Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Yet you support a position that the evidence idicates is more likely to kill a higher number of innocent people in the long run? Do you mean to tell us that a violent death is worse than a starvation death? Or that you honestly expect Saddam Hussein to just give up his plans after all these years (bearing in mind his well noted ego and public statements that giving in is "dishonorable") and that we can simply lift the sanctions with any kind of assurance that weapons production in Iraq won't go back into full production?
No, I don’t support the death of innocent people by any means, I thought I stated that at least a couple of times in previous posts. No, any death is bad BUT it’s no better to inflict death by dropping bombs on a populated city. So explain to me how this is right? Don’t bother giving me the explanation “for getting rid of Hussein” cause we both know. Not a single one is going to get him or any of his associates, just innocent people. But I guess it’s ok for the US to kill people with bombs opposed to killing them by starving or torturing them? What's the difference??? Killing people is wrong, and you justifying it by saying we’re saving them death by starving by blowing them up. What part of it is RIGHT???
Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Who's talking about killing off the entire population of Iraq? I wouldn't want to be a member of Iraq's military right now, but anybody who's not near a military target is going to be relatively safe. The only place that there's likely to be excessive civilian casualties is in Bagdad itself and only because the Republican Guard is digging in there and trying to create as much of a humanitarian chrisis as possible. From NPR News today: Iraq has purchased a large number of replicas of US and British military uniforms and insignias. I wonder what they plan to use them for...
Well with Bush and Powells Neanderthal intelligence, “ahh we’ll just bomb that crap out of Iraq and pray Saddam will withdraw from power once he sees what we have done”. Now we both agreed that Saddam doesn’t care much for his people or military (ego or whatever). So what is the bombing of Iraq going to do??? Tried it 12 years ago and it didn’t work, so why now?? We just going to keep bombing until he gives up?? With his “ego” I find that might take awhile and the cost of many innocent lives. But it’s for the great good of the Iraqi people?? So with that opinion, you could also say 9/11 was good for us. Al-Quida saw us as evil like we see Saddam as evil, so bombing civilians in their buildings is the same as flying planes into our buildings? In the end is OK for us to do it, but not them. Please don’t tell me that you are in support of this.
I’ll give them this, if your going to bomb somewhere make sure it’s a military base, preferably not the one that is also the most populated city in Iraq. If we’re so humane don’t your think we would look for a better place to bomb. Again it was horrible when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but it’s OK if we bomb Iraq. Yeah, and we’re so against terrorist but it’s OK if we tell the Iraqi people that “we’re going to bomb the crap out of you and your family one night and there's nothing they can do about it, but we‘re fighting terrorism”.
About Iraq purchasing replicas of our stuff, were you thinking they were just going to let us bomb them and not do anything??? Of course they’re going to fight back, but if we weren’t threatening them with military action, they probably wouldn’t be buying that stuff. War is war, we are also vulnerable.
Originally posted by Raskolnikov
It's been our fight since the Gulf War and we (including all UN member states) demanded that Iraq disarm. I've seen Black Hawk Down, and I remember the actual news from the time, and I'm personally disgusted that we gave in so easily. We're not talking about an overwhelming majority of Somalis not wanting us there, we're talking about a few warlords who want to keep their share of power in what's essentially a country in anarchy. Also, Iraqi defectors/refugees are some of the strongest advocates for removing Saddam from power and by force if neccessary.
No it wasn’t. The Gulf War was a fight between Iraq and Kuwait, we were only there to protect Kuwait. Now Somalia had only one warlord and just one small city that didn’t want us there. In the middle east, we’re talking about ENTIRE COUNTRIES, it’s not only Iraq that doesn’t want us there. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and so on. Bin Laden’s whole reason for hating us is the fact that we are in Saudi Arabia. He’s just one man from one country, we would be generally facing the entire Middle East. We have supporters yes, but those numbers are far less than those who oppose us. These people are suicidal too, that is the worst enemy to face in war. A “SMALL” fleet of Japanese kamikaze pilots nearly destroyed our entire navy fleet in WWII, imagine millions of kamikazes. Still think attacking Iraq and in the process ticking off the middle east is going to be a walk in the park?? Do the math.
Originally posted by Raskolnikov
You don't trust Osama bin Laden's integrity, but you trust Saddam Husseins? The inspections process will only work if Iraq's government allows it to. Indicators show that Saddam is holding back A LOT of materials he isn't allowed to have anymore and the "progress" that's being made is purely stall-tactics. Also, you think that they might be working together, but somehow Iraq isn't a threat? Make up your mind.
When did I say that??? No I don’t trust Saddam, I think I cleared that in one of my first posts. Maybe not, but I know what your saying. He’s disarming the weapons which was the point that started this cold war, so how are we justifying our threats now? Yeah, I do believe he does have more and he is distrustful, but I also think war is what he wants. And I said that Iraq alone isn’t a threat, but starting a war in the middle east is a threat because there are many other terrorists (including Bin Laden and other terrorist organizations) there too. If us just being there ticks him off, imagine what starting a war there is going to do. Iraq alone isn’t such a threat, we could easily defeat them. If you reflect on the Gulf war, the nations in the area remained neutral. Now they have clearly demonstrated otherwise, and the entire middle east is a threat. If you can’t see that, you are blind.
Originally posted by Raskolnikov
If the UN is unwilling to act it's powerless and useless. And like it or not, America is powerful to the point that the rest of the world really needs us - that is probably 90% of the world's reservations regarding the US right there.
I think the UN is aware of the threat that may occur if war breaks out. That is why they are unwilling to act in War, they have chosen to act politically first which I believe is the right decision. Yeah we are powerful, but not invincible like you may think. And who asked for our help in this situation???? We are the aggressors in this situation, no one asked for help. Why do you think the UN is against it, they are peace-keepers not enforcers. I think the UN is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. The agreement after the Gulf war was that inspectors would be allowed to inspect Iraq not bomb it. Peace Treaty????
When you look at just Iraq, easy target but what if they possess nuclear technology or have access to it. Believe me it can come to this, does the world need us to start a nuclear war?? Korea has nuclear technology and they’re not too happy with us either cause we’re already messing with them. Our government blinded by “PRIDE OF BEING THE MOST POWERFUL NATION” is bend on a World War with nuclear technology. Call me crazy but this is where I see this ending up.
Originally posted by Raskolnikov
People in the Middle East are ticked off at us anyway. Once Saddam is out of power we can leave Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Quatar entirely because our troops are only there because of Saddam's government. Next, when Iraq is on it's own two feet, we can leave Iraq too. I see that as positive steps towards getting our nose out of the Middle East.
Yeah and starting a war couldn’t possibly push that tension over the edge. The problem is you only see Iraq, and you seem to think if we just war with Iraq everyone else will be cool with it. If Castro started dropping bombs in Canada, do you think we would be cool with it?? To the people in the middle east, we are Tyrants so they will rise up and try to fight us. I don’t see them just sitting back and watching war unfold in their backyard.
In all likelyhood, postponing war in Iraq now means going to war in Iraq later (more costly in lives and money) - or turning our backs on slaughter (just plain wrong). Just look at what ignoring post-WWI Germany did for the world. You want to make the same mistake again?
Yeah I agree, the stuff going on with Iraq and the middle east is wrong. But in fairness it is they’re war, no one has asked for our help. I’m afraid we are making the same mistake that lead to Hitler by persecuting Iraq with war. It has some differences but a lot of striking similarities. Hitler rose up because after WWI we crippled Germany economically, which infuriated the Germans. Hitler capitalized on the circumstances for Germany after WWI. Same thing with the circumstances after the Gulf War, along with a dictator to manifest an entire country to rise up and take control of the world. Saddam has indicated the same intentions and also has grown in supporters in the middle east. Without writing the entire history which lead to WWII, there are a lot of similarities if you would check yourself.
I don’t want to make the mistake again and I’m afraid that this mistake is going to be even more destructive than ANY war in history. I am not an avid believer in psychic abilities but Nostradamus wrote, “mankind will nearly destroy itself and the bringer will be from the middle east“. Think about it. ??? We now have the technology to accomplish such destruction and he has be rather accurate before. I don’t fully believe in it but it is very striking. A lot more could happen from these events that I don’t think a lot of people see or want to see.
Now with your corrections. I didn’t write my post based on what you said, but I will use only one statement to show your something interesting in your corrections. Here it is..
Both those cases, we were ASKED to intervene but we are not being asked now. The only asking I hear is Bush asked for UN support in war with Iraq.
"My whole life is a dark room...ONE BIG DARK ROOM" - a.f.i.