Topic: A time to kill... Saddam Husein that is. (Read 11244 times)

Anonymous · « **on:** January 30, 2003, 08:31:10 AM »

So, after bush's recent speech, do you feel it's time to go drop some bombs? And what about Tony Blair who said "After we're done with Irak, we move on to North Korea"? Looks like he's got even more ambition that Bush!

My opinion: I've said it in teh past and I'l say it again, it's time to rid the world of Sadam, or anyone else like him. Dictatorship is no longer acceptable in this world. Creating weapons of mass destruction can lead to no good, thus they should all be destroyed before they are used. When bush gave a list of various chemical bombs that are unaccounted for in Irak, it kind of worried me. When your talking about 30000 + weapons that can each take out thousands and even millions, you have to think what the hell is anyone doing with those. Imagine if they were all launched simultaniously, it's probably enough power to eleiminate all life on earth. And this is just Irak's inventory. I don't know about you guys, but when Tony Blair says we have to track down and destroy all illegal weapons of mass destruction, it just makes sense. People are reluctiant to get on-board mostly for financial concerns. Face it: War is expensive. But if you hold on to your money and do nothing, what good will that make when we all fry? I also beleive that rich countries should spread the wealth. A lot of people are defensless against these threats because they have no means or ressources to deal with them. The U.S. and other rich countries should not hold back on spending for the greater good of mankind. It's their duty to protect the inocent and those who cannot protect themselves. To hell with balanced budgets. This could very well turn out to be a matter of survival for a shit load of people. Eevryone in this world deserves freedom. Anyone who prevents other beings from freedom should be removed from power no matter what the cost. Anyone who poses a threat to the world should be removed from power no matter what the cost.

Binoboy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2003, 10:20:00 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Dictatorship is no longer acceptable in this world.

Anyone who poses a threat to the world should be removed from power no matter what the cost.

I spent the morning arguing about this stuff on Fark and my energy has been sapped so I'm going to just highlight these two points of yours and allow the irony to sink in for all involved. *goes to bed*

Anonymous · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:07:47 PM »

LOL! That's funny!

But the second statement is based on democracy and the will of the people. Does anyone want to live with a madman capable of destroying a good portion of the planet? Majority would say "no" therefore they would agree with the second statement. Thus it is not imposed, but warranted.

Binoboy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:56:24 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Does anyone want to live with a madman capable of destroying a good portion of the planet? Majority would say "no" therefore they would agree with the second statement.

Heh, I thought you were American. We have people sayin "Yeah, use nukular weapons. If the UN says no, USE MORE!!11!!"

It ain't Iraq I'm worried about anymore. I'm sure Bush's promise to use nukes is a bluff but if he did, we'll be havin many missiles pointed at us VERY soon after. In a worst case scenario, I could see Russia sendin us a thank you present in the form of an ICBM.

Anonymous · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2003, 02:06:41 PM »

I seriously doubt Bush would drop an atomic bomb in Irak. That's the kind of behavior he's against. And he made it very clear that one of his goals is to free the civilians from enslavement. I don't think he intends to free them by nuking them. And you are correct. If he did drop nukes, the rest of the world would turn against him. Myself included. But that's just not going to happen.

Binoboy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:34:12 PM »

"Freein civilians from enslavement" is NOT on his list. He's gonna do what everyone else does: take one dictator out, put another one in. He'll hafta lest a theocratic state form from a fledgeling "democracy". God bless the Shiites; once they gain majority rule, there'll be no question about Iraq's links to al-Qaeda....

Daria · « **Reply #6 on:** February 01, 2003, 10:50:08 AM »

I regretfully have to admit, I'm mixed on the subject.
The bigger question for me is:
Once the situation with Iraq is over, what then?
How exactly do you fight the war on terrorism?
Are we, as a country, going to attempt regime changes on every single country that could be a threat to us? That's a lot of countries.

What I don't want to see is Iraq being the first steping stone to a worldly conquest by America.
And on the other hand, I have no doubt that Sadam is a dangerous mad man.
I guess I don't ...know.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #7 on:** February 01, 2003, 01:34:23 PM »

I hate that phrase - "War on Terrorism". It's a complete political sway phrase. It doesn't even mean anything; you can't wage war on a concept.

That said, I still don't think war in Iraq is a good idea. If the UN says no, then you don't go to war. THIS IS HOW THE SYSTEM WAS SET UP.

There shouldn't be an exception just because the most powerful nation on earth decides it should be so.

Banshee · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2003, 04:03:14 PM »

I was in favour of war against Iraq up until a few weeks ago.

In short, I am once again undecided; the extremely jingoistic comments coming out of the White House started to unnerve me. It was all well and good when Bush promised that he would hold hard evidence of wrongdoing in his little old hand before he went and pushed that button, but now, all I hear is that the US is prepared to go to war alone, Saddam is out of time (isn't the INSPECTORS who will be uncovering anything, not Saddam?), etc.

Doesn't it seem like Bush is following the wrong path here? I'm beginning to think so. Saddam violated treaty after treaty (and it's about time some UN resolutions were actually ENFORCED), mistreated his own people, and engages in propagandizing, but I still don't see any signs of the stated reason for a US-Iraq war: the storing or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.And the more I hear from the White House, the less I like what I hear.

Bush has got to be a terrible president. Even Warren G. Harding was smarter than this doofus; Bush doesn't even know how to follow the Constitution. Listen to your constituents, Congress. Stop this moron if he goes too far.

snyperx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2003, 07:11:31 PM »

Local paper, page 3: Iraq to use suicide bombers against US.

Anyone else hear anything about that?

EDIT

Supposedly, that came from the Vice President of Iraq.

Binoboy · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2003, 08:25:27 PM »

Quote from: snyperx

Local paper, page 3: Iraq to use suicide bombers against US.

Anyone else hear anything about that?

EDIT

Supposedly, that came from the Vice President of Iraq.

How's Iraq gonna transport em here? Airdrop? Fedex? Cuz they aint gettin through these borders unless they take a raft from Cuba......

snyperx · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2003, 09:09:31 PM »

Er, yeah, I guess I should have put "if we go to war..." but that wasn't in the headline! And I think it'd be rather amusing to see someone come to my house in a fed-ex box..

Binoboy · « **Reply #12 on:** February 03, 2003, 11:53:28 AM »

Quote from: snyperx

Er, yeah, I guess I should have put "if we go to war..." but that wasn't in the headline! And I think it'd be rather amusing to see someone come to my house in a fed-ex box..

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of suicide bombers though? Typically airdropping or fed-ex-ing bombs with people attached to them would be a gross waste of supplies. Even the 500,000 virgins would be like "The hell? Um... we hafta go over here now...."

Daria · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2003, 07:28:38 AM »

Quote from: Binoboy

Quote from: snyperx
Local paper, page 3: Iraq to use suicide bombers against US.

Anyone else hear anything about that?

EDIT

Supposedly, that came from the Vice President of Iraq.

How's Iraq gonna transport em here? Airdrop? Fedex? Cuz they aint gettin through these borders unless they take a raft from Cuba......

Do you travel much?
I don't know what you've seen, but from what I have, I think if a certain someone wanted to get in to the US, they could.

Anonymous · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2003, 08:33:23 AM »

Sure. All they have to do is come to Canada and walk across with a Nuke tied to their backs.

rotgut · « **Reply #15 on:** February 12, 2003, 01:46:17 PM »

The formula:- President Bush wants control of the world's oil supplies + President Blair wants control of the European Central Union = Danger for the world - Remember in the Bible in the book of Revelation it talks about the Beast and the False Prophet?

The European Union IS the final ( temporary ) resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire that King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about in the Bible book of Daniel, Chapter 2!

Take notice in particular of Verses 40 - 44! The feet and the toes of the image represent the countries of Europe that God will soon crush, along with other world evils, and his kingdom will then rule the earth!

We as mortal humans are all imperfect, but God will be the REAL judge, and he is the only judge who will have the final say!

Anonymous · « **Reply #16 on:** February 12, 2003, 02:04:14 PM »

Well after reading this and seeing you quote bible passages and stuff, I now understand why your jokes are so bad. But I do respect your opinion. It's as valid as mine.

Banshee · « **Reply #17 on:** February 12, 2003, 06:51:25 PM »

Quote from: rotgut

the final ( temporary ) resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire that King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about

Chris? I didn't know you were a prophet-king!

Binoboy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 12, 2003, 08:12:23 PM »

"Well holy crap" is all I can manage.

rotgut · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2003, 03:36:56 PM »

Well, the "war" is ( probably ) over, and obviously I am pleased about that, because I could see it dragging on for much longer.

However, I think a few points need to be re-iterated:-

1 ) Has Saddam Hussein ( like Osami Bin Laden ) survived? - It looks very much like it! "Sodhim"! may have been ousted from his tyrannic rule over Iraq, but what of the future? The truth is he has, like Bin Laden, outsmarted the English and American regime - and probably lives on. To me this says a lot about the incompetance of the war leaders - I.E. Bush, Blair and Rumsden etc.

Note that at the end of the 2nd. World War, Hitler was forced to commit suicide - hence ensuring that it was unlikely the "3rd. Reich" would ever rise again! What do Bush and Blair know about war anyway? - Bush even manoeuvered things so he did not get called up for Vietnam! The sheer size and force of the British and American armies might have overwhelmed Iraq, but Bush and Blair deserve no credit for their handling of the crisis in the lead up to the war, and now arguments are surfacing after the event. - I.E. How will Iraq be rebuilt?. Winston Churchill - now there was a real leader - was aware of how a situation should be handled and then dealt with it COMPLETELY effectively!

2 ) Reports from Iraq state that upwards of 2000 civilians were killed in the crisis - a recent picture in "Time" magazine showed a young boy with his arms blown off, and who had lost his parents thanks to a coalition bomb going astray - Strange how Bush and Blair remain strangely silent when these attrocities are shown! There are also reports of a shortage of water and food from Iraq, typical ancillary problems brought on as a result of war!

3 ) Where are the "weapons of mass destruction" that Bush and Blair assured us Iraq was hiding? Incidentally, what is the definition of "weapons of mass destruction"? - lots of other countries DO HAVE them, but America is prepared to be "diplomatic" with them!

4 ) As always war is costly in monetary terms and in terms of human life - admittedly the Iraq people are free at present from "Sodhim's" tyranny - but other problems could now surface for them - I.E. possible lack of food, water and housing etc.

I suppose we should all be grateful for small mercies - I.E. that the war did not drag on for longer - as mentioned, at least the Iraqui people are ( it seems ) now free from the Hussein dictatorial reign - However, I still stick by my original opinion that the war should probably never have taken place under the circumstances, particularly as it did not have the backing of the U.N. ( Incidentally the U.N. have not come out of all this with a lot of credit - what good is an organisation originally formed to keep the peace if it's member states ride roughshod all over it! )

Anonymous · « **Reply #20 on:** April 22, 2003, 08:06:38 AM »

You've got it all wrong man!

Let's take a look at your points:

1 - It doesn't really matter. He may be alive, he may be dead. But the goal of this war wasn't to kill him personally. The goal was to crumble the regime by hitting its leaders. Sadam, being the ultimate leader, was obviously a prime target, but it wasn't a necessity to kill him in order to destroy the regime. Same thing for Bin Laden. Killing him and walking away would not have end terrorism from his group. Yet, without actually killing or capturing him, the al-queda network has been hit really hard. It is much less effective, has much less ressources, and they are still being hit by anti terrorism efforts today. Killing the leader was never the measure of mission success. And it has nothing to do with incompetence of leaders. Try to find 1 man on the whole planet. That man has contacts every where in the world. He has billions of dollars at his disposal. He has endless networks of bunkers and hiding places, some known and some unknown. And he has people willing to die for his cause. It's not easy to track down a guy like that.

And by the way, Hitler was not "forced" to commit suicide. It's a decision that HE took because he was to damn coward to face the music. It was the easy way out.

How is Iraq rebuilt? What did you expect exactlly? It's pretty obvious that the allies are trying to get the hell out as soon as possible, and give the power back to the people. But they can't just flip a coin, pick a leader and leave. These things take time. When you don't even have a basic infrastucture in place and you need to reimplement everything from scratch, it won't get done in 2 weeks. Or 2 months. It will take a while. The important thing is that the Iraqis are involved in the process. The allies are not appointing leadership. They will help establish a political system, help form political parties, help people get organized. That's all that matters.

2 - Again, what did you expect??? It's a frigging war! People get hurt! I saw that kid on TV. It was horrible. But if you think the suffering of one boy is just cause to go back in time and stop the war from ever taking place, you are wrong. Didn't you see the various reports and testimonies of the special police prisons? A guy was held in there for 8 years. He was tortured every day for 8 long years. Why? Because he prayed too much and was deemed a religious extremist. And that's the story of 1 guy amongst tens of thousands. Yes it's true, 2000 civilians were killed. It's a shame. But people in general tend to let the media reports brain wash them. Look back at history. How many civilian casualties were there durring WW1, WWII, Vietnam? Make a ratio. This war had practicly no casualties compared to other major war. The impact on civilians was minimized as much as possible. But no one talks about that at all. Noooo!!! Did everyone forget that durring WWII the allies where loosing combatants by the ten thousands every day??? PER DAY!!! Hello! Put things in perspective people. The war on Iraq was well executed. It is an acheivement. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been accomplished in term of casualties. So your "2000 civilians were killed" argument has little weight.

3 - Again, you are missing the bigger picture. Weapons of mass destruction was one peice of the puzzle, but not the sole reason for the attack on Iraq. You can't just say "other countries have them but they are not being attacked" because you are not comparing the same variables. Iraq was very unique. And the weapons will be found in time. It's not like they are parked on the street waiting to be found. Thay would be hidden well. And the recent capture of the official in charge of the weapons program will most likely shed more light on this. Be patient. They will come up. Considering Sadam's army was equiped with chemical protective gear, it's obvious the Iraqi soldiers knew they may had to use chemical weapons. And they were well prepared.

4 - Yes. Other problems will surface. It's unavoidable. The whole country is in a transisition phase. People are no longer restricted. And of course, there will always be a jackass who takes advantage of the situation. So in reality, the war is not yet won. The military campaign was a success, but that's just the preview of the whole flic. But these problems that emerge are being dealt with slowly. Maybe it's just me but it seems that people in general think this whole crisis could have been resolved simply by motioning some sort of magic wand around. I suppose that's what happends when too much media is present and everything is blown out of proportion. People beleive what they hear and follow blindly. Use your heads, do some research, compare some figures, use some form of systematic approach, then talk to me.

The UN... All I have to say about the UN is that it doesn't work. As long as the "Veto" is part of the equation, it's not a true democratic system. Remember when france said it would veto the decision of going to war even if the majority agreed on it? Well what the hell is that? No one should have that kind of power. What about "majority wins"? Is that no longer in or what? And I find it very ironic that everyone agrees on one thing initially (deadline for saddam to disarm) yet when the "conditions" where not met, the sanctions were not applied. It's like "Do this or else" and then nothing is done and they reply is "Oh well...". Well screw you. Take responsibility. If you want to play the bluffing game, play poker. Leave the important stuff to people with guts and principles.

So when you say "I still stick by my original opinion that the war should probably never have taken place under the circumstances, particularly as it did not have the backing of the U.N." I can't help but think that you are just one of those poor saps who was brainwashed by the media. You failed to conduct your own analisys of the facts therefor you failed to come up with a valid opinion on your own. You simply "borowed" someone elses. I don't think you have the slight concept of what was really acheived in Iraq, and how it will mark the history books.

Anonymous · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2003, 11:41:18 PM »

You know, it would have been a whole lot easier on the Bush Administration if they didn't say they were going to "war" with Iraq because of illegal weapons. Now they have this whole mess to clean up since, thus far, they have not found any real weapons in Iraq. They've found the means to make the weapons, but they didn't find any weapons. Pretty soon everyone is going to be thinking, "What the hell?" because not only are weapons not present there, but now the bunker that the U.S. forces bombed during the first night of the campaign doesn't even exist. Sure, intelligence might have been wrong, but things aren't looking to good right now.

Things defiantly don't look too good for Bush in the 2004 election. I'm predicting a landslide victory for the Democrats. You heard it here first. I just hope it isn't Al Sharpton.

HeavyJay · « **Reply #22 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:18:38 AM »

If Al Sharpton ever becomes president, I'm moving to Canada.

Anonymous · « **Reply #23 on:** May 31, 2003, 06:14:55 AM »

Quote from: HeavyJay

If Al Sharpton ever becomes president, I'm moving to Canada.

That's exactly what I thought. I'm not putting up with that crap.

Anonymous · « **Reply #24 on:** May 31, 2003, 08:35:12 AM »

Hey, as of March 2004, Canada is supposivly Jean Chretien free, so that would be the best time to move.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: A time to kill... Saddam Husein that is. (Read 11244 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous