The protestors represent a large portion of society - some dumb people, some smart people. And don't tell me there aren't alot of dumb people who are pro-war for dumb reasons (like the fictitious Iraq al-Qeada 9/11 link).
The protestors represent a large portion of society - some dumb people, some smart people. And don't tell me there aren't alot of dumb people who are pro-war for dumb reasons (like the fictitious Iraq al-Qeada 9/11 link).
"ficticious" now? if it's not easy to find a iraqi/al-qaeda link, there are numerous iraqi/terrorist group links. Don't be fooled by the "dumb" protestors or the "dumb" pro-war people, the people tripping up on the answers for anti-war is because there is no answer. What are we supposed to do besides go to war? Sit idly? no. Pro-war people know that there is no other way to disarm Iraq and install a fairer regime, you don't need to be a genius to know that.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
1) Send in the marines/special forces and take out Saddam + government, without ruining the country even further by a fullblown war.
2) Until we have enough intel to immediately take out Saddam without starting a lengthy war.
3) No, Bush Sr should have taken him out in the first Gulf War already, and the US should not have supported him in the war against Iran.
4) Because more profits could be made this way I presume, or for PR in the region.
5) Unless he suddenly destroyed them he still has a lot of the weapons the US gave him for the war against Iran.
6) At least Hitler was an intelligent maniac, the intelligence is lacking in Bush.
WP article.
Newspapers here, which are state-controlled, have pushed a similar line in the wake of the protests, proclaiming that Hussein's government parried U.S. efforts to forge an international coalition to confront Iraq. Babel, a paper run by Hussein's eldest son, Uday, said the United States and Britain face "humiliating international isolation."
"The antiwar demonstrations across the world reflect a new chapter in the global balance of power," the paper said in an editorial earlier this week. "Everyone has noted that a new multipolar world is emerging. Iraq, with its oil, its resistance, its wise leaders and its strategic vision is an important and fundamental actor in this multipolar world."
Iraqi officials, displaying a similar confidence, have shifted their message from "We are complying" to a more insistent call for the lifting of economic sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
U.N. officials and diplomats here express belief that Hussein's government may have misread the position of most council members or may be seeking to continue a game of brinkmanship by parceling out concessions at the last minute to stymie U.S. efforts to generate consensus for military action.
"They are feeling: The world opinion is with us. We can resist further pressure. We have time. We can play with the U.S. and U.K.," a U.N. official said. "This is very dangerous."
Skyclad1uhm1
I express my opinions on your suggestions tonight when I have more time.
Anyone else have any alternative plans? I haven't yet seen one that seems at all realistic.
I feel as if I'g getting a cold but you deserve an answer.
1) I think you have been watching too many movies. Special forces could not "take out Saddam" and even if they could it would not solve a thing. Saddam has two sons and an entire organization that would just take over and continue in the same way. Special forces could not take out the government of Iraq. All you would accomplish is the deaths of a lot of our highly trained Special Forces guys.
2) The inspectors are not there to get intel to "take out Saddam".
3) Why should Bush have taken him out in 91? Did he have a mandate to do that? Saddam was given a chance to clean up his act. He didn't and now is the time to remove him for that failure.
4) How could more profits be made this way? I have the feeling that you just don't have much information on the subject in question.
5) I'd say he also has a lot of weapons that France, Germany and Russia sold him, your point is?
6) Let me know when you are a two time governor and the President of the United States. Then we'll talk about intelligence and the application of it.
C'mon, out of all of the protestors out there one of you must have an answer to how to deal with this situation.
Can someone answer me this question?
Assume that Iraq does comply enough for a few months to "show" that they have disarmed. The UN would then say great, welcome back to the world and drop all sanctions. Would a few more months of inspections really solve anything though? What is to keep Saddam and the scientists from going right back to producing more of the previously banned weapons?
If they are banned now, what difference does it make if the inspectors can't find them for a month or two if he can just rebuild them?
Assume that Iraq does comply enough for a few months to "show" that they have disarmed. The UN would then say great, welcome back to the world and drop all sanctions. Would a few more months of inspections really solve anything though? What is to keep Saddam and the scientists from going right back to producing more of the previously banned weapons?
If they are banned now, what difference does it make if the inspectors can't find them for a month or two if he can just rebuild them?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
I don't know. Would there be anything to stop other countries from aquiring these types of weapons? Do you propose that we pressure and invade these countries too?
I don't think that Hussien is going to disarm and that we will need to go in there. I just feel that it would be best for us to have the UN supporting this action. During the Gulf War we had other countries contribute tens of Billions of Dollars to help pay for the UN Sanctioned actions. If we go at Iraq without the UN's support we are going to end up paying for most of it. And the Military action isn't going to be the most expensive aspect of this action.
I don't think that Hussien is going to disarm and that we will need to go in there. I just feel that it would be best for us to have the UN supporting this action. During the Gulf War we had other countries contribute tens of Billions of Dollars to help pay for the UN Sanctioned actions. If we go at Iraq without the UN's support we are going to end up paying for most of it. And the Military action isn't going to be the most expensive aspect of this action.
i think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. no one in the administration has remotely said anything that would lead me to believe that we want to invade north korea because of their recent shenanigans. that persistant response from cabinet members has been that they think diplomacy will work with north korea, which i would have to agree with considering how much hot air nk has been spewing lately.
why would there be sanctions if we were successful in toppling saddam and destroying his gov't? the aftermath of this war will be quite different than the aftermath of the gulf war. there will be no sanctions because we will be running the gov't. we will find a suitable leader, which i'm a little leary about, and bush has already said that iraq is going to pay for its own reconstruction. it is one of the richest countries in the world if it is given a chance to run correctly and we have already said we don't want to pay for their reconstruction, so the costs of the aftermath will be much less than imposing sanctions have been for the past 13 years
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
We are going to invade Iraq and make them pays us for it? Wow that won't be msinterprated by those who think we are doing this for oil. What happens if Hussien decides to blow up all the Oil Rigs or contaminate them with Chemical or Biological weapons?
i agree that's how it will be interpreted, but when we have tried to get the u n to go along with us for so long and they continue to just sit back and accept games from iraq, that leaves us with the possibility of doing the whole thing ourselves, with britain. and you're right the costs would be high if we were to pay for it but why should we? they have ample sources of funds and oil is the reason they have a country so people shouldn't be surprised to see oil pay for the reconstruction. and those who would protest this notion are probably anti capitalist people who don't have solutions anyway
A gentleman on fox news summed up the anti war demonstrators perfectly the other day..."their ranks are miles wide but inches deep." Only a infestecimal few "want" war...we would all prefer to avoid it but that seems to be the best option towards the problem at hand right now. The anti war demonstrations get a lot of coverage because its virtually impossible to take the opposite position, that you "want" war and destruction. They get press coverage because of liberal slant and hollywood stupidity.
and let me also add that these "millions" are certainly not solely anti war...they are communist, enviromental whackos, anti capitalists who join protesting wal-mart, and every other leftist group under the sun. The anarchists join in seeking to loot pillage and burn every city where "anti-war" demonstrations are. War is just another thing to add on these professional protester's lists of things to demonstrate against.
1) It is widely accepted that using just special forces is not possible. In fact, that would likely draw out the war and cause more casualties. It would be better to use our whole force to discourage Iraqi soldiers into surrenduring because they know they cannot win.
2) Read answer for #1. We already have tons of "intel", but intel will not remove Saddam.
3) Agree that Bush should have taken Saddam out. But he succomed to political pressure to leave Saddam in power, the same political pressure people want Bush Jr. to answer to.
4) You are correct, profits for Iraq. We will help them install a new govt. of their choosing, and build up their infrastructure like we are currently doing for Afghanistan. We will spend the most money removing Saddam and building Iraq back up, but their govt. will get the proceeds from the oil sales. As a side-effect, gas prices will remain cheap in the US and around the world as a benefit to everyone.
5) Not only US weapons, but chemical and nuclear weapons Saddam squandered billions on by himself when he could have used that money to build his country's infrastructure. Same thing as with Kim Jong-il in N. Korea.
6) Bush is not a ruthless dictator. He pays attention to public opinion more than you give him credit for. If he really had his way, we would be in Iraq already. But he has repeatedly asked for the UN to back it's own resolution and even suggested a new resolution against Saddam. How is that ignoring the rest of the world for his own personal gain? I have a question for you. How many of his own people has Bush killed due to political opposition? The Patriot Act is an erosion of liberties, but it's not quite the same as invading other countries and shipping off millions of Jews to concentration camps!
2) Read answer for #1. We already have tons of "intel", but intel will not remove Saddam.
3) Agree that Bush should have taken Saddam out. But he succomed to political pressure to leave Saddam in power, the same political pressure people want Bush Jr. to answer to.
4) You are correct, profits for Iraq. We will help them install a new govt. of their choosing, and build up their infrastructure like we are currently doing for Afghanistan. We will spend the most money removing Saddam and building Iraq back up, but their govt. will get the proceeds from the oil sales. As a side-effect, gas prices will remain cheap in the US and around the world as a benefit to everyone.
5) Not only US weapons, but chemical and nuclear weapons Saddam squandered billions on by himself when he could have used that money to build his country's infrastructure. Same thing as with Kim Jong-il in N. Korea.
6) Bush is not a ruthless dictator. He pays attention to public opinion more than you give him credit for. If he really had his way, we would be in Iraq already. But he has repeatedly asked for the UN to back it's own resolution and even suggested a new resolution against Saddam. How is that ignoring the rest of the world for his own personal gain? I have a question for you. How many of his own people has Bush killed due to political opposition? The Patriot Act is an erosion of liberties, but it's not quite the same as invading other countries and shipping off millions of Jews to concentration camps!
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Ok, I want to scream. STOP LYING. First you claim that 100k Iraqi CIVILIANS died during the gulf war, then you post your proof which clearly claims "100,000 Iraqi soldiers". This might be tough for you to follow, but SOLDIERS ARE NOT CIVILLIANS.
Bill
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter