weaktwos

My language did not imply that no one else couldn't respond. :-)

From:

So, do you think that we aren't justified in going on and wiping out the oppresive tyrant and his regime?

From:

You bet.

From:

So what should we do? Forget about it?
The *only* reason that Saddam has shown up with this stuff that is fitted to be used for chemical and biological agents is because we've got thousands upon thousands of troops surrounding his country. What has come up is disturbing in the extreme itself.
What do you think should be done?

From:

More specifically the unmanned drones and the bombs that seperate into other bomblets, both made to have the capability of spreading chemical and biological agents, which both directly violate the terms of resolution 1441.
Obviously sanctions and inspections don't really do any good.
What else is there to do?

From:

What would I do? I would wait until you can make a clear case that we are truly threatened by Saddam. We're doing a massive buildup without a clear and present danger. It's possible,but it's not a given. Since this isn't present, we're looking like bullies, and in a way, since we want his oil, we want power in the gulf, we are.

This isn't the world of the Minority Report. There is no Precrime.

By taking this action preemptively, we are making more problems than we are avoiding. We're massively increasing spending, we're bribing countries for support, we're alienating our own allies, except for Britain.

Yes, some of us Americans may be convinced that Saddam is a bad, bad man. But for some reason, our talented government officials can't make a clear, compelling case to the UN. That's very important.

From:

They don't have a clear and compelling case?
Embargos haven't worked. It just destroys the country while Saddam and his regime gets off with caviar and wine.
He gasses his own people and experiments on them to further their knowledge of weapons of mass destruction. It's not like they're just putting lipstick on bunnies here. Any person with any humanitarian scruples would be outraged at this fact alone.
*He has weapons of mass destruction*
WHY would he have these weapons of mass destruction unless he was planning on using them? Why would he be building the means to distribute said weapons unless he was planning on using them?
I say that's convincing enough. He's pissed on the UN. He's made a mockery of the US and the UN. And he's finally pissed off the US. He *is* in violation of resolution 1441. The UN is quickly turning into the League of Nations, ESPECIALLY if they wont even back up what they promise to do. What are these "Serious Consequences" that's spoken of in Resolution 1441? Are we just supposed to send him a mean letter?
And wait. We've waited. 12 years, 6 months, and 5 days. It's been over 4 months since resolution 1441 was passed. It called for an immediate and unconditional disarmament. What does immediate mean?
im·me·di·ate adj.
1. Occurring at once; instant: gave me an immediate response.
2.
a. Of or near the present time: in the immediate future.
b. Of or relating to the present time and place; current: “It is probable that, apart from the most immediate, pragmatic, technical revisions, the writer's effort to detach himself from his work is quixotic” (Joyce Carol Oates).
3. Close at hand; near: in the immediate vicinity. See Synonyms at close.
4. Next in line or relation: is an immediate successor to the president of the company.
5. Directly apprehended or perceived: had immediate awareness of the scope of the crisis.
6. Acting or occurring without the interposition of another agency or object; direct.

Saddam himself, in an interview with a middle eastern journalist said that all he has to do is wait. We'll fall under our own weight and give up this whole thing against Iraq.
This is a guy that invaded Kuwait. He didn't just do this because he thought his people would benifit from the pillaging of another country.
You don't have to have a Pre-Crime station to know for a fact that he's building this up to attack. He's done it before.
And if we wait any longer, how long is it going to take for North Korea to sell a -=nuclear weapon=- to Saddam. That would be so utterly catastrophic.
What are we supposed to wait for? Wait till he uses his weapons to kill more than just people in his own country? Wait till the people in the UN are more concerned about human life than the weight of their wallets?
Are we really threatened? Look at 9/11. Think now, that all someone has to do is pick up their luggage at an international airport here in America, open a small vial or bag or whatever, and poof, you've got an airport full of dead people. Should we just wait for that to happen?
This guy doesn't have all this VX gas to see if we can use it to cure cancer.
He presents a clear threat, not only to the US, but to the entire world.

From:

Thanks for defining immediate for me. I had been lost without that definition.

Yes, everyone pays attention to the obvious threat. But it wasn't Saddam who drove planes into the WTC, it was someone most of us forgot about entirely. Once this war is over, we will be no safer than we are now. In the eyes of some, Saddam will be martyred, some will step in to fill the gap left by him. We can't seem to find the guy who actually caused a national tragedy on our soil though. No sir. So let's bomb another guy's country in the meantime.

And yes, history shows that war is a fantastic deterrant and purveyor of peace. Just look at Israel and Palestine. Why, without war, they probably would have destroyed each other in 100 years instead of fighting back and forth for a thousand years. Yeah, that makes sense!

We'll drive our government deeper into debt, pick on the French, bribe a bunch of other countries, kill some innocent children, create more tensions between us and the muslims, and risk our soldier's lives for potentially ousting a leader who will probably not be killed, but will escape to terrorize us another day.

And yes, while we're fighting this potential threat, where we can't find anything, we ignore the fact that N. Korea is months from having the bomb, and Iran has a very advanced nuclear program going on.

But no, let's ignore the big picture and destroy Iraq. Violence is the answer, because aggravating our enemies makes us safer.

From:

We can't seem to find Osama, yes, but his 3rd in command just got arrested. No, he hasn't been forgotten about, and we're creeping up behind him still. His regime has been scattered to the 4 winds. They no longer have a stable base of operations. They have been severely hindered.

And kill innocent children? You think the US is going to go in there and kill innocent children? Where on God's green earth do you get that we're going to go in there and kill innocent children? We're not the ones hiding military equipment in mosques and civilian housing! Not only is Saddam pissing all over the *18* UN resolutions but he's giving the big fat finger to the Geneva Convention. And if you're so concerned about the children, how about the children in Iraq that Saddam is disfiguring and killing? You practice any kind of dissent in Iraq, then you and your family get shot, gassed, and turned into lab rats. Where's your compassion for them?
And a potential threat where we can't find anything? Where we can't find anything?! How about the Al Samoud with Warheads that are fitted for chemical and biological agents that we found. How about the Bombs that can scatter into mini bombs that are fitted to disperse chemical and biological agents that we found. How about the *unmanned drone* that Hans Blix so conveniently left out until after the debate at the UN, that are *all* fitted for the distribution of chemical and biological agents that have been found. There is so *much* proof pointing the finger at Saddam that it's amazing people can keep themselves blind to it.
And I'm sure that Iran is very very very aware of the 300,000+ troops that are right around the country.
And just look at Israel and Pa

From:

And just look at Israel and Palestine. Palestinian terrorists kill innocent civilian women and children. Isreal attacks Palestinian military outposts. Hrmm, sounds to me like Isreal needs to be given permission to do what we're doing. And then, there will be victory. And THEN there will be peace. Peace is a direct product of Victory. After World War II, after the Victory in World War II, there was peace. After the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan, there was Freedom, and peace is on it's way. After Victory in Iraq, of course we wont be safe. Complete safetly is an illusion. But we *will* be safe from the threat of Saddam. Our allies will be safe from the threat of Saddam. And there will be no gap to fill. There will be no totalitarian goverment for someone to enter and rape the country again, because the country is going to be led by the people. It will only happen again if the majority of the people in Iraq are scum, and I don't believe they are.
We don't want to aggravate our enemies? Hey, who's the superpower? Who needs to worry about aggravating who? Peace through Victory.
All that nonviolence sure has freed Tibet, hasn't it?

From:

Tibet and the United States are not the same. And yes, why haven't we come to the aid of Tibet?

In World War II, we were attacked, not vice versa. It also helped that Hitler killed himself. There was peace for us, because our country wasn't the battleground, therefore we could forget about it and live our Leave it to Beaver lives, build our bomb shelters (yes, peace with fear of nuclear war), and prepare our stop, drop and roll drills. Plus, we had to occupy Germany for 40 years before we allowed them on their own.

Of course, no peace is like the peace we felt after Vietnam.

As for Jerusalem, they are giving as good as they get. Each Palestinian act of violence is often followed by retaliation that takes more lives.

From:

Vietnam is a horrible example because there was no Victory. We didn't go in with a clear agenda, and then with the anti-war protests and lack of support, America beat itself. These troops, even the drafted ones, were spit upon and called baby killers by stupid selfish unamerican bloody fucking idiots! These people were out there protecting that freedon! And now so many of these Vietnam Vets are fucked up in the head because of this very Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist rhetoric.
My grandfather that just passed away was *in* World War II, participated in the Battle of the Bulge and had his finger shot off there. He was a horrible fucking person, but I can respect him for the fact that he laid down his life for the right of people in America to be so goddamn unamerican. I can actually begin to love that asshole just because of that very fact.
And Jerusalem giving as good as they get? How in the world can you profess to care about the US killing children in Iraq when you totally just blow over the fact that Palestinian acts of violence kill such innocent children? Sounds to me like the argument should be that Isreal should be allowed to protect it's people. That Isreal is the one that is Morally Correct in that situation.
And Thank The Good Lord that we were able to go about and lead our Leave it to Beaver lives! Vive America! Thank The Good Lord that we have the opportunity to choose whether we want to believe in God, by any name, or not. Thank the Good Lord that we have the opportunity to pursue a life of happiness, if we so choose.
I want to know why, if America is such a horrible place to live, don't all these people migrate to a new country?
And of course we had to occupy Germany. That was the only int

From:

And of course we had to occupy Germany. That was the only intelligent thing to do. And they're *still* not allowed to have any real military. Hey, looks like our efforts worked. France is okay again. Germany is a whole lot better off now.
I say Thank the Good Lord, or whatever diety or nonentity you want to praise.

From:

No, it wasn't Saddam who flew planes into the WTC. And no, we've NEVER been safe on our own soil. It's just not possible until we manage to put up a fence/dome type thing around our country. (Now wouldn't THAT be unique) But you can't disregard the fact that there may be a link between the two. (ie, Saddam and Osama)

Nonetheless, Saddam is being pressured because he's committed his own "crimes." And perhaps some don't consider what he's doing to be tantamount to criminal behavior. I do. I'm sorry, but I can't look at someone who's potentially holding the end of the human race in his hands in any other manner.

And what exactly do you suggest? Should we focus our aggressions on North Korea instead? Or on Iran? Or is the UN going to hit them with sanctions and embargoes as well? And what good is that going to do?

Let's face it. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. We live in the greatest country (at least from the perspective of looking at the lives of its people) in the world. Our omelet is protecting what's ours. The eggs are people (and let's face it, it really IS just people, and not entire countries) that are threatening what's ours. It's hard to look at people and say, "Let's just be friends," when New York and L.A. just aren't there anymore.

Personally, I would rather not see war happen because war itself is a pointless endeavor. But in reality, what options are we left with? What else CAN we do at this point? We've put both ourselves and Saddam into a situation in which there is no trust. And when you have reached a point at which you can no longer trust someone or thing, you excise it. It's unfortunate, but that's kinda how it goes.

Peace.

From:

But really, this truly isn't a preemptive strike. This is just another phase of the Gulf War. It all boils down to that one, simple point.

From:

Oh yeah! That simple point. And what about his being an extension of the Gulf War makes your point stronger? The simple point that Saddam has never engaged us in War, yet we continue to beat his ass? Or did you want to make the simple point that our activities in the Gulf War (our troops in Saudi Arabia) is what made Osama hate us to the point of plotting his destructive act(9/11)?

So, tell me how agressive acts of war make us safer, again? And we want to be safer from what? Our right to privacy? That's what we seem to be safe from right now. But anybody, not just Iraq can go walking through our airports, our shopping malls with a virulent agent of some sort.

From:

It wasn't an agressive act of war. Iraq invaded Kuwait. He didn't do it for the benefit of his people either. One day he woke up and said, I want that country for it's oil. Gee, he spilled blood for oil. And bent kuwait over a big table, and raped them with a lack of any kind of lubricant. Then we went in and saved that country's ass. We went in and handed Saddam's ass to him. He surrendered, and agreed to abide by certain terms and conditions. He has not complied. He had no army anymore, so he developed weapons of mass destruction. So since he has violated those terms of surrender, we are basically back in a state of war. It's Saddam's fault. We have begged and pleaded with the guy for 12 and a half years to cease and desist. He still hasn't done it.
Sure, anyone can walk in with a virulent agent, but it sure makes it a bit harder for them to do when you have one less country developing shitloads of it.
But you're absolutely right. Saddam never engaged us in war. But he did go in and *invaded an ally*. That country litterally screamed for help. And who came to the *rescue*? Horrible, warmongering United States.
Your argument has jumped from `Saddam isn't a bad guy and America is just a bunch of bullies' to `He might be a bad guy but he doesn't have stuff to be bad with' which is wrong. I've already explained why. Twice. To `We shouldn't because no one else wants us to' and we have to bribe them because they care more about money than right and wrong. Their language isn't in morals, it's in dollars and cents.
But I still HATE war! I hate the fact that there's just no other intelligent way to deal with Saddam. JUST like there was no intelligent way to deal with Hitler. The only real option here is removal. I can't believe that someone would think that our Preident is *excited* about ordering 70 *THOUSAND* body bags.
France is all about the oil. They are being given -=25%=- of all of Saddam's oil as payment for services rendered.
Russia is owed $9.2 BILLION dollars with a personal guarantee by Saddam.
Of *COURSE* these countries don't want to go to war because their wallets would take a big swift kick in the balls.
That is ReFreakinDiculous. Nobody *wants* war. (And I'd rather not associate with anyone who *wants* war) But we can understand the necesity of going to war for the safety of our children and our children's children. And we can understand the necesity of going to war to liberate the children of Iraq. To liberate their children's children.

From:

There is no morality at the political level, currently. This whole thing is merely a dispute among government leaders that just has lasting and crippling affects on individuals. We helped Saddam get to where he is. Some of the same people currently in power were involved in efforts to support Saddam because at the time we liked Iran less.

You may have a moral reason for eliminating Saddam, but that's not what motivates our government.

From:

Ah...that's not necessarily true. I want war. A world without war is kind of like a relationship without fights (arguments, disagreements, call them what you will). Of course, I'd much rather have wars that were fought with like, pointy sticks.

From:

Umm...yes. Anyone COULD go walking through our airports with mystery virus X (or not so mysterious). I'm pretty sure that he's saying that Saddam is pretty much doing so, whereas others are not. Don't get me wrong, Iraqis are not necessarily walking through our airports with deadly virii. But no one else is blatantly and recklessly ignoring the rules, as it were.

From:

Actually, yes, folks are blatantly ignoring the rules: North Korea and Iran. And in a way, if we proceed without UN approval, we'll be breaking the rules as well.

From: