a moral dilemma

[Edited by kingdavid on 01-30-2003 at 03:01 AM]

[Edited by kingdavid on 01-30-2003 at 03:03 AM]

Well folks.. since we´ve all discussed the pros and contras of a war in Iraq... has anyone of you ever thought of what will happen AFTER a war in Iraq?

WHO or WHAT will come after Saddam? The land will be torn apart. There are several groups of peoples that want to lead the Iraq. What will be next? Civil War? hmm

and who will be the ones that will suffer most? the Civilians, the poor people that already have nothing. The people of iraq once where wealthy like you and me - one of the top countries in the world as long as Saddam was good business for the US. and now they are getting closer and closer to a 3rd world country.

And one of the consequences? well... we have seen what anguish and hatered has driven those people to - terrorism.

Originally posted by Azrael
Well folks.. since we´ve all discussed the pros and contras of a war in Iraq... has anyone of you ever thought of what will happen AFTER a war in Iraq?

WHO or WHAT will come after Saddam? The land will be torn apart. There are several groups of peoples that want to lead the Iraq. What will be next? Civil War? hmm

and who will be the ones that will suffer most? the Civilians, the poor people that already have nothing. The people of iraq once where wealthy like you and me - one of the top countries in the world as long as Saddam was good business for the US. and now they are getting closer and closer to a 3rd world country.

And one of the consequences? well... we have seen what anguish and hatered has driven those people to - terrorism.

If saddam does have those weapons, there is a great posiblity I wont be after saddam, since its an obvious thing he will use those weapons to strike israel like he did in 1991.

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
Iraq has had ten years in which to prove that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in place. Say what you will about the presence, or absence, of UN inspectors, the bottom line is that the conditions Saddam Hussein agreed to at the end of the Gulf War have not been met. Even by the standards of the UN, there is justification for military action. (I might add here, that when the UN apointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee, it lost its credibility).

Now, what happens when the US, with or without an international coalition, removes Saddam Hussein from power, and supports the kind of transition to democracy that was fostered in post-war Japan? The economic sanctons are lifted, the oilfields go back into production. Iraq may or may not join OPEC. Either way, the wealth produced from oil exports reaches more of the people because it is no longer being diverted to support a totalitarian police state. People discover a kind of personal freedom and responsibility that is unknown in any other part of the Arab world. And that causes great nightmares for the House of Saud, the Syrians, the Jordanians, and the regimes in Oman, Yemen, and the UAE!

Thank you so much for saying that for me.

SLY (and others too), what you fail to realize is that holding ground requires a lot of troops. The US has been holding ground in all kinds of Peacekeeping missions for years now (Japan, North Korea, the Balkans, etc), and Afghanistan. Iraq has a well educated populace that's quite capable of governing itself with Saddam out of the way, but it also has three large ethnic groups that don't always get along and they will need to be policed until they have chosen some kind of unified government. Actually invading Iran while holding down all these obligations especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan would be idiotic. US forces are already spread thin - which is why North Korea is rattling sabers right now, and quite frankly, Iran's current leadership is in trouble. It seems that it's young populace is itching for democracy, and there is enough support for them to make Political Scientists all over the world all gooey eyed. Why would we want to invade Iran too when it's undesirable government is either going to fall or make a ton of consessions to it's people and when we'd just have to police that much more turf. There is absolutely no benefit to the United States to even try it. None.
Until 9/11 Bush's foreign policy was 1). get our troops out of foreign nations (because our forces are spred too thin to be fully effective) and 2). learn how to pronounce a few of their names. That he would suddenly turn to global domination doesn't strike me as a likely explanation for his actions now.

US Nukes: GW saying he'd use nuclear weapons "if appropriate" forces Saddam to question whether or not using chemical/biological weapons is such a good idea. Before deploying his WMDs, he's forced to ask himself if his hiding place is strong enough to survive a nuclear attack, and if he'd survive. He's a dictator and a murderer, but he's not stupid; if he thinks he'll get bit in the ass for using them, he's less likely to try and deploy them.

Very funny , Saddam needs time to build weapons and plans to resist U.S. invasion with the UN inspectors inspecting every inch in Iraq ... What a conclusion !

A). UN inspectors are covering a small fraction of Iraq (and aren't even being allowed to perform airial recon to cover some of the gaps... "If Iraq has nothing to hide, why are they hiding something?").
B). I said Saddam wants time to prepare his defenses, not build weapons (though if his nuclear hasn't developed a working bomb yet, I'm sure he'd rather have it than not). You know, like dig in, deploy troops, gather intelligence, formulate a strategy, prepare escape routes, contingancy plans...

