Why one soccer mom wants Hussein taken out

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

aptly put

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again.

So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq?
How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: charrison
How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison
How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

So we should pull out of Saudi, kuwait and qater, like Al queda wants us too..and let Iraq have full run of the region again?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again. So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq? How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Where we differ is that you perceive Saddam as a threat, and I see him as an annoyance. Should he shoot at our planes? No. Question here is are we flying missions so we will be shot at? I think this was the case at least at one point. He violated agreements, but many have. The question is how does that affect us in a tangible sense. Not how much does he piss us off. If it is decided that he has sites producing something nasty, why not bomb it if bombing is what you want? Why attack a whole country? I see many advocating war, but not thinking through to consequences. We did not do that in Vietnam either. We paid a great price for that and in more than lives. No, he is a bad man and does things he should not. He might one day do something bad, but maybe not. No, I cannot support what I see happening because of ego and fear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

So we should pull out of Saudi, kuwait and qater, like Al queda wants us too..and let Iraq have full run of the region again?

Al Queda does not really want us to pull out. They want a war and kick us out. It is not the same. Al Queda and the Fundamentalists are the real threat. Bin Laden WANTS war.

As to how long should we tolerate Saddams antics? Forever, or until he is shown to be a threat to the US.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again. So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq? How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Where we differ is that you perceive Saddam as a threat, and I see him as an annoyance. Should he shoot at our planes? No. Question here is are we flying missions so we will be shot at? I think this was the case at least at one point. He violated agreements, but many have. The question is how does that affect us in a tangible sense. Not how much does he piss us off. If it is decided that he has sites producing something nasty, why not bomb it if bombing is what you want? Why attack a whole country? I see many advocating war, but not thinking through to consequences. We did not do that in Vietnam either. We paid a great price for that and in more than lives. No, he is a bad man and does things he should not. He might one day do something bad, but maybe not. No, I cannot support what I see happening because of ego and fear.

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no.
Was afganistan another vietnam? no
What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice?
Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so.
What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous.
Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES
Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily
Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES
Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES
Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt.


The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

So we should pull out of Saudi, kuwait and qater, like Al queda wants us too..and let Iraq have full run of the region again?

Al Queda does not really want us to pull out. They want a war and kick us out. It is not the same. Al Queda and the Fundamentalists are the real threat. Bin Laden WANTS war.

As to how long should we tolerate Saddams antics? Forever, or until he is shown to be a threat to the US.

Read Bin ladens last letter, he wants us completely out of the region and he wants us to convert to islam.

Bin laden and Saddam may not share ideals, but they have similar goals. They both want us out of there. You are greatly underestimating their reasons to work together.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Don't try and justify it you birkenstock wearing clover smoker. The government told me that drugs support terrorism and if you don't agree with them you might as well support the terrorists.

Ok, now just from a humor point of view, that was funny... 🙂

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

Wrong...

I want to go to war with Saddam because he is a menace to humanity, he cares for no one but himself, he threatens world peace, he has used WMD and wants more of them, etc...

All of humanity will be better off without him, of that fact you cannot deny...

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

What other nations do has nothing to do with Iraq...

Does this mean that I can go rob a gas station, and because others do it and get away with it you shouldn't put me in jail?

That's absurd, and so is letting Saddam off the hook for the same reason.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: charrison

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no.
Was afganistan another vietnam? no
What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice?
Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so.
What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous.
Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES
Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily
Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES
Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES
Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt.

The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

Well put!

Doing nothing is almost always more expensive and harder in the long run than doing something...

Several people have asked me "where is your evidence that Saddam plans to attack". Well if we actually had such evidence, we would just attack, there would be no two ways about that. The problem is, the first evidence we get might be in the form of a smoking hole in the ground where NYC used to be. Or 10,000 American deaths due to biological or chemical weapons.

In this case, we cannot wait for hard evidence, we have to go on the past history of the man, and in this case Saddam has provided decades of history that shows that he is unstable, does bad things, hates us, and doesn't mind seeing thousands of Americans die (he cheered the 9/11 attacks)

Grasshopper

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again. So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq? How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Where we differ is that you perceive Saddam as a threat, and I see him as an annoyance. Should he shoot at our planes? No. Question here is are we flying missions so we will be shot at? I think this was the case at least at one point. He violated agreements, but many have. The question is how does that affect us in a tangible sense. Not how much does he piss us off. If it is decided that he has sites producing something nasty, why not bomb it if bombing is what you want? Why attack a whole country? I see many advocating war, but not thinking through to consequences. We did not do that in Vietnam either. We paid a great price for that and in more than lives. No, he is a bad man and does things he should not. He might one day do something bad, but maybe not. No, I cannot support what I see happening because of ego and fear.

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no. Was afganistan another vietnam? no What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice? Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so. What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous. Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt. The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

The Gulf War was not Vietnam, and be sure if there is a next war, it wont be a Gulf War either. Do not be overconfident. You would substitute one petty dictator for thousands or more of dedicated terrorists. Why do you think the culture of the Middle East WANTS a democracy? You cannot be certain the citizens of Iraq will not take up arms against us. We will be invaders, and people do not take kindly to invaders even those with good intentions. Most of the soldiers in the Gulf War didnt want to fight about Kuwait. This time they will be fighting for their home. My prediction is that we will destablize the whole region, and that there will be a great chance that the secular goverments will fall to fundamentalists, or at least be controlled by them. I am too tired to debate further tonight on this, but in listening to Bush earlier today, I think we will find out how things will go. I hope you are right and I wrong.

 

[JellyBaby]

Well if we actually had such evidence, we would just attack

Exactly.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison
How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

So we should pull out of Saudi, kuwait and qater, like Al queda wants us too..and let Iraq have full run of the region again?

This is the million dollar question my friend, the whole situation in the Middle East is screwed up completely. There is no simple solution to this problem, and this is what some of you it seems fail to grasp. Some of you clamor for the head of Housein/Bin Laddin/Al Quida as if it will bring an end to the problems in the region and peace will be restored. What those don't realise is that the terrorist problem is one that is not going to be solved by violence.

Hate perpetuates itself. Some say that we are in the right and some say that we are in the wrong, (I would venture to say that right and wrong are simply illusions but I digress). This conflict is never going to end until we blow each other to bits unless we can somehow learn to understand each other. The cynic in me cracks up when I read that, maybe we as humans were doomed from the begining, but I hope for all of our sakes that there are people who believe that it can work on all sides and can do something.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again. So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq? How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Where we differ is that you perceive Saddam as a threat, and I see him as an annoyance. Should he shoot at our planes? No. Question here is are we flying missions so we will be shot at? I think this was the case at least at one point. He violated agreements, but many have. The question is how does that affect us in a tangible sense. Not how much does he piss us off. If it is decided that he has sites producing something nasty, why not bomb it if bombing is what you want? Why attack a whole country? I see many advocating war, but not thinking through to consequences. We did not do that in Vietnam either. We paid a great price for that and in more than lives. No, he is a bad man and does things he should not. He might one day do something bad, but maybe not. No, I cannot support what I see happening because of ego and fear.

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no. Was afganistan another vietnam? no What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice? Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so. What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous. Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt. The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

The Gulf War was not Vietnam, and be sure if there is a next war, it wont be a Gulf War either. Do not be overconfident. You would substitute one petty dictator for thousands or more of dedicated terrorists. Why do you think the culture of the Middle East WANTS a democracy? You cannot be certain the citizens of Iraq will not take up arms against us. We will be invaders, and people do not take kindly to invaders even those with good intentions. Most of the soldiers in the Gulf War didnt want to fight about Kuwait. This time they will be fighting for their home. My prediction is that we will destablize the whole region, and that there will be a great chance that the secular goverments will fall to fundamentalists, or at least be controlled by them. I am too tired to debate further tonight on this, but in listening to Bush earlier today, I think we will find out how things will go. I hope you are right and I wrong.

You are assuming the region is currently stable. Any stability in the region can easily be attributed to the US have at least 3 bases in the area.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Grasshopper

Argh, forget it. Go get em tiger. I have no doubt you will be the next Audy Murphy. Send pics from the front. Oh ever kill anyone? It might not be quite what you hope it is.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Not that this is acceptable, but what country doesn't thumb their nose to UN agreements? How is this any reason to attack a country?

What other nations do has nothing to do with Iraq...

Does this mean that I can go rob a gas station, and because others do it and get away with it you shouldn't put me in jail?

That's absurd, and so is letting Saddam off the hook for the same reason.

Grasshopper

So I, as a pro gas station robber with many a heist under my belt, can tell you, the fledgling gas station robber that robbing gas stations is wrong and proceed to beat you with a baseball bat

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Grasshopper

Argh, forget it. Go get em tiger. I have no doubt you will be the next Audy Murphy. Send pics from the front. Oh ever kill anyone? It might not be quite what you hope it is.

I'm not someone who only wants to send others to fight, I'm willing to do it too...

Gimmie an Apache helicopter, I'll go in shooting... 😀

Honestly, I would prefer to keep the death toll on both sides as low as possible, but a few people will have to die to do this. I can sleep at night because I know in the long run fewer people will die than if we do nothing.

Grasshopper

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider So Grasshopper, the reason why you want to go to war is because you do not like Saddam. You offer no evidence, therefore it is plain you have none. Poor reason to engage in something of which you clearly have no concept.

I will ask again. So how long do we continue to play a cat and mouse game with Iraq? How much longer do we allow iraq to thumb his nose at the cease fire agreement?

Where we differ is that you perceive Saddam as a threat, and I see him as an annoyance. Should he shoot at our planes? No. Question here is are we flying missions so we will be shot at? I think this was the case at least at one point. He violated agreements, but many have. The question is how does that affect us in a tangible sense. Not how much does he piss us off. If it is decided that he has sites producing something nasty, why not bomb it if bombing is what you want? Why attack a whole country? I see many advocating war, but not thinking through to consequences. We did not do that in Vietnam either. We paid a great price for that and in more than lives. No, he is a bad man and does things he should not. He might one day do something bad, but maybe not. No, I cannot support what I see happening because of ego and fear.

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no. Was afganistan another vietnam? no What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice? Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so. What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous. Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt. The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

The Gulf War was not Vietnam, and be sure if there is a next war, it wont be a Gulf War either. Do not be overconfident. You would substitute one petty dictator for thousands or more of dedicated terrorists. Why do you think the culture of the Middle East WANTS a democracy? You cannot be certain the citizens of Iraq will not take up arms against us. We will be invaders, and people do not take kindly to invaders even those with good intentions. Most of the soldiers in the Gulf War didnt want to fight about Kuwait. This time they will be fighting for their home. My prediction is that we will destablize the whole region, and that there will be a great chance that the secular goverments will fall to fundamentalists, or at least be controlled by them. I am too tired to debate further tonight on this, but in listening to Bush earlier today, I think we will find out how things will go. I hope you are right and I wrong.

You are assuming the region is currently stable. Any stability in the region can easily be attributed to the US have at least 3 bases in the area.

The region is relatively stable. I do not see a war there. The only power that seriously threatens one is the US. Oh I forgot about Israel and Palestine. I see all the Israeli firepower is keeping it's citizens healthy and happy. Both sides are killing each other and I will give you a hint. It is as bad as it is because they insist on killing each other. They are locked in a death spiral of their own design, and neither side is going to give in because each is right. Palestine is a tiny little group of people. Provoking the entire region into fundamentalism isnt going to be fun for us, if we had 30 bases.

Anyway, outta here for now

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
The region is relatively stable. I do not see a war there.

You missed his point...

The region is stable now because the United States of America has tens of thousands of troops there...

If we pulled out and left, the place would fall apart within a few months, it would be a disaster...

Grasshopper

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually I did not miss it, but I was distracted by the thought of the hundreds of thousands that will have to be stationed there after the war, and the smell of death that I know from experience that you do not. Sorry, but I was strolling dowm memory lane.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Actually I did not miss it, but I was distracted by the thought of the hundreds of thousands that will have to be stationed there after the war, and the smell of death that I know from experience that you do not. Sorry, but I was strolling dowm memory lane.

Sometimes when making an omlette you have to break a few eggs...

Do you want the omlette or not? Personally, I do...

Grasshopper

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Actually I did not miss it, but I was distracted by the thought of the hundreds of thousands that will have to be stationed there after the war, and the smell of death that I know from experience that you do not. Sorry, but I was strolling dowm memory lane.

Hundreds of thousands will not need to be stationed there afterwards. Tens of thousands will be a more likely number.

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: charrison

Was the gulf war 1.0 another vietnam? no.
Was afganistan another vietnam? no
What is the cost of keeping Saddam pinned in a box because he does want to play nice?
Do our risks increase the longer we keep him in a box? I think so. You THINK so?
What is the cost of removing him? I would venture cheaper than the previous. You VENTURE?
Would greater good be accomplished by removing him? YES
Could we pull out of saudi and kuwait after his removal? easily You're not serious, are you?
Would we be able to completely ignore saudi after his removal? YES I doubt that...
Would a democratic islamic nation be good for the region? YES
Do I think Saddam is able, willing and currently fund terrorist cells that want to do damage to the US? Without doubt.

The reasons for removing him are very clear. Doing nothing is going to be a far more expensive solution.

Well put!

Doing nothing is almost always more expensive and harder in the long run than doing something...

Just because it's harder & more expensive doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, it's usually the other way around..

<snip>

In this case, we cannot wait for hard evidence, we have to go on the past history of the man, and in this case Saddam has provided decades of history that shows that he is unstable, does bad things, hates us, and doesn't mind seeing thousands of Americans die (he cheered the 9/11 attacks)

Grasshopper

Here's the thing that some people have touched on, but that Grashopper & a few others seem to be missing. Hussein is just a man. You kill him, someone else takes his place. That replacement may be better for us, or may be worse. I think historically our manipulation of other governments usually makes things at least more complicated, if not worse (but I'm not sure about that, so I won't continue to argue that point).

What I see as the problem with this situation is - we're not fighting a man, we're fighting an entire anti-USA attitude. Let's face it - a lot of people hate us, and for good reason. We've bombed the sh!t out of countries, we muck around trying to "fix" governments that are "bad", and we try to punish "bad guys" with sanctions. If Iraq's people are starving, who do they blame? It ain't Saddam. Regardless of what our version of the "truth" is, to Irag's people the US is the bad guy. There is so much hate and anger toward the US that taking out Hussein will probably only fan the flames.

Here's another thing to think about - yes, according to western philosophy, we argueably have the best system going. But - surprise surprise - NOT everyone wants our kind of civilization! Hard as it may be to believe, some cultures don't wish for a McDonald's & Walmart on every corner and DSL & DirecTV in every home. When the American military spreads its "democracy", the American corporations are sure to follow. I like our style of living, but I also don't think its our right and duty to stamp out every other native culture in the world. Especially since our's is so perfect - you know: kids bringing war into school, Americans getting fatter and fatter, increasing prison populations, ultra-consumeristic wasteful lifestyles, environmental rape (although, we are better than a lot of 3rd world countries, and we are improving), etc etc.

*climbs off soapbox*