to throw in the pot. I've heard France may have been VERY concerned about their sizable Islamic population turning to terrorism if they backed the forced disarmament. A valid concern, if true. Better than the monetary loss from trade with Iraq, being their overriding issue. Not sure where I heard that, and can't find a link, but I stumbled on another interesting one.
Second, we've set a precedent that will be very advantageous in the future. From now on, we won't have to send 250,000 troops halfway around the world to help drive home the point that we'll do what we say. No empty threats, unlike some organizations I know of.Might be a real money saver when dealing with North Korea...
The sizable Islamic population of France is a valid point. However, I do not think that they are the overriding concern. Many Islamic countries do not support the US invasion of Iraq, but none are vehemently opposing - this may be due solely to fear of the US military. However, I don't think many of the Islamic countries are very happy with Saddam anyway. How does the size of the Islamic population in France compare to the size of the Islamic population in the US (in absolute numbers, not percentage)?
Only radical Islamics would resort to terrorism; most of them all ready hate the US so we are not really encouraging any additional terrorist attacks (they may spike temporarily due to the war, but the overall rate of attempted attacks should remain fairly constant). I guess there is a chance that the radical Islamics don't hate all developed nations and just the US, thereby allowing for a possible spike in terrosim within France if they were to support the war.
I agree that although the precedent being set by this military action has negative aspects, there will be positive effects as well. It should make negotiations with Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program more fruitful and serve to discourage other dictators from testing the US. (However, due to our ever-changing foreing policy this will likely be done anyway.)
In response to earlier comments regarding Japan not supplying military support for the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe they are allowed to be a military aggressor per the treaty that ended WWII. They are only allowed a defensive military. So, while they support us politically they are unable to even offer help militarily. I don't foresee Japan attempting a pre-emptive strike against North Korea. I expect they'd lose that battle.
I agree that we're doing the right thing. However, the government is selling it as such - "The Liberation of Iraq". While this is true, we are liberating Iraq, it is not the reason we are going to war. It that were the case, there would be a majority of the population against the war as opposed to for it. The government convinced the majority of the population (myself included) that it is in our best interest to disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddam (as disarmament can not be accomplished with him in power). Now, they are selling the war as the liberation of Iraq. This is probably to try and justify to others; I don't think it's going to work. The vast majority of people have all ready made up their mind regarding the war; only evidence found after the conclusion will serve to convince people that their position is right or wrong.
Why do people insist there is only ONE reason we are attacking Iraq.
It not just because of 9/11
It is not just becasue Saddam is a bad guy
It is not just because Iraq has WMD
It is a complex mixture of many reasons. Sure, add oil to the mix. I can't wait to crank those freakin wells wide open and "flood" the market with cheap oil. I can wait to vacation in Iraq some winter in the disant future, taking in the ancient history and watching the people enjoy the wealth only seen in other "non-dictator" arab countries.
It not just because of 9/11
It is not just becasue Saddam is a bad guy
It is not just because Iraq has WMD
It is a complex mixture of many reasons. Sure, add oil to the mix. I can't wait to crank those freakin wells wide open and "flood" the market with cheap oil. I can wait to vacation in Iraq some winter in the disant future, taking in the ancient history and watching the people enjoy the wealth only seen in other "non-dictator" arab countries.
Please don't even try to act ignorant about the whole position. Up until this war started there was nothing but horrific predictions from the anti-war side. Massive loss of life, chemical weapons used, errant bombs killed thousands of civilians, etc.
*Vomits*
It was all a load of crap and NOW it seems as if some want to act like it wasn't said. Please.
Coalition member contributions
This war is divisive b/c the citizens of almost every country in the world is opposed but the minority in support of it are represented by the most powerful military.
This war is divisive b/c the citizens of almost every country in the world is opposed but the minority in support of it are represented by the most powerful military.
i said screw reading all 7 pages, so im sorry if this has already been said
Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad
Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad
Clearly, Saddam's beating in 1991 was not lost on him. His Baghdad stand will go down in history as a whimperish last gasp or become a legendary strategy on how to suck in and then maim superior forces.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter