usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

Hel Khat · Sep 27, 2002

Re: It doesn't get any better than this.

DarkUnderlord said:

My only question is, what is invasion going to achieve? No really. Stop and think about it. Don't just presume the country will be a better place. Think about it. What's it going to take to get Iraq back on the straight and narrow? It'll take a lot of manpower to keep the peace (there are various different factions within Iraq, all of which would have concerns about whomever was leader, as such civil war could break out). You'll create a lot of enemies in the process (more Osama bin Ladens ready to hijack planes for Allah), and whomever you choose as leader is going to be considered a US/UN puppet. Which will achieve what? Of course, the other alternative is that you'll end up being screwed over again, by whomever you pick.

The reality is, countries have to pick their own leaders. THEY SHOULD NOT be chosen by someone else. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked. Yes, the guy you picked might be a great guy, but the truth is, if the people think he's only a puppet, they couldn't care less. Saddam is the leader of a group of people who make up only about 20% of the Iraqi population. The Kurds make up about 60% then there's another group. All these guys aren't going to get along too well. Plus, there's America's own history. Remember promising to help the Kurds out to rise up against Saddam, then ignoring them and not helping them? That doesn't make friends you know (and America wonders why people hate them).

In the long-term, what will overthrowing Saddam achieve? Will Iraq still be expected not to have any weapons of mass destruction? Will it not be allowed to have the weapons it needs to defend itself with? If so, it means the United Nations (or America, if they go it alone) will have to protect them.
Click to expand...

OK now we can talk Very good points all of them. You are correct we do not have a grand history of success when it comes to "appointing" leaders for countries.

You are also correct in the fact that an invasion could make things even worst for the Iraqi people then they are now (even I don't see how it would be possible. but gun battles, violence in the streets and civil war can't be a very good thing)

Like I said before I don't want to see people suffer needlessly but if inspections fail and we have already tried sanctions and they have failed what else can we do to help these poor people without endangering the future safety and well being of America?

You are correct DU when it comes to history and changing leaders, history does not side with US favorablely But honestly is there a peaceful way out of this? One that will not call for the blood shed of millions of innocent Iraq's and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of American lives?

I am sorry but if weapons inspections fail I can not see simply giving up and leaving him to his own devises. Is there some other answer other then these two (war vs doing nothing) We are all smart human beings there has to be a 3rd opption that will remove Saddam and his pawns from power and liberate the Iraqi people with a minimum of bloodshed

CharlesBHoff · Sep 28, 2002

Clothos_Vermillion said:

I deleted the quote thingy by accident so

QUOTE!!!
(BY A NAME I ALSO DELETED, (SORRY))

All a war will do is delay the inevitable. That is, some bad guy somewhere is going to get a nuke and use it against you. A first strike isn't the answer. September 11 is. You wait until it happens, THEN you blow the shit out of them. If you strike first, you'll piss off a lot of countries. Mainly because a lot of countries are going to think that they're next. If you're willing to launch a first strike against another country because it has "weapons of mass destruction". Then there are a lot of countries that'll want to get weapons of mass destruction and use them against you first, before you get to them.
ENDQUOTE!

Just cuz we will get attacked doesn't mean that we should let ourselves be. That's like if someone said they were try to kill you everyday, and you just said, "What the hell, might as well be tommorow." A realistic person, or country, would try to stop their demise, or the demise of their countrymen, by a madman, every day if necessary.

What is the point of having a military, and being a world power, if you just get endlessly attacked, and just sit there getting hit.

If we had known about 9-11 before it happened, we would have been dumbasses to sit there and say, "well, some terrorists are gonna destroy the World Trade Center anyway. Its not worth making someone angry to save thousands of lives."

We have been pushed into a wall, by the countries in the Axis of Evil and the terrorists they support either through money and weapons, or safehavens, or just through giving the anti-american position more power. They must be stopped, and if war will do it, then i advise war.

In Iraq, we have a precedent to invade, (he broke our treaty, shoots at our planes, abuses his people, has little regard for human life, has the potential to use weapons of mass destruction, has attacked other nations with little or no provocation, and supports terrorists, either through money, or safe houses, or just support for hte cause in general(the jury is still out on this)). We SHOULD have invaded 4 years ago, but Clinton, the UN, and the world was not in favor of making him live up to his agreement, and now we are paying for it.

Other countries, like Iran or Saudi Arabia, will be dealt with differently and fairly for what they have done. And in many ways, these nations are worse than Iraq, just there is less justification for war in these nations.
Click to expand...

If we invade Iraq without UN approval of the Security Council but of the General Assembly also THAN I MEAN 100% approval. Anti-america feeling
and anti-western feeling will raise in the third world. In Lebanon the Iran back freedom fighter have thousand's of misslies ready to fire at Israel some have range of 45 miles carrying than warhead of than few tons..

Someone said Iran and Syria willnot help Iraq think against. They know it they allow america to take out Iraq they will be next. Both Syria and Iran
hate Israel and America more than they hate Iraq leader.

carlstar · Sep 28, 2002

spam has hit

True.

Hel Khat · Sep 28, 2002

Clothos_Vermillion said:

Hel Khat said:

Let me guess you also have a bridge in Brooklyn that you'd like to sell me for a good price too right? :thumbup:
Click to expand...

My teacher offered to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge too. I wondered whether you co-owned it with Mr. Johnson, and yes, i am interested!!!
Click to expand...

I'll tell ya what cause I like ya I'll let you have it for half price what do ya say _

Log in or Sign up

usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

Hel Khat New Member

CharlesBHoff New Member

carlstar New Member

Hel Khat New Member

Log in or Sign up

usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

Hel Khat New Member

CharlesBHoff New Member

carlstar New Member

Hel Khat New Member

Useful Searches