Sadaam Insane

[MrBert]

What we should be doing is sending in the inspectors agian. That way we can keep him under control. And i do agree that an attack agianst another islamic nation would be a trerrible idea. If you think things in israel are hot now just wait till we declare war on iraq. Hell we have let castro run cuba forever. That could be because the only thing that americans want from cuba is cigars. Iraq does control the 4th largest oil fields. and what W. wouldn't do to control that (Being the texas oil barron that he is). So in conclusion we wait out Saddam untill he dies. just like our cuban policy. but we can embargo and conrol wepons. this is the best alternitive with out stiring the hive.

[darkes]

To answer the title of this thread, no I don't think Saddam is insane.

On the other hand he is a ruthless dictator, who thinks nothing of killing members of his own family to ensure his survival, or using chemical weapons on dissident parts of his population.
He's also very good at playing the negotiating game to get what he wants. But there are lots of other dictators in the world who are just as bad.

A lot of this comes down to what intelligence information is available, and how much is going to be published - Mr. Blair has been making a big point that he will publish a dossier of why he considers Iraq to be a threat. Mr. Blair is very important to the US because he seems to have established a good relationship with President Putin of Russia (mainly because Russia wants closer economic links with the rest of Europe). Blair is off to Russia for a meeting in the next month or so, and you can bet Iraq will be on the agenda.

In reply to Negative's comment about public opinion in the UK not supporting a military attack on Iraq, I wouldn't be so sure about that one! A lot will depend on how the evidence is presented, and how the debate in House of Commons goes. The fact that a majority of members in Blair's labour party are opposed to military action is not surprising - for example a majority of the Labour party opposed the military action that the UK took in the Falklands 20 years or so ago. In my view sending a task force to the Falklands was justified, as it was a clear cut case of a hostile power invading UK territory, against the wishes of the native inhabitants.

As to whether an attack on Iraq is justified or sensible, it's impossible to say without seeing the evidence.

[Mahakaal]

Ok I just couldn't resist posting

I wont go into why Bush should go after Saddam, I will explain why he shouldn't....
Here goes... there are three ethnic groups in Iraq: the Kurds in the north(who we always hear about), the Shiites in the south, and the the Sunnis in the centre. Shiites and Kurds hate the Sunnis who hold all the power in the country. But they also dont trust each other.
One idea I've seen floating around is that the US could(PERHAPS) dismember Iraq. Sounds good in theory when it actually isnt. You ask why? Turkey has it's own Kurdish population, if they see the Kurds in Iraq gain independence(or their own country), they will agitate towards seceding to the newly found Kurdistan(for lack of a better word). They have been trying for a while now. We destabilize Turkey there.
The Shiites in the south....well they certainly dont want to be stuck between the newly found Sunni country and Saudi Arabia. Therefore they will in all likelihood want to accede to Iran. Where the majority is Shiite. Likeminded people want to be with likeminded people and so on and so forth Now if that were to happen, present day Iraq which sits atop the SECOND largest reserves of oil, after Saudi Arabia,(Correction for someone who mentioned that Iraq's oil reserves were the 4th largest), are you following me here? If that happens, Iran sits on the LARGEST oil reserves in the World, surpassing S. Arabia. I dont think anyone wants that to happen.....

[Info_Au]

Is Saddam insane....???
Who knows,,
I don't believe So......

America does have to ask itself why it supports Isreals ownership of Illegally obtained Nuclear,Biological and Chemical Weapons.Yet will not allow Arabs countries to have them too??
Also supporting a country that does not have a written Constitution,Enforces Martial Law,Treats Arabs as second-class citizens,Often ignores International Laws(Political Assasinations-Expulsions) and has Illegally obtained Nuclear,Biological and Chemical Weapons.


If there is not going to be a WAR...Why has America positioned Patriot missiles in Isreal again??
To save Isreals Nuclear site perhaps(J/K it's the real reason).

[zain]

Americans are just big bullies, mid their own business and stop interefering, they obviously are driven by other motives, OIL, POWER, Dominance as Super Power........ASSWIPES

[powertoad5000]

Originally posted here by t2k2
Now he has another stockpile - probably larger than before

Originally posted here by NetSyn
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

These quotes worry me quite a bit - thinking Nineteen-Eighty-Four - believe what you're told and don't ask questions because Saddam has weapons o' mass destruction y'all . I have no idea if Saddam has a large stockpile of chemical weapons - who does? I personally am very sceptical about the whole idea of another war with Iraq, especially since its almost certainly going to happen. The proverbial is going to hit the fan in a big way when America begins its campaign against Iraq - in the Middle East at any rate.

Originally posted here by darkes
As to whether an attack on Iraq is justified or sensible, it's impossible to say without seeing the evidence.

If Blair and Bush can come up with absolute, incontrovertible proof of Saddam creating chemical weapons and that he planned to use them on the US then a war *might* be justified. Even then, I think the side-effects of a war (as mentioned by Mahakaal) are not being considered by the American government. It could have far worse repercussions than they currently perceive.

[Dr Toker]

I was talking about this today with my mother. If truley, what BUSH wants is a regiem change, then there only has to be ONE casulty.Saddam himself. I am going to go off on somthing for a second, but I promise there is a point to it.

India, and Pakistan. The conflict over there was swelling a great deal for the posseion of Kashmier, well terroists would come into India and start cappin' or blow themselves up. The thing about this is, that there isnt any REAL religious motivation. So they would go over there and reak havok, kill people and eventually themselves. The beautifull thing about it is, the Pakistani Government didnt have to take responsibility for their actions against India, because they were "Terrorist Actions", which were Guerrilla Warriors or Malitia not affilliated with the Pakistani Gov.

That is a genius battle plan. NOT the killing civilians part of course, but the NON affilliation with the government. I say, to avoid any political repercussions, we send in some Black Ops.Or even better, pay the Mafia to carry out his assination. I mean, while the rest of the world breaks the rules of engagment we stay true to them. Why?

Kinda reminds me of how Dr.Evil would setup an elaborate trap for Austin Powers and assume his demise. While Scott Evil just wanted to shoot him in the head. I say we follow Scotts plan. One Bullet, One Dead, One War Avoided.

I think Plato said it best....."Only the dead, have seen the end of war."

[nabylbt]

Not to know the facts is not an excuse ....get the facts rights and then you could make up your mind ....
why would you let some networks tell you what you ought to think when you know they have been wrong (on purpose ?) in the past ....

[Sgt_B]

Bunch of damn peace loving hippies around here! J/K

Seriously though, Saddam is a very serious threat to every nation around him. Its already known that the guy used chem weapons on his own people. Its already known that he wants more and more power (invasion of Kuwait). Its already known that he hates America, and anyone who stands with us. If he had the capability to launch a nuke at us he would. If he had the capability to launch a nuke at Israel he would. If he could distribute nukes to terrorist organizations so they could target the US and our allies....he would. To think that he'll just quietly sit back and wait to die is absurd. Like someone else in this thread stated, he'll wait and wait until he has a big enough hammer, and then he'll let fly. Then the world will be crying and asking "Why did this happen?", "How did this happen?".
We need to act NOW!
Let me put it another way....you're in a convenient store. You happen to notice another customer has a gun, but he hasn't pulled it out yet. You hear this person talking to his buddy, and you hear him saying how he's going to rob this place, rape the clerk, and kill everyone in here. Now, you're much bigger than this person....you've got a bigger gun than this person....you know that you could take this person out if you wanted to.....so.....What do you do? Say its none of your business, and walk out? Say there's not enough proof...I'll wait till he shoots someone first...then I'll act?
No, you would take him out.
Why? beacuse its your moral obligation. Its your duty to yourself, and those around you.

People ask why America is the world's police force....well here's a simple answer. Someone has to do it. Face it....some nation's have bad leaders. These leaders need to be taken down, not only for the rest of the free world, but for the citizens of that country as well. To simply avert your eyes, and say "Its none of my business", or "Its their country, they can do what they want" is wrong. If you do nothing, then the blood is on your hands as well.

[Terr]

Hypotheretical situation: Let's say that the current fearmongering is that Saddam has a lot of conventional warhead missles. If you take out the whole bio/chem/nuke aspect, it's a lot less frightening. I think it comes down to this: "We don't like Saddam. I don't think he likes us either. He's making weapons which we already have lots and lots and lots of, and we're afraid he's non-whatever-we-think-we-are enough to use some of them."

I think there was some militay doctrine that developed capability was implied intent. The ironic thing is that according to that, we're a very warloving country.

I found this a while ago, google found a copy.