Why one soccer mom wants Hussein taken out

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

well said tweak. how many children are starving right now because of sanctions against iraq?

Those deaths are Saddam's responsibility, not ours...

not if we start running bombing campaigns

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Ok class, how many evil dicators still in power today have used weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone? Anyone?

Thats RIGHT! One... His name just happens to be Saddam Hussein...

Go figure... 🙂

Grasshopper

Hmm, you must have seen something that the UN inspectors haven't. Please do share your inside source of information.

But I can name a much more legitimate threat, that is much more likely to have weaspons of mass destruction... It's this wonderful place named "North Korea".

And I'm guessing you think that an Iraqi child isn't as important as an American child. You know, theres a "soccer" mom in Iraq, thinking the same exact thing. What right do we have to kill numerous civilians and childrens, destroying lives and families? We're obviously not doing it for their own good, we're doing it for OUR own good. If another sovergeign government didn't like our leader, would it be alright for them to bomb the US?

Keep in mind that the United States is the only country to EVER use an Atomic Bomb on foreign soil. Also remember that a neculear bomb is far more powerful then chemical warfare. The death tolls could equal but the destrucion of a neculear bomb is far greater. I think grasshopper should turn his evil dictator detection powers somewhere else.

 

[BatmanNate]

The whole maternal instinct must really be kicking in, when her munchkins are obviously braving the constant danger of the soccer field (no land mines, mind you) or the SUV (not quite a tank but we're getting there.) Left with any other options, Sadaam is not blatently dumb enough to be bated into making an unprovoked assault on the US or its citizens. That would be certain anihilation. Unless he was already cornered and perhaps had no other option, but surely that situation will never arise with our fearless leadership.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: illusion88

But how can he if he does not have the means to do so? They are his responsibility but he cant walk without any legs.

There would be no sanctions if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, thus everything about them becomes his fault.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Those terrorists connected to Iraq are going to smuggle them weapons of mass destruction under thier jackets right? Hes imaginary navy and air force are going to miraculously drop them on the US also.

Sure, why not?

Chemical weapons can easily be shipped or carried in small cases...

We have a prime example of a racist right here. Americans > Iraqis.

No, we're not better than them, all humans are equal. It is just the leaders who are the bad guys. Not to worry, I fully support helping out the Iraqi people after Saddam is gone, we'll spend a lot of money making their nation better...

Grasshopper

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: illusion88

But how can he if he does not have the means to do so? They are his responsibility but he cant walk without any legs.

There would be no sanctions if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions, thus everything about them becomes his fault.

Grasshopper

Which brings up an interesting point - to my knowledge, the NFZ's weren't included in the UN resolutions - they were instituted solely by the US and UK after the war was over. If they are, aren't they an act of aggression by the US and UK towards Iraq?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

not if we start running bombing campaigns

If we have to bomb Iraq to remove Saddam because he doesn't comply with UN resolutions, then those bombing deaths become his fault too...

We wouldn't have to bomb if he complies, so anything after his non-compliance is his fault.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: illusion88

Keep in mind that the United States is the only country to EVER use an Atomic Bomb on foreign soil. Also remember that a neculear bomb is far more powerful then chemical warfare. The death tolls could equal but the destrucion of a neculear bomb is far greater. I think grasshopper should turn his evil dictator detection powers somewhere else.

Yes, and we saved millions of lives by doing that. At the time, it made sense, but we didn't know about the effects of nuclear weapons until later.

Notice that we have not repeated that event, nor will we.

Grasshopper

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

No, we're not better than them, all humans are equal. It is just the leaders who are the bad guys. Not to worry, I fully support helping out the Iraqi people after Saddam is gone, we'll spend a lot of money making their nation better...

Grasshopper

Of course we will. Never mind the fact that we're facing an increasingly bad economic future ourselves.

It's okay, though.

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Hmm, you must have seen something that the UN inspectors haven't. Please do share your inside source of information.

But I can name a much more legitimate threat, that is much more likely to have weaspons of mass destruction... It's this wonderful place named "North Korea".

Grimlock, what rock have you been hiding under? 🙂

Saddam has used chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people. These have been well documented many times over...

He is the only living person to have used weapons of mass destruction against people, period...

Not to worry, North Korea's time will come. We would be foolish to attack both at the same time, they can wait their turn.

Grasshopper

Those terrorists connected to Iraq are going to smuggle them weapons of mass destruction under thier jackets right? Hes imaginary navy and air force are going to miraculously drop them on the US also.

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates America...
We have a prime example of a racist right here. Americans > Iraqis.

No, the real threat is in the briefcase shipped via USPS. Or the "dirty bomb" package that was mailed to some company in the heart of SF, or the bomb hidden on boat, on a train anywhere. I saw this thing on CNN i think it was, where they mailed a briefcase that had a sample of a very unsaturated piece of Plutonium or something like that. It wasn't harmful, but it could be made to be so. I didn't see the whole thing, but the gist of it was, is that they mailed it from accross seas, and it got to America undected. It went through subways in New York, Planes that landed in Boston (i bet, not sure).

Basiclly said, we are at risk. We may be able to stop the nuke from accross the seas, and shoot down the planes, but we cant stop the small things, the things that slip under the radar.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

well said tweak. how many children are starving right now because of sanctions against iraq?

More like how many starve because Hussien would rather spend money on weapons than on food for his people.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Which brings up an interesting point - to my knowledge, the NFZ's weren't included in the UN resolutions - they were instituted solely by the US and UK after the war was over. If they are, aren't they an act of aggression by the US and UK towards Iraq?

No, because there are UN resolutions about Saddam not attacking his own people. The NFZs were put into place when he started doing just that after the Gulf War.

Thus, they are in direct responce to Saddam again not complying with UN resolutions...

Grasshopper

 

[yellowperil]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

Exactly.

Also, does she really think taking out Saddam is going to eliminate terrorist threats? The whole article seems like a parody.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: illusion88
No, the real threat is in the briefcase shipped via USPS. Or the "dirty bomb" package that was mailed to some company in the heart of SF, or the bomb hidden on boat, on a train anywhere. I saw this thing on CNN i think it was, where they mailed a briefcase that had a sample of a very unsaturated piece of Plutonium or something like that. It wasn't harmful, but it could be made to be so. I didn't see the whole thing, but the gist of it was, is that they mailed it from accross seas, and it got to America undected. It went through subways in New York, Planes that landed in Boston (i bet, not sure).

Basiclly said, we are at risk. We may be able to stop the nuke from accross the seas, and shoot down the planes, but we cant stop the small things, the things that slip under the radar.

Exactly, and the only way to prevent it is to kill the bad guys before they can attack.

Saddam is a bad guy, and after 9/11, we cannot allow people like him access to WMD, period...

Grasshopper

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Funny how one statement can be taken two completely different ways...

If your post was sarcastic (which I hope it was), then I apologize.

and the second part is pure lunacy.

okay, so the "second part" I'm referring to here is:

a matter of simple self-defense we have the right to take him out.

Just to make that clear.

Ok class, how many evil dicators still in power today have used weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone? Anyone?

Thats RIGHT! One... His name just happens to be Saddam Hussein...

Go figure... 🙂

and how does that have anything to do with defending the USA? Has he *ever* shown *any* capability to strike targets in the US?

okay, whatever, I don't need to argue this any more... others have ridiculed your statement enough already that I hope you realize how dumb it was.
Briefly, armedPreemption!=goodForeignPolicy

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

No, we're not better than them, all humans are equal. It is just the leaders who are the bad guys. Not to worry, I fully support helping out the Iraqi people after Saddam is gone, we'll spend a lot of money making their nation better...

Grasshopper

Of course we will. Never mind the fact that we're facing an increasingly bad economic future ourselves.

It's okay, though.

Economic signals are up forthe most part. The market is up, unemployment is down, retail sales are up, profits are up,...

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

Exactly.

Also, does she really think taking out Saddam is going to eliminate terrorist threats? The whole article seems like a parody.

It gets rid of one of them...

Grasshopper

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Exactly, and the only way to prevent it is to kill the bad guys before they can attack.

You can't fight hate with bombs. Especially when the hate is individual, spanning many countries, and not state supported.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Exactly, and the only way to prevent it is to kill the bad guys before they can attack.

You can't fight hate with bombs. Especially when the hate is individual, spanning many countries, and not state supported.

But you can make things difficult for those countries that harbor the terrorist....

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

Exactly.

Also, does she really think taking out Saddam is going to eliminate terrorist threats? The whole article seems like a parody.

It gets rid of one of them...

Grasshopper

and how many more will pop up in his place?
Actualy, if you know anything about the CIAs involvement with the resitance groups that operated inside of Bagdad, the reason that we haven't taken Housein out yet is that if we did, Iraq would become very splintered, thus making the activities of the terror cells many times harder to track

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

Exactly.

Also, does she really think taking out Saddam is going to eliminate terrorist threats? The whole article seems like a parody.

It gets rid of one of them...

Grasshopper

and how many more will pop up in his place?

True that. You may stop this indvidual, but you cant stop us all. After all, we are all alike.

A full scale invasion as Grasshopper is proposing is not the answer. Killing the Iraqis is not the way to go. Who are we to decide which civilian gets hit by the bombs? Is the United States God? Are we know imbued with the power to judge others? Can you tell me that the civilians that we kill (and you cant say that we won't) are all evil, are all bad?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: illusion88

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

Exactly.

Also, does she really think taking out Saddam is going to eliminate terrorist threats? The whole article seems like a parody.

It gets rid of one of them...

Grasshopper

and how many more will pop up in his place?

True that. You may stop this indvidual, but you cant stop us all. After all, we are all alike.

A full scale invasion as Grasshopper is proposing is not the answer. Killing the Iraqis is not the way to go. Who are we to decide which civilian gets hit by the bombs? Is the United States God? Are we know imbued with the power to judge others? Can you tell me that the civilians that we kill (and you cant say that we won't) are all evil, are all bad?

And your solution is?

Are you ready to convert to islam to avoid the wrathe of the jihadist?

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: charrison
And your solution is?

Are you ready to convert to islam to avoid the wrathe of the jihadist?

yep, Saddam Hussein, jihadist extraordinaire

 

[illusion88]

When you install me as dictator of the world ill abolish all religion.
hows that? good enough?

My solution?
DONT INVADE! We can not kill Iraqi's by well... NOT KILLING THEM!
It doesn't take a weatherman to tell me the weather. Jeb says he will invade, he now has the power to do so. But who says he has to use it? There is no real need besides to prove to his dad that he has a bigger dick. And lets not forget oil and money, but thats another debate, no use to bring it in here. Right now I do not feel that we are at a huge risk of attack. True, he can sneak something by, something we never thought about. He can inlist US citizens and work from the inside. The US is not invincible. But why attack? Why put our boys at risk of death?

 

[gopunk]

i have no opinion on this iraq thing, i really don't... i don't know what will happen if we do what. but i will say this... that article was written by what seems to be an IDIOT. wtf kind of argument is that? "duh.... i was against it... but now i have kids... and the new george bush convinced me.... duh... lets attack... duh..."