About the Iraqi scientists thing ... It was claimed that the U.S. is trying to attract Iraqi scientists , as they did with German scientists before ... It's a bad attitude anyhow.

Yeah, but German scientists knew things we didn't, Iraqi scientists are playing catch-up... so what is it we need them for?

Oh, yes! So maybe the offer of asylum and protection will encourage a few to risk the lives of their families and supply us/ the UN with information.

Back to my point ... Iraq has been forced to do many things peacefully , and can be forced to do other good things peacefully too.

Saddam's government has never been forced to do anything peacefully.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...Iraq has a well educated populace that's quite capable of governing itself with Saddam out of the way, but it also has three large ethnic groups that don't always get along and they will need to be policed until they have chosen some kind of unified government...

You expressing double standards here;you feel that they can govern themselves on their own but neeed your policing to handle ethnic differences.What then do you understand by self governance.That "need policing" thing is just an excuse to go where you've no right to go.

...we'd just have to police that much more turf...

Who gave you the role of policing any turf?

...get our troops out of foreign nations (because our forces are spred too thin to be fully effective)...

Effective against who?Were you at war with anyone before sept. 11?Or was Bush planning to do this all along,sept was just an excuse?Do you realise how much less your defence budget would be if you didn't go throwing your weight everywhere?

US Nukes: GW saying he'd use nuclear weapons "if appropriate" forces Saddam to question whether or not using chemical/biological weapons is such a good idea. Before deploying his WMDs, he's forced to ask himself if his hiding place is strong enough to survive a nuclear attack, and if he'd survive...He's a dictator and a murderer, but he's not stupid; if he thinks he'll get bit in the ass for using them, he's less likely to try and deploy them.

So you think if you guys had nuked Afghanistan,you'd have killed Osama?You don't even know where he is,for crying out loud.If Osama evaded you,so can Saddam.Fear for his own personal safety wouldn't stop him from calling your bluff with regard to nuclear weapons.

..UN inspectors are covering a small fraction of Iraq (and aren't even being allowed to perform airial recon to cover some of the gaps...

How many planes has he shot down?Same way those 33rd and 36th parallel things were done,so can you recon if you want.I'm not convinced America needs Saddam's cooperation to fly those high altitude spy planes and stuff over Iraq if necessary.

I said Saddam wants time to prepare his defenses, not build weapons...

Because you've threatened to war him.If he was doing it as part of a plan he always had,ten years is enough time.If he was unable to coz of sanctions and stuff,what has changed?And not just changed,changed so much so that war is now inevitable,and your president is talking as though nukes as the frisbees his dog plays with?

...so what is it we need them for?

Maybe to give you "evidence" of Saddams WMD program."Hey,we know what we're talking about.We're the ones who we're making them.UN inspectors will never find anything if they look for 100 years"

I haven't fixed the scratch in my CD.So:
War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.

[Edited by kingdavid on 01-31-2003 at 02:11 AM]

I feel, especially after the bush speech, that this whole situation will definitely get out of hand. he has said several things that showed very clearly that bush thinks america is the one and only and if american decides so, then america will force its will upon any nation on this planet.

I wonder where this megalomania will lead too.

Originally posted by Azrael
...bush thinks america is the one and only and if american decides so, then america will force its will upon any nation on this planet.

I wonder where this megalomania will lead too.

You seem to have forgotten that the US is already at war... has been since the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

Afhganistan was the first round, Iraq is next. The goal is [u]not[/u] to kill Saddam Hussein, any more than the goal in Afghanistan was to kill Osama Bin Laden. If it happens, good. The main goal is to change the form of government.

As I described earlier, that is expected to set off a series of internaly-driven regime changes in the Arab world, with democracy replacing the current dictatorship/theocracies. It is much more difficult for terrorist organisations to get state support for their activities when government programs are subject to public debate.

North Korea is being dealt with by both Russia and the US. Military action has not been threatened for the simple reason that it is [u]not required[/u]. The North's recent actions are classic Korean tactics to start negotiations from a strong position. Talks will drag out for a frustratingly long time, but what North Korea is looking for is some solid assurance that the US will not attack them.

