Take out Sadaam?

Should we take out Saddam

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 64.9%
  • No

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • Total voters
    37
since everyone here seems to think that the Seals or the SAS is the answer... why can't they kill Castro... you are looking at a guy that is just off the cost of Florida and they can't get it done... pick up the World book of records and he is in it for the most assassination atemps... it's like a few hundred... and you think that sending the "covert ops" people is going to make a difference... think again...
 
Originally posted by Millzy
since everyone here seems to think that the Seals or the SAS is the answer... why can't they kill Castro... you are looking at a guy that is just off the cost of Florida and they can't get it done... pick up the World book of records and he is in it for the most assassination atemps... it's like a few hundred... and you think that sending the "covert ops" people is going to make a difference... think again...

All we would have to do to kill Castro is give Barbara Walters a gun. She's interviewing him for 20/20 this week. No more Castro, and probably no more Barbara - Where's the catch? ;)
 
Originally posted by Quarto

Saudi Arabia is the real enemy... ok, let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment. So, is there a logical reason of some sort behind your statement?

Saudi Arabia is a foe, not a friend or ally.

Saudi Arabia finances the Al Qaida and Bin Laden; 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis; the schools and religious leaders teach hatred of the West; so I wonder why we don't identify them as an enemy. The Saudis fund terrorism against Israel, both with private and government money. Saudi officials publicly endorse terrorism against Israel, and make statements that are negatively inciteful against America because of its relationship with Israel. Saudi Aradia is America's enemy, but in a unconventional way. The Saudis incite, promote and finance the terrorism, just as many other Arab countries. It is repugnant to think that America protected them during the gulf war, and this is how they repay us. But then, Kuwait and many other countries employ the same tactic of this Arab double dealing. The middle east cannot win a conventional war with either Israel or America, so they attack in a unconventional method by deploying terrorism.

Just ask anyone in the State Department in private, and they'll tell you the Saudis are not our friends.
 
Originally posted by Starkey
The fact that most of the terrorists were Saudis does not make the sentence "the Saudis provided the terrorists" right...


Right. They're such good friends that they (the terrorists) had to search high and low to find so many people from one country willing to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children.


By the way, I don't include the military personnell killed at the Pentagon because it is a legitimate military target. But the plane used had innocents aboard.
 
Military people are counted as it was a surprise attack.
had we already been in terms of war, they would be counted as causualities. military loses are always counted as causualities, but these piss me off to no end, so I count them in with the rest of the loses, also because there were/are a large number of civilian contractors that work at the pentagon, they were just ast innocent as those at the WTC and penn.
 
Your Logic:

15 people out of 23 million are involved in a terrorist plot
Therefore the country is your enemy.


.000065 % of the population... That's a good sample size...
 
Very well put, TC.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that it was the US that got all those people together in the first place, back in the 80s when they supported anyone who fought the Soviets. Don't blame the Saudis, blame a foreign affairs policy that doesn't look beyond the next election.
 
I don't think the US has any right to do anything in Iraq.

First of all, the US has this notion that we have to play policeman to the world. I just don't agree with the idea of one nation getting involved in another nation's political process.

Second, I'm not sure, but I believe there is still no HARD proof that Sadaam has more than a fire cracker. If we are going to attack, we had better know for sure that we're not just going to kill innocent people.

Third, assuming Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction... honestly... so what? The US has them. By denying them to another country, while the US still has them is just hypocrytical.

Fourth (this is more of personal bias than fact), I think this is more of an attack of discrimination against the Arab people than anything else. Bush's ratings went up during the war with Afghanistan... why wouldn't the same things happen during a war with Iraq? That's probably the REAL motivation behind it.

Fifth, the US already screwed up matters in the Middle East beyond all else. Now we just wanna continue to interfere?

There are many more reasons, but they're much lesser... just my opinion.
 
Eh, I'm not sure if that logic holds up very well. We play policeman because of two different reasons, really. One, the U.N. doesn't tend to do it as much as we do. (Hence, when Bush threatened to take away all our forces for peacekeeping missions, the U.N. was freaked.) And two, being-supposedly-the last super power on the planet, we're "supposed to" by most people's ideals. Such as:

(Some) US Ideal: We're the bad ass, we need to make sure shit runs as we want.

Other countries (based upon people I've spoken with from various countries): If we're the ultra bad ass, we should be the policeman, as we're the most capable/available to which to do the job. Don't boast about how your so powerful/great, if your not willing to do (good) things with that power.

That's just a few reasons why we're doing it. As for ratings, that's a possibility-as all fights with the US can be-but I'm betting it's a sub-objective.

(Not that this is saying we have a reason, I'm just stating.)
 
Originally posted by Needaham45
I don't think the US has any right to do anything in Iraq.

First of all, the US has this notion that we have to play policeman to the world. I just don't agree with the idea of one nation getting involved in another nation's political process.

I agree.
 
I don't think the US has any right to do anything in Iraq.

First of all, the US has this notion that we have to play policeman to the world. I just don't agree with the idea of one nation getting involved in another nation's political process.

Nope -- this old chesnut may hold up in Bosnia or Somalia, but *not* in Iraq. This *isn't* a case of the US deciding they'll make the world a better place... the claim is that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

(And lets be fair... the rest of the world will bitch and moan either way -- if the US does get involved it's part of some conspiracy to get whatever natural resource is in that part of the world... and if they don't it's because they're heartless whatevers who don't care about starving African country 258.)

\Second, I'm not sure, but I believe there is still no HARD proof that Sadaam has more than a fire cracker. If we are going to attack, we had better know for sure that we're not just going to kill innocent people.

Nope -- it's quite clear that Saddam *does* have chemical weapons. He's used them to wipe out undesirable portions of his own population.

Now, it's also been clear that he's had them for several years -- so the best you can complain about is that we've taken all this time to change our minds.

Third, assuming Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction... honestly... so what? The US has them. By denying them to another country, while the US still has them is just hypocrytical.

Again, this is only looking at a tiny piece of the problem. The claim is that Iraq is developing such weapons and plans to use them against the US. It's not a case of "we have chemical weapons and nobody else should!" -- if that were true, we'd go to war with half the world... it's a country that we believe is planning to use such weapons against us.

Fourth (this is more of personal bias than fact), I think this is more of an attack of discrimination against the Arab people than anything else. Bush's ratings went up during the war with Afghanistan... why wouldn't the same things happen during a war with Iraq? That's probably the REAL motivation behind it.

Again, that's nonsense. The president's approval rating has almost always increased during a war -- and immediately fallen afterwards. The fact that Bush isn't up for re-election (and would not be during the course of a war with Iraq) kind of squashes the old "war-for-votes" complaint (which has, incidentally, been yepled by the anti-war folks since the Civil War...).

(And look at this from a non-filthy-hippy-and-also-tinfoil-hat-conspiracy point of view: what you are specifically saying is that you think it is *wrong* to do this because the *people* will agree with it!)

Fifth, the US already screwed up matters in the Middle East beyond all else. Now we just wanna continue to interfere?

That's a fairly amorphous and uneducated complaint. Why the *US*? Europe has been just as instrumental in fudging up the middle east since the Dark Ages. The US has made some mistakes in the middle east -- but many of them were instrumental in the greater good (eliminating the Soviet Union).

And can you imagine *any* situation where after you've screwed it up you just run away and ignore it? Especially a situation that's threatening you with chemical weapons?
 
The world may not like it no matter what we do. However, I don't think we should attack any country (especially one as poor as Iraq) without knowing that they are going to do something against us.

I also think I should point out that just recently it was annouced that the US used drugs on prisioners, soldiers, and (I don't know if it was intentional or not in this last case) civilians during the 60's without thier consent.

Also, how do we know that Sadaam is planning to use them against us... and even if he has the weapons... he doesn't have the ability to fire them overseas... they just don't have the resources.

My comment about ratings and an attack on Arabs I thought would be looked at as nonsense... there is no real fact behind it... and I mentioned it was a personal bias. It was more of a bit of flaming at the world than anything else. Also, just because the people want something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Besides (this is going to look like nonsense... but it's my personal opinion) the people are poorly informed by a media that reports with a bias. You don't want to get me started on one of my the press controls the government rants.... so I'll just stop now.

As to the US screwing things up in the middle east. Your right, other factors have been involved. But in recent history (since the creation of Israel), the US has been a major factor in the Middle East, and I just think thier polocies with that region of the world have done serious things to it, whereas if they left it alone the problems wouldn't be at the extent they're currently at (I'm not saying they'd be gone, just lesser). This is just speculation, but I also think that if the US didn't do anything in the Middle East, we wouldn't have these crazy, insane, Jihadist groups against us. Speculation and Opinion.... that's all.
 
If Saddam is 'taken out', there will most likely be more problems than what was prevented. If the oppressed kurds makes a run for independency, Turkey will attack them. What will Bush do then? Let an ally lay waste to an opressed minority, or attack a NATO-member?
Other than that, there's always the question of who would rule Iraq afterwards. Some other nut? Arrange it like in Afghanistan where some mafia-similars hold the power in practice? What will the Iraqi people think of a puppet-regime?

I'm not saying Saddam's a good guy or anything, but I'll be damned if there aren't better ways to work this out than going to war.
 
Unlike every other Arab country in the region, Turkey happens to be fairly intelligent and reasonable, on the whole. They won't go attacking people all willy-nilly-like, that's just something some anti-war nut made up to scare people.

People bitch a lot now about remivng Saddam from power because they think it's too aggressive or some gobbledygook like that, but sometimes you have to do what you don't want to, just because you should. If we didn't, we'd all be bitching 15 years from now about how we blew an important opportunity to do some good in the world.
 
I don't wanna get into a whole big debate about this... but I think it's very unfair of you to say EVERY arab nation but Turkey is stupid and irrational (to turn around inteligent and reasonable). That's just a rude, racist comment to make... regardless of whether or not I, you, or anyone else thinks it's true.
 
Hmm, you're either very stupid, or I've been transported to an alternate reality where criticizing a country makes one a racist. Either way, you're incredibly offensive.

I implied that the other Arab countries in the region were impulsive and violent, you got that part moslty correct, but where you got racism from that, I have no clue, since what I said is not only true, but reflects completely on the governments of those nations as institutions, and not any generalized sector of humanity at all.

"I hate those fucking greasy Arab camel-fuckers" is racist.
"Iraq and Iran are impulsive and violent," is just the truth.

You'd do well to learn how to think before you post. It'll prevent a lot of knee-jerk bullshit like that from happening in the future.
 
Arabs are an ethnic group. Calling ARAB countries impulsive and violent doesn't just refer to the country, but the Arab ethinc group in them. Thus it can easily be interpreted as calling Arabs impulsive and violent.

Critizing a country doesn't make anyone a racist, and isnt' a racist comment. Critizing ALL ARAB countries doesn't make anyone a racist but is a racist comment in my opinion.

Btw... there are many other Arab countries besides Turkey, Iraq, and Iran in the Middle East. Lebanon, Joran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to name a few. And to the best of my knowledge, generally they (at least Lebanon and Jordan) are quite peaceful.

I'd suggest instead of making a generalization like "every other Arab nation", say what you mean specifically, like "Iraq and Iran" (In which case I argee... quite impulsive and violent). It could help prevent misunderstandings in the future.
 
Back
Top