Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Phillip Tanaka, Feb 14, 2003.
But it's not as much fun.
Saddam hates the united states and the british to an extent that he would strike at both by any means possible that would not be linked to him because the only thing he wants more than to destroy the western world is to stay in power and so far, he is doing a good job of it.
The american government might be better off offering the opposing countries an ammount of money and future oil earnings that would be close to that which saddam has promised them. *(iirc, france is expecting somthing like 25% control of some oil fields once the embargo is over)
*That does not mean that you yanks have to deliver though
We Yanks already did that - sort of. Bush assured Putin that after the removal of Hussein, the outstanding debts that Iraq owes Russia would still be in place.
The French deal is a bit trickier, seeing as how we're supposedly freeing the Iraqis. Guaranteeing the French a piece of the oilfields is just a reversion to colonialism - this time done by the Americans.
And way down at the bottom of the page there's the list of "who to go after next".
Pull Iran off that list.
Yes, the government hates the US. The citizens, on the other hand, love the US, and if the press bothered to cover it, you'd be hearing about the pro-US rallies that are periodically staged.
I give the current government ten years max before its overthrown without any outside intervention.
The Bush administration is well aware of this, and has apparently disignated Iran as a "hands-off" state. The US provides aid for radio broadcasts and similar things, but largely tries to avoid stirring up real trouble.
That doesn't mean outside intervention wouldn't be appreciated or unwarranted. Even if doing someone a favor might not be completely necessary, there's still no reason not to.
As a non american, I'd like to make a comment on this issue.
A lot of people organizing anit-war manifestations worldwide couldn't care less about Iraq, they are just anti-american taking a great opportunity to attack the USA, burn american flags and that sort of thing. Where were this people when Communist China invaded the peaceful Tibet? Did they burn Chinese Flags? Of course not.
This bias that allows for morality to work just in favor of socialism and never against it is a terrible thing. People hate Pinochet but love Fidel, while both were/are dictators of regimes that murdered political adversaries.
This must be taken in account before discussing the merit of the issue itself.
“Yes, a formal declaration of war is a terrible thing, and it’s an action that should not be undertaken unless all options have been exhausted.”
Is that correct? The British and French were still exploring “all options” as the Germans annexed Austria and Thecoslovakia. War can have terrible consequences, as can not going to war. Is that the case here? It’s even more complicated when there is terrorism and nuclear weapons involved. Nitpicking Blix report will not answer those questions.
Unlike many other governments in the region, the Iranians are allowed certain amounts of freedoms. They're allowed to vote for their government officials, for example. The clergy still have the ultimate check on what the government does, and who can run for office, but the people of Iran are slowly managing to get the controls loosened. There is a sizeable groundswell in Iran, and although the clergy is loathe to admit it, they're fighting a losing battle.
American aid is generally welcome among the citizens of Iran, but only for things such as radio broadcasts from outside, and similar actions that encourage the growth and development of freedom. Any sort of military intervention at this time would probably be seen as the cause of unnecessary suffering and bloodshed.
Now if the clergy ever decides to go extremely hardline, and institutes a bloody crackdown, that may change. But from what I've heard about the situation over there, its still some ways away from having that happen.
Well I'm listening to the confessions of one person who was jailed and tortured in Iraq because he did not like Saddam. He was saying that this is what happens to all Iraqis. He goes on to say that these peace protests that proclaim the destruction of America and such, well, they say nothing bad about Saddam. Hmmmmm...
Hehe. That's bullshit. It's baseless, unsubstantiated bullshit. For crying out loud, if you want to take out Saddam, go ahead, get it over with, but don't bore us with these ridiculous claims about how Saddam wants to kill everybody and conquer the world.
It's quite clearly not baseless, unsubstantiated bullshit, or Resolution 1441 would not have passed unanimously.
So basically what you're saying is that you're fine with unprovoked aggression - which is what a war in Iraq would be if Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the free world - but not a just war? That's a very backward point of view.
I don't exactly see where you're getting this idea that Saddam has not stockpiled various kinds of loathesome weapons and is pursuing others, and does not intend to use them against those whom he rightly percieves to be his enemies (the USA and company.)
The man is a liar and a thug. He brutalizes his own people with ferocity and regularity, and he has made numerous aggressive advances in the region, the one we'll all most easily remember being his attack on Kuwait. Anyone who claims to believe that he does not pose a serious threat is either lying and trying to impress people by posing as an intellectual opposition to such a terribly unwarranted and aggressive (yeah, right) move by the USA and a whole lot of allies, and is thusly a fool, or is incredibly naive, and therefore a fool.
My justification for supporting a war in Iraq? Liberating oppressed citizens is justification for a whole lot. No matter whether you foolishly disbelieve the threat he poses to the whole world, it's a verifiable fact that he is extremely dangerous to his own people. No matter how you look at it, removing Saddam Hussein from power is the right thing to do. Period.
Sure thing, Quartrol, Saddam is a very nice guy. What's next, you'll be praising Stalin?
Well, let me put it this way. I don't think you're a threat to global peace either, but I certainly wouldn't try to praise you.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You'd be surprised to what degree I agree with you on all this. Rather than directly respond to your post, let me explain my views.
1. Saddam Hussein is definitely as bad as people make him out to be. He deserves to be removed, and if the US wishes to do that, that's fine by me. I do wish, however, that they would get it over and done with instead of carrying on with their lies. Which leads us to point number 2...
2. Saddam Hussein either has weapons of mass destruction (which is what 1441 is all about) or would like to have them. He is not, however, insane. He attacked Kuwait only because he had been assured (by the US Ambassador) that the US would not respond. He's interested in holding on to power - by definition, attacking the west (with weapons of mass destruction or otherwise) would be very counter-productive. Therefore, I do not believe there is any reason to view him as a threat to the world. Do you really believe that Saddam Hussein with his half-a-nuke would be willing to attack America when the USSR was afraid to do it with an arsenal sufficient to destroy the world several times over? Personally, I think that would be a really weird move from someone who's spent the last twenty-five years trying to hold on to his life and his position.
While your argument is very convincing, you've overlooked something: Saddam is a thug and a criminal, and thugs and criminals don't operate through standard channels. If he wanted to deliver WMDs to the West, it would not be conventionally, but through supported decoy organizations like Al Qaeda. So while he doesn't pose the same kind of threat that the USSR might have, he could still do a great deal of damage in a way he would believe could protect him from the vast majority of the backlash.
Also, he would most definitely use these weapons, once sufficiently stockpiled, to conquer pretty much the entire arab world, which is something he's wanted to do for a long time. Even the attempt would threaten the stability of a region that's vital to the smooth operation of the entire rest of the world.
Lastly, if he were to acquire these weapons, a lot of which he already has, he'd be able to use them defensively against strikes such as the one we're preparing. A lot of damage could be done to the West by using such weapons on our soldiers during battle on his turf.
You discount Saddam Hussein too easily. A man cornered is no rational man, and even a rational man has devestating options. We're a massive roadblock in his way, and that pisses him off.
For once, I agree with Frosty.
And how is it unsubstantiated bullshit? Saddam provides money to terrorist groups that attack Israel and are known to want to attack america and its allies. Osama is not the only terrorist with a thing against america
I don't want saddam removed because he supports terrorism, I want him killed because I am sick of hearing about him.
I am not that worried about reprisals from the arab world considering Canada is a major fundraising center and a convienient door into the united states. If they attacked here we might actually have to tighten up security
A war is like a car accident. Everyone slows down to watch, it creates panic and loud noises, people's cost of living goes up (ala Car Insurance after an accident), creates jobs (Well, for the tow truck guy anyway)...
...but no one ever wants to be in one.
You couldn't tell that by how some of those idiots drive through school zones around here, or the busy intersections.
Well, that's the catch, isn't it? If he wanted to deliver WMDs to the West. But however ruthless and thuggish he is, he's never been interested in fighting the West... I mean, until he invaded Kuwait, he was on great terms with everybody (except his own people, and Iran & Kuwait). Even now, notice that it's Al Qaida that claims to support him, while he continues to completely ignore them. It may turn out one day that you're in fact absolutely right, but there really isn't any evidence to support that right now.
I agree about one thing - cornered, he is not behaving rationally ("is" instead of "will", because he's already politically cornered and acting irrationally). However, he is one man, not the whole country. Hitler wanted to fight to the death, but most of his troops and commanders ignored that wish. America has spelled out what the consequences will be if Iraq uses non-conventional weapons against them. Saddam Hussein may give the order to use WMDs, but will it be obeyed?
I simply don't like it when people try to come up with reasons why Hussein is a threat when the evidence is non-existent - such arguments are counter-productive, because they're relatively easy to dismiss. That's why for the last few months, we've been hearing the same debate on the news every day, while the whole thing could have been over and done with by now.
If you replace "Hussein" for "Hitler" this could be a speech from Chamberlain in the 30's.
I'm willing to bet that Hitler had much more support from his own people than Hussien. I think that would make a significant difference to how much of a threat one man can be.
I was comparing the speech.
Separate names with a comma.