The difference between this situation, and the one in Iraq, is that the North Koreans want to negotiate with the US. Saddam Hussein has no intention of negotiating, or even co-operating with the US, the UN, or anybody else.

It is a common reaction to claim that someone we don't like is stupid. In truth, the Americans have often done things that tend to support that assessment. On the issue of terrorism, though, I think they have a better understanding than most of the international community. Bush has made it clear that state support of terrorism will be considered an act of war against the US. The only acceptable responses are to lead, follow, or [u]get out of the way[/u]!

Originally posted by kingdavid

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...Iraq has a well educated populace that's quite capable of governing itself with Saddam out of the way, but it also has three large ethnic groups that don't always get along and they will need to be policed until they have chosen some kind of unified government...

You expressing double standards here;you feel that they can govern themselves on their own but neeed your policing to handle ethnic differences.What then do you understand by self governance.That "need policing" thing is just an excuse to go where you've no right to go.

It takes time for a government to be chosen democraticly, it takes more time for the government to establish it's authority with it's own people. Nobody can throw together a government, laws, a police force, and a judicery at the snap of a finger, especially a fair one. Somebody has to make sure a basic semblance of law and order is followed, and if America removes Saddam Hussein and his government from power, I think it's America's responsibility to bear that burden.

...we'd just have to police that much more turf...

Who gave you the role of policing any turf?

The UN (by virtue of making itself powerless and meaningless by not taking action).

...get our troops out of foreign nations (because our forces are spred too thin to be fully effective)...

Effective against who? Were you at war with anyone before sept. 11? Or was Bush planning to do this all along,sept was just an excuse?Do you realise how much less your defence budget would be if you didn't go throwing your weight everywhere?[/quote]
Have you ever noticed that the second the US tries to stop "throwing our weight around" we're accused of being "isolationists" and not "pulling our weight in the international community." Saddam Hussein essentially signed a contract saying "If I don't prove that I've disarmed the Gulf War will resume." Over ten years later he has failed to do so. Shouldn't parole violators be put back in prison? Or do we give them more time to stop doing whatever it was that put them into prison, and then a few months later give them more time because they still haven't stoped, and then a few months from then give them more time because they still haven't stopped? When does it end? I say enough is enough.

US Nukes: GW saying he'd use nuclear weapons "if appropriate" forces Saddam to question whether or not using chemical/biological weapons is such a good idea. Before deploying his WMDs, he's forced to ask himself if his hiding place is strong enough to survive a nuclear attack, and if he'd survive...He's a dictator and a murderer, but he's not stupid; if he thinks he'll get bit in the ass for using them, he's less likely to try and deploy them.

So you think if you guys had nuked Afghanistan,you'd have killed Osama?You don't even know where he is,for crying out loud.If Osama evaded you,so can Saddam.Fear for his own personal safety wouldn't stop him from calling your bluff with regard to nuclear weapons.

Osama bin Laden (as far as anybody knows) never had any WMDs and Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure (thanks to the Soviets and decades of civil war). There was never any reason to use nukes in Afghanistan. Iraq has infrastructure, and therefore nuclear weapons may be an effective deterant. Remember when I said "I don't know how smart an idea this works out to be, but that's probably what Bush is thinking"? That's why. Or are you just skimming and nitpicking where you think you have a leg to stand on?

..UN inspectors are covering a small fraction of Iraq (and aren't even being allowed to perform airial recon to cover some of the gaps...

How many planes has he shot down?Same way those 33rd and 36th parallel things were done,so can you recon if you want.I'm not convinced America needs Saddam's cooperation to fly those high altitude spy planes and stuff over Iraq if necessary.

There is a huge difference between the US and England flying mach 2 capable fighters aircraft over a lightly defended no fly zone and the UN trying to fly a 500mph U-2 over the VERY heavily defended rest of Iraq.

I said Saddam wants time to prepare his defenses, not build weapons...

Because you've threatened to war him.If he was doing it as part of a plan he always had,ten years is enough time.If he was unable to coz of sanctions and stuff,what has changed?And not just changed,changed so much so that war is now inevitable,and your president is talking as though nukes as the frisbees his dog plays with?

Yes, sanctions have kept him contained, but they've also starved his people. Maybe you're fine with the idea of a half million Iraqis dead due to sanctions and a negligent murderer as a leader, I am not. But you don't see those people starving out your window, so I guess it's a matter of "out of site, out of mind."

...so what is it we need them for?

Maybe to give you "evidence" of Saddams WMD program.

That's what I just said.

War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.

Welcome to the ranks of the dominated.

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
It is a common reaction to claim that someone we don't like is stupid. In truth, the Americans have often done things that tend to support that assessment. On the issue of terrorism, though, I think they have a better understanding than most of the international community. Bush has made it clear that state support of terrorism will be considered an act of war against the US. The only acceptable responses are to lead, follow, or [u]get out of the way[/u]!

I'm with you ... No body likes terrorism , we all hate it & if not stopped , may be one of us is going to be the next victim... That's why most people in the world (including muslims & arabs) supported war against Taliban & Bin Laden.

But what does this has to do with Iraq ? As far as every body knows , Saddam's regiem never supported such groups like Al Kaeda or such.

The U.S. government has been trying to link Saddam to terrorism since 11/9 or may be before , but they always failed cuz over the years this guy (Saddam) has never shown any supports to such groups .
As a matter of fact , I believe he tries to make sure that no such groups develope in his country , so that they don't take over power from him someday.

The war against Iraq is not a war against terrorism ... It's for oil , domination or whatever ... But certainly has got nothing to do with terrorism.

Originally posted by SLY ...The war against Iraq is not a war against terrorism ... It's for oil , domination or whatever ... But certainly has got nothing to do with terrorism.

Saddam openly offers payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Meanwhile, I am very interested to find out what evidence the US will reveal on 5 February.

hmm, just a quick point, cos goddamit, I'm short of time

The idea that you can prove you DONT have something is an insult, because when it comes to some thing like a nation it is IMPOSSIBLE... No country can PROVE that they aren't hiding anything... It should be innocent till proven guilty..
Ponyone: lol, it's the middle east, and we're both agreeing.... intresting... :)

The concept of small pox attack is blatant scare mongering, small pox is not easy produce (i'll stick my neck out, to go as far say niegh on impossible) , and it sure as hell is not easy to spread, even though they tell you all you need is one terrorist to start it all... true, one guy can start it, but although he may come into contact with alot of poeple, very few will be actaully affected, secondly my parents generation are vacinated against it..
THe small pox idea is very potent pr wise, but really i'd be more worried about planes, car bombs etc...

The thing is, there is no change within the last 2 or 3 years that justifies this sudden change in policy... oh except that Bush got elected...

Saddam is not a nice guy by an means, however he is VERY unpredictable, and one of the worst things you could do is to box him into a corner.. if he has WMD the US risks an attack on isreal... but dont think the current admin hasn't taken that into account, because they know he hasn't got anything that's of anyreal threat...
THey are complying with the inspectors, and that should be enough to avert a war... but nope, the inspectors cant pump oil... send in the troops followed by the tycoons...

Originally posted by educatedfilm
The idea that you can prove you DONT have something is an insult, because when it comes to some thing like a nation it is IMPOSSIBLE... No country can PROVE that they aren't hiding anything... It should be innocent till proven guilty..

Then why are they acting like they are hiding something? Why is every interview the UN weapons inspectors conducts observed by atleast one but usually more members of Saddam's secret police? Why are foreign reporters always escorted? Why isn't Saddam allowing U-2 overflights? Why would this be, and how can you suggest it doesn't discredit Iraq's case? You know that if Israel were to pull something like this you'd be all over them.

The concept of small pox attack is blatant scare mongering, small pox is not easy produce (i'll stick my neck out, to go as far say niegh on impossible) , and it sure as hell is not easy to spread, even though they tell you all you need is one terrorist to start it all... true, one guy can start it, but although he may come into contact with alot of poeple, very few will be actaully affected, secondly my parents generation are vacinated against it..

Small Pox is incredibly easy to spread, ask anybody of Native American descent. Just a few blankets that had been used in a Brittish hospital was enough to virtually wipe out entire tribes. In an unprotected population, Small Pox can and will spread rapidly. Now while your parents may have been vaccinated, not everybody in their generation was (say, in American where Small Pox was erradicated early), and almost nobody in our generation has been vaccinated. Now I introduced Small Pox as an example. Iraq's documentation submitted to the inspectors a few months ago doesn't include any mention of TONS of biological and chemical weapons (including Small Pox, Anthrax, Botulism, and VX Nerve Gas) that weapons inspectors knew about four years ago.

The thing is, there is no change within the last 2 or 3 years that justifies this sudden change in policy... oh except that Bush got elected...

The policy change absolutely should have been made four years ago.

Saddam is not a nice guy by an means, however he is VERY unpredictable, and one of the worst things you could do is to box him into a corner.. if he has WMD the US risks an attack on isreal... but dont think the current admin hasn't taken that into account, because they know he hasn't got anything that's of anyreal threat...
THey are complying with the inspectors, and that should be enough to avert a war... but nope, the inspectors cant pump oil... send in the troops followed by the tycoons...

1). Some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power are Iraqi refugees.
2). What statute under international law would allow US oil companies to seize Iraqi wells? To quote one British guy I've been debating this with on another board, "I do actually have to commend the US government for not striking exploration deals with Iraq." But to a point I've raised a few times here, Iraq's oil wealth is currently going to France, Germany, and Russia, not to the Iraqi people. Wouldn't they and their economy be much better off if they could export their own oil and reap the benefits themselves?
3). Weren't you pointing out a few months ago that Iraqis are starving because of the sanctions neccessary to keep Saddam contained? Are you saying they should starve now that an American president is willing to remove the reason they're in their current delema?

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
Saddam openly offers payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Meanwhile, I am very interested to find out what evidence the US will reveal on 5 February.

Well , these are realy poor families ,and the suicide bomber is usualy their main man whom they depend on ... These poor families realy need help , you can't leave kids starve to death just cuz their father or one of their relatives turned to be a desparate suicide bomber, that's non-human !
Actualy what realy encourages these suicidal acts is Mr. Sharone's governments and the Inhuman methods of treating Palestinians that they use , not the very little financial aid they get from Saddam or anybody else.

To prove my point, check out Isreal Vs. Palestinian violence recorded statistics during the current government , and compare it to the peacefull days when "Rabin" was in charge .
You'll find it realy obvious that as Israel raises the military acts, Palestinian bombers increase & vice versa .


Back to the main thing , I realy doubt if Saddam realy pays anything to these families ... From where the hell does he get enough money for charity ?? If he had such money, I guess he would rather spend it on Iraqies instead ... I believe his speaches or claims about this issue is some sourt of a propaganda for himself , just to show that he cares about poor people.

Originally posted by educatedfilm
The idea that you can prove you DONT have something is an insult, because when it comes to some thing like a nation it is IMPOSSIBLE... No country can PROVE that they aren't hiding anything... It should be innocent till proven guilty..

Absolutely right man ... A suspect should never be sentenced untill proved to be guilty with real evidence , not secret evidence the U.S. claim to have !

Hi rask! Intresting that we were on opposite sides of the board here...
"Then why are they acting like they are hiding something?"

LOL, it's very easy to make them look shifty, it's been done by your media to your own senators/ heads of state over very minor things, the examples are too many to list.. but Watergate is a very good example... To my knowledge they are complying as far as they can...

"Why is every interview the UN weapons inspectors conducts observed by atleast one but usually more members of Saddam's secret police"
Because they want to make sure (first hand) nothing is planted... It's VERY easy to take a cotton swab with a very low concentration of something like Vx, and just smear it in a basement, then come back and say "LOOK! TRACES OF VX!!!"... they have to be monitered and i dont see why that is an unreasonable thing...

" Why are foreign reporters always escorted? Why isn't Saddam allowing U-2 overflights? Why would this be, and how can you suggest it doesn't discredit Iraq's case?"
I agree it doing nothing for iraq's case, but if you listen to the guys speeches and the persona he puts across to the public, he is very big on national pride, and U2 flights would be an affront to his nation's pride, even though this could actually mean the consequences could be much worse than petty pride.. This is where, in my oppinion, he's being a TOTAL idoit... He is making a stand when it's time to sit down and shut up..

"You know that if Israel were to pull something like this you'd be all over them"
?? I dont really get this comment... Isreal is a totally different matter, it has nuclear weapons in our midst, has a hard line government that still firmly beleive in the nile to the uphrates doctrine, it has one of the worst human rights records in the region... and what have we done officailly? Nothing... Poeple get so mad and wound up, they join the fanatics and totally go wrong.. But the amount of force they can summon is nothing compared to isreal's army...
Boxing iraq into a corner, and if saddam has WMDs as alledged, they are really risking an exchange with isreal...


"Small Pox is incredibly easy to spread, ask anybody of Native American descent. Just a few blankets that had been used in a Brittish hospital was enough to virtually wipe out entire tribes. In an unprotected population, Small Pox can and will spread rapidly"
Are you sure your not talking about the plauge? Cos small pox is contagous, but not like that... Small pox is also very potent in spreading fear, because it causes boils, and disfiguration...
Still, IMHO, there's no way in hell small pox could be made in the conditions iraq are under at the mo..
" Anthrax, Botulism, and VX Nerve Gas"
Anthrax: is pretty much a joke, it's name is more potent than it.. as proved by the anthrax attacks on america, and that was THE VERY potent air borne stuff... it's bacterial, so really it's not a worry at all...
VX: is horrendously difficult to handle, transport etc... the iraq's, straight after the gulf war, admitted they had tried to make it, but found it too difficult to deal with, so they ceased it's production of their own accord..
Botulism: i dont know enough to comment yet, but i'll do some reaserch and come back to you on that...

"The policy change absolutely should have been made four years ago."
Why? the iraq's haven't done anything new in more than four years... we're told to just accept at face value, that there is something happening, and we must as citizen of democratic nations (US+UK) simply believe and follow with out question.. (tony blair has had a right bitch at "cynics")

"1). Some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power are Iraqi refugees."
oh you surprise me there... I thought you could see that these refugees are potential new leaders of iraq! :) does it make sense now?

"2). What statute under international law would allow US oil companies to seize Iraqi wells? To quote one British guy I've been debating this with on another board, "I do actually have to commend the US government for not striking exploration deals with Iraq.""
Lol, there's a reason for that, the poeple that are in power at the mo, are going out in a few weeks... hmmm, I wonder why this is? INTERNATIONAL LAW?! THE HELL WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, just like as it's ever been... And we'll probably come back to this point in 6 months... Mark my words, Iraq will be just like Saudi... with a pretenous puppet leader, that looks docile and pleasant, selling oil cheap to "freinds", while butchering their own poeple.

"3). Weren't you pointing out a few months ago that Iraqis are starving because of the sanctions neccessary to keep Saddam contained? Are you saying they should starve now that an American president is willing to remove the reason they're in their current delema?"
Yep, i was, and you'll also remember i had a good ol' fashioned bitch at the fact that the sanctions weren't benifiting the iraq's and needed some changing. I didn't say the US should carpet bomb bagdad in the name of freedom...
The reason the iraq's are starving is not because of suddam but because of the poeple who put the sanctions. Basically Keep saddam contained, but for the love of good let food and medicine in! Either that or lift sanctions all together... Saddam is effectively neutered, he cant do sh*t. I'd be more worried about resentment of the Saudi regime and the US's backing to said regime in Saudi (remember sept 11? what's been done about that? oh just blanket blackout of the subject.) What i'm saying is get the US admin to take a more humanitarain side to thier foriegn policies, and not just cold hearted pragmatism, whith some idealised public releases...

SLY: i strongly disagree with suicide bombers hitting civilain targets.. I think it's a crime, and like all crimes YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE CAUSES... and i agree that sharon is pouring kerosine over a smouldering fire...
I've pointed it out before, hardlines from one side, cause the prominance of hardliners from the other side. This current aproach of voilence with out a diplomatic solution is idoicy, and will result in 2 things:
1) constant pointless strife
2) the expulsion of the palastinains, and that would be mean a serious destabalisation of the region, and possible war...

About the Suddam paying off sucide bomber's families... I've never read/ hear anything in arabic about this.. I'd DEEPLY suspicious of this "fact"...

Nice to see everyone piling in and sharing their thoughts, nice to know that we still take time to think... I remember why i like this place so much...

Originally posted by educatedfilm
SLY: i strongly disagree with suicide bombers hitting civilain targets.. I think it's a crime, and like all crimes YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE CAUSES... and i agree that sharon is pouring kerosine over a smouldering fire...

I didn't say suicide bombing is good , specialy if it's against civilians ... Actualy what most people don't know , suicide is forbidden by islamic religion & so is terrorising civilians or innocent people.

Military actions should only be against other military actions , palestinian bombings against israeli's civilian targets is realy shamefull ... But what's MORE shamefull is the israeli military actions against innocent civilian palestinian targets.

I'm absolutely against suicide bombing or targeting civilians in general ... But the poor families of the suicide bombers ain't guilty for anything but being relative to a suicide bomber.
Israel's government is now destroying their homes & military targeting them , which is like a punishment for a crime they never commited .
Mass punishment of innocent people is terribly injustice , not to mention it's a very sick Idea.