Sadaam Insane

Iraq has plenty of money, I believe they have the second largest stockpile of oil in the world, but don't quote me on that.

If we wait for Iraq to attack somebody then we've let a disaster happen, if we attack him now then most of the world will be severly pissed at us.

America has done both in the past, and no matter which way we do it nobody seems to agree we did the right thing. If we sit back and allow Iraq to do something terrible, I don't think anyone will blame us. We could blame ourselves though, knowing we had to the power to stop him. If we do go in there and stop him though, even our allied countries will be upset with us.

For those of you who are always preaching America needs to stay out of other people's business. Do you say we should sit here with the power to stop atrocities and just let them happen? Should we watch as the world around us goes to hell? If you agree we should be doing something but not what we do, then what would you have us do?

I see a lot of people saying we do the wrong thing, but not many with a good opinion on what we should be doing. Try to avoid using the word "should've" as well, hindsight is twenty twenty they say.

Netsyn, I wasn't quite sure about the correct forum for this. I juggled between Cosmos and General Chit Chat for a few minutes before I posted this thread. I hope that I did not annoy anyone too much by putting this here. I had a 50/50 chance in getting it right, and I may have been wrong.
El Diablo: I realize that we have policies in place not to go after heads of state with assassinations and the like; it just angered me somewhat that the threat was not completely eliminated in the first place. Sometimes the rules don't seem right, but I think I was letting emotion take over my judgement (I'm human - it happens). My uncle was on the USS Saratoga, and they were also lobbing missles from the coast to take out Scud missles and such. A few of his buddies died serving in this war, but it makes you think "why was this a55hole left alive to do this crap all over again?" However, I understand that we should adhere to policies and procedures... Hey, who knows, maybe this will all be settled without a shot or missle fired...that would be great!

I think that the US government is doing a bit of fear-mongering to make a pretext for military action, more than Saddam actually getting ready to do X. This is not to say that I think Iraq isn't a threat, but if you look at the bigger picture, an attack on Iraq at this time would just reinforce the bully-image which contributes to tension overseas.

Tony Blair, from 'the new Winston Churchill' to 'Bush's poodel'.

Last October, at a party-congress in Brighton, Blair signed his vision of a multilateral world... a world where there's no room for war and injustice.
British press was praising 'the new Winston Churchill'. Blair was more popular than ever.

Right now, Mr. Blair is ready to go to war, along with the Americans.
Public opinion is against him. His own Labour-party is against him.
British press names him 'Bush's poodel'.

A recent survey (The Chicago Counsil on Foreign Relations & The German Marshall Fund of the US) amongst Americans showed the following: 65% wants to go to war against Iraq. Only condition: "as long as we're not going in alone". (In Europe, it's 60%, under the same condition).

My question is the following: What made Blair change his mind? What made him speak in the same terms as Dick Cheney - an ultra-conservative opposite of Blair? What gives Blair, who was democratically elected, the right to go in against public opinion, even against the advice of his own party?

American government wasn't very popular when they announced they'd go in by themselves if they had to. Now they found themselves an allie. That's all they needed...
With or without a UN-mandate, Sheriff George and Deputy Tony are going in.

The British may mourn about the loss of 'The Empire', they're not naive: they don't doubt that they lost the lead to the Americans. Although... some British believed Blair actually had something to say: in 1999, he convinced American public opinion to intervene in Kosovo. Clinton followed public opinion, and he joined the British, against the will of his advisors.
If he could do that with Clinton, he should definitely be able to do that with that redneck Bush... or not?
Not...
Blair was the first to declare after 11/9 that this was the beginning of a new era: Blair declared war on the Taliban, and expressed his thoughts on a 'make-able' world: America would give up its isolationism; pollution, analfabetism and etnic problems would be solved. 'The new Churchill', indeed...
Blair roughly woke up though: Bush cancelled the ABM-treaty (Anti-Ballistic-Missile-treaty), he refused to sign the Kyoto-agreements, blocked foreing steel and didn't even show up at the Johannesburg-convention...
One of Blairs personal friends told The Guardian Blair was "pissed off". And still he decides to give the Americans his support... I have only one explanation for his behavior: money... The Americans don't hesitate to threaten 'unwilling allies', as the Germans found out yesterday: the American ambassador in Berlin warned them that not joining might mean an isolated economical position...

Mr. Blair, I hope you get your own Vietnam...

...jeez laweez, I thought I was the only one that noticed something strange about the points just flyin everywhere Mahakaal...sorry, I must've skipped over your post by mistake. I don't think I will post to this thread anymore even though I started it. There seem to be people that do not like what I have to say (even though I never intended it to be perceived as negative), but are not willing to post their own opinions. Why is that? Never mind...no need to answer that question...

I don't always agree with the manner in which the US goes about policing the world abroad. However, I am proud of the fact that we are in a position to help others in need. I feel like those that are overflowing with power and prosperity should, where possible, help those that are bullied and lacking resources of their own.

got a link for that negative?

Quote:

---

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...

---

<sarcasm>Yes, lets not question the Government. I think we should let them do ALL our thinking.</sarcasm> :rolleyes:

Oh well, at least Australia isn't going to blindly follow the US into battle this time.

I really try to stay out of these types of discussions, and I will not give a view on this topic, only on its validity. I believe that this topic has a need for discussion, and that I will try to help keep the negatives from the posters. But, I can only do so much before running into the famous "you have given too many point out today" message. Good luck posters and try to stay friendly.

the point of toppling the regime of saddam hussein is to prevent him from developing a nuclear weapon and the technology to do so.
not because a missile is going to travel 10,000 kilometers from the middle east to NYC, very improbable, because after hussein gets this technology it isnt far down the road that this falls into the hands of religious extremists, into a sea vessel and is detonated somewhere along the eastern coast. or into a suitcase and smuggled into the u.s.
oh yeah, and he controls the 4th largest reservoir of oil in the world.

I see no reason why Americans are starting a war with Iraq. I can’t justify a reason for attacking Iraq what so ever. Saddam Hussein is no more dangerous now than he was a year ago. To me it seems as if the United States wishes to reform all Arab countries to its liking since 9/11. :mad: