Sadaam Insane

[t2k2]

Ok, is it me or does anyone else think that we set ourselves up for another war with Iraq? They should have taken care of this idiot (Sadaam) the first time he threatened to use chemical weapons. Now he has another stockpile - probably larger than before - and could possibly even have access to small nukes - who knows? We could have just nipped this in the bud in the Gulf War. I almost lost relatives in the first one, and now, Bush is looking to send more troops over there. I have to be honest; I'm not too enthused about going back to war with these guys. We're still trying to find Bin Laden, aren't we? Any thoughts on this?

[gghornet]

I agree that we did set ourselves up for this war,and I don't like it.Saddam needs to be taken care of ASAP.Going over there flexing our muscles by destroying their weapons is only a temporary solution.I don't know that the US really has the right to run around the world telling other countries who their leader has to be,but in this case a country has no choice but to be led by this malicious dictator and he poses a threat to everyone.I think as soon as he gets his hands on a decent sized nuke,he's going to drop it on Isreal at which time every muslim terrorist organization is going to proceed to wipe them off the face of the planet.Then guess who they come after next.Personally I don't like the possibility of my homeland becoming a terrorist war ground where every other day buses and planes are being blown up killing innocent bystanders by the ton.So I say lets get it done quick,lets do it right this time,and then lets try and get on with our everyday lives.There's enough problems in the world without people like that having access to chemical/biological/nuclear weapons.

[Zpeef]

I don't think that the USA have the right to go around and tell other countries who they should have as a leader (yes I know he is a dictator). If it was up to many other countries in the world, they would probably remove Bush... if they could. And the USA would probably not let other countries do anything like this. At least wait untill he DOES something to you, or someone else, THEN you can blow him and his country to hell.

[t2k2]

I also don't entirely agree with our deciding who should be in office in another country. Why should that be up to us? I think that we sometimes stick our nose where it doesn't belong. I also don't entirely agree with us playing the referee around the globe. Let an organization like the UN work on keeping the peace around the world, or maybe just play the part of an intermediary. I think that's one of the biggest reasons the US is hated so much. We have too many problems at home to be so involved in damn near everything else that goes on on the other side of the world.


Oh, btw, does anyone know why I got negged for this post? I am just curious so I know how to express myself in future posts.

[El Diablo]

I wanted to address a couple of issues that have been brought up here. Yes, we most definately are setting ourselves up for another war with Iraq. At this point I'm not to sure why we are doing this. I know that Saddam has been linked to numerous terrorist groups over the years, and perhaps the gov't has information linking money from Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Then again this could just be Bush II going in to finish what his dad couldn't at that time.

Now as to our "not finishing the job the first time" comments that I see from time to time on various boards. There is a REASON we did not take Saddam out of power in the Gulf War. We had clearly defined rules of engagement for that conflict. Those were simply to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and to remove Iraqs ability to wage large scale war in the region. These DID NOT include taking Saddam out. Up until recently we had a presidential executive order that forbade us from going after heads of state, period. Our current president recently overrode that EO with his own, possibly because Osama could be considered a "head of state" for Al-Queda. This EO covered assassination attempts, and removal of dictators through miliatry means unless the US was directly threatened by the state in question... which in all reality we were not.

Also, Saddam has most certianly already USED chemical warfare, but against the Kurds and his own people. There has been no definative link showing that he used them, or attempted to use them, on US forces. There have been some inconclusive studies that tried to draw a link to biological/chemical warfare use and the "Gulf War Syndrome" that has been reported by some vets of that war.

I saw an interview with Richard Butler (I think that was his name) who was the head UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He was saying that it was possible that Saddam had rebuilt the infrastructure necessary to make these weapons but that there was no proof that he had them.

I don't know that we need to be at war with Iraq, but we may have a good reason that is being kept from public knowledge at this time. I don't expect the gov't to lay all it's cards on the table, and don't have a problem with them playing close to the vest like they have been recently.


Just my take on things. FWIW yes, I'm a Gulf War vet. I was there, but all I did was sit off the coast while we launched sorties and lobbed cruise missles at them.



El Diablo

[MrBert]

UN inspection teams left iraq 4 years ago. And they had taken down a lot of wepons and plants to build wepons of mass destrution. 4 years is not enough time to develop a large infrasturture of wepons, especially on the little money that iraq has. there have been people that have said that wepons could be assembled in trailers or mobile factories. To build chemical wepons you need to a big plant to create the chemicals. I think that the US goverment would know about that sort of thing. we havent quite commited ourselves to war yet. GW has just been running around the oval office stomping his feet. Congress has not yet agreed to war on iraq. infact the UN is trying to get inspecters back in to iraq.

[NetSyn]

hehe this probly should have been put in cosmos but thats fine



i dont really like to talk about politics so ill stay out of this one but it looks like u guys got some negs and ill try to even out what i disagree with (point wise)

[gghornet]

First,I disagree that we should wait until Saddam does something to take him out.He's smart enough to know that if he does something on a small scale he'll be put to a screaching halt,so if he's allowed to act he's going to launch a devestating assault,most likely on Isreal,that will cost hundreds of thousands of lives.Then everybody's going to be jumping down the throat of the US government because they didn't act sooner.If that means we act alone,I don't think this country's any worse fo wear,because there's no question that Iraq has chemical/biological weapons stockpiles,it's just a matter of finding them.Second,the only people in Iraq that don't openly defy Saddam are the people that value their lives.He's even said on a CNBC interview I watched he doesn't trust his own soldiers.Iraq is full of resistance factions,but they won't assist the US because they fear the reprecussions from the rest of the fanatical Muslim community.As far as that goes anybody that sides with the US or Isreal is marked for death by the terrorists,and that's exactly why nobody wants to back us up in this situation,because they fear the consequences.Evidence isn't the question,it's courage and honor.Britain is the only country that wants to back us at this time,which is complete BS,because there's very few countries in the world that we haven't bailed out of trouble at one time or another.Then the thanks we get is getting called the bullies of the world.Watching Colin Powell get bood off stage yesterday made me sick.To tell the US government that the food they're handing out for free isn't good enough is selfish.If the US was to stop handing out free food and bailing other countries out of their own problems,then we'd be called fat selfish pigs that don't want to share their wealth with the world.This isn't something that's done because it has to be done.It's done because the American taxpayers and government feel a moral obligation to do so.It's not like this country was handed to us a a platter.It had to be colonized just like every other country,our military has shed more blood to help others in it's short existance than any other country,and we have to work just like the people in any other country.I don't think we should be looked down upon because we have a relatively stable government,good trade routes,resources,and even in bad times a fairly stable economy.Is that so wrong?When and why did the US become the scapegoat for the world's problems.If anything the existance of the US has made the world a better place with a more stable overall economy,faster technological advances,and more available food for less fortunate countries.Our government may step out of line from time to time,but normally it's with the best intentions.NOBODY's PERFECT!!!Wow I thought this was going to be a small paragraph,but I kinda got off on a rant.OH Well.

[NetSyn]

by the way mr *insert name here* Useles has another s on the end of it... and i consider ur antipoint assignment pretty useless also



I think we should just let our US government decide what to do because they of course know more about it then we could possibly know... They probly have unknown non-public information about the situation that was never given to the public and will help decide if we go to war with them or not and why...

[Mahakaal]

/me thinks there are too many +/- flying around on this thread....
Someone negged t2k2 and gghornet right in the beginning, then they had extremely positives, and zpeef had a negative. Then t2k2 and gghornet got negged again, and zpeef was up to somewhat positve. Then Netsyn, gghornet, MrBert, and zpeef got hit with negs....
If you're not gonna post, why bother negging people?