Don't agree with war on Iraq? Then read this

Remove all ads!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3504-614607,00.htm

 

Shell,

I agree that Saddam needs to be removed, and I didn't need to read this article first, but watch out, because this thread is going to get interesting in a hurry!

 

I first read a report like this about 2 years ago - I've read several since. Very little surprises me about their brutality. It's one thing for a government to drop a bomb in the wrong place and say "oops." It's quite another to be so...can't find the right word. Demonic isn't the right word, but it's the first that comes to mind.

Saddam and his sons actually enjoy the carnage. It's fun for them. A power game. He's been grooming his kids to be monsters since they were children. They've all had way too much power for way too long. Say what you want about the US government and it's 'imperialistic' foreign policy - at least we're not ruling with brutality that would make Hitler wet himself. The world needs to be rid of them. This war needs to happen. Whether now is the best time for it or not is another question, but enough is enough.

(no, I didn't vote for Bush, and I'm no warmonger)

 

Yes. That's true. And it's known since more than 20 years. But also on TIMEONLINE (www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3504-614607,00.htm)

In my view, the thing is still not only black and white.

 

Not totally black and white for me either, and I do see your point. Though we as a nation do have quite a bit to prove to the Arab people, I still think what we're doing is the right thing - and it often sucks to do the right thing.

Perhaps I'm naive about the rest of the world (which is a possibility I entertain at least thrice daily ), but maybe in a way this is our attempt to correct things. Just because we've left certain dictators alone doesn't mean we were thrilled about it. There's only so much we can do without being in constant conflict with somebody. Washington now admits it was a grave mistake to have not finished Saddam off 12 years ago. Now we go in because letting him stay in power only increases his danger with each passing year. If for no other reason than to ensure that his legacy will not worsen when one of his sons takes over for him, I think it should be done. Only time will tell if Washington does right by people of the region.

 

I don't need to be told for the nth time that Saddam is bad so therefore the war is now just.

Thousands of innocent women and children were killed in Gulf War 1 and no doubt this will happen again. Saddam did not say, come and get me, the US unilaterally attacked. Saddam style vis a vis Kuwait.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are going to have their homes and lives made miserable won't change anything of my view of Saddam.

I knew he was bad before the war and I will always know it.

I ask you. Is the human cost in lost lives, damaged property and destruction worth 1 man? Just send in the Mossad (or CIA) and end the problem.

Having killed 1 Iraqi child makes any argument of a "just war" against Saddam instantly invalid since the coallition just committed the same crime they scream that Saddam commits.

As an aside, why did the west ignore Saddam for 12 years if they all along knew he was so evil? Why did the US, Germany, France and Russia sell WMD technologies to Iraq if they knew he was so evil?

 

All in all, I think the lot of them are better out of the way

I've got complete faith in the Allied side, not even sure why saddam (note, no capital letter, out of disrespect) is bothering to resist. There's not really any contest is there, against the two greatest fighting nations in the world.

Edit: Khazraj, the west didn't do anything for 12 years because they knew that what is happening now would happen. Idiots with no idea of what saddam is up to and the sort of hitler he is, protesting against war and thinking of all the poor little iraqis being killed. The same iraqis who danced in the street when September 11 happened.

 

Saddam hasn't stayed in power so long without beeing bold. He tries to survive. That alone is a good reason to resist. Quite a lot of people don't have much to loose in this war.

And in case everything goes bad for the allies - like guerrilla war on the allied LOCs, fall of pro-US gvt's and the like - Saddam could even succeed, though that, admittedly, is unlikely.

 

@Khazraj

The killing of Iraqi children is a certainty if Saddam is left in power. Yes, regrettably some civilians will be killed. That's war. But at least the coalition is taking unprecedented steps to insure a bare minimum of civilian casualties occur. Don't forget that Saddam's army has placed military assets within civilian areas, betting we will leave it alone to avoid collateral damage. Don't forget also that we're not attacking the "people" at all. It's not the country we're fighting, it's the regime. You should be more concerned about Iraqi paramilitary marching out firing on the coalition while forcing civilians to march in front of them, as a deterrant for the coalition. This is an army that considers using their own people as meat shields a perfectly acceptable tactic. It's another case of Saddam using the media against us.

It's not just one man - that's the thing. If we took out JUST Saddam, Uday or Qusay would step up to take his place. Take them out too - and another one of Saddams lackeys would step in. Even if Saddam leaves in exile, do you honestly think the rest of his regime's hierarchy would just say, "Whew, I'm glad that's over - this has really been bothering my conscience."? And speaking of the human cost of lives - Saddam has killed millions of his own people since his rise to power. Not many people in the world's history can make that claim. He's not cooking up all those chemical weapons as a hobby - he fully intends to use them.

 

I would like to add somthing to Death Rabbits arguement on assasination.

If the US were to take this position, we would be subject to just as much international condemnation as we are now, IMO. The world would believe that we simply kill any leader that we don't agree with, and then use the threat of death to coerce the rest of the world into being our puppets.

Condemned if you do, condemned if you don't. That is the way many of the people around me are starting to feel.

 

And furthermore, Khazraj:

Point #1: The only people in Iraq who aren't miserable are those in Saddam's pocket. This is not a happy, patriotic, enthusiastic nation by any stretch.

Point#2: Actually, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed, the overwhelming majority of whom tried to rise up and liberate themselves from Saddam after he surrendered to U.S. forces. We then pulled our forces out, leaving Saddam and what police force he had left to squash any uprising. Without coalition support to help finish the job, the rebels were slaughtered.

Point#3: We ignored Saddam because the Clinton administration had such a 'pet and play nice' policy towards dictators of other nations that nothing was done unless a direct threat was declared. We left the Gulf without finishing Saddam off because we wanted the people of Iraq to take back their own country themselves. 'We'll knock the bully over for ya, and you kick him in the head while he's down and get your lunch money back.' We thought by doing that we would avoid any question we were there to liberate, rather than conquer. But as I stated in point #2, obviously we made a grave mistake there.

I see this war as a means to correct that mistake once and for all.

[ March 27, 2003, 18:45: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Why are we only attacking saddam then. This is the problem. Why are we not attacking Iran who supports terrorists on a level not even imagined by Iraq. Why not turkey, who has killed thousands of its own kurds, why not the dozens of African nations who leaders have killed millions of thier own people in genocide????? Why not North Korea? If anyone actually believes we are there to liberate the people and not for the oil, they are kidding themselves. Why not even Saudi Arabia, they give more money to terrorists than any other arabic nation? Heck, they don't even let women work there. At least in Iraq they can be doctors. If we attack every country that kills thousands of its people or citizans we would never stop having war. And how many millions have WE killed by indirectly or directly supporting these madmen? WE gave saddam his chemical stockpiles, we supplied the Contra's who killed 30,000 innocent civilians, WE supported the overthrow of the legitimate Iran government and that is why they hate us. SHould someone bomb the hell out of us because of that. Make sure your standard applies to everyone or it is worthless. I'm not saying he isn't evil or his people wouldn't be better off without him, but if we must decide for them, we must decide for everybody or we are just bullies who pick our fights by how much it helps us and not them.

 

These people do not want to be 'liberated'. They don't want to have their families killed by anyone, it doesn't matter which person, Saddam or Bush. It's also not up to me, you or Bush to tell them what they want either. History has shown that the US goes in, takes out the leader of their choice, plants a new one and 20 years later they have to do it all over again. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The 'new leader' will be the same as Saddam in 10 years, then the US will wait and wait and wait until the atrocities pile up. They'll then 'decide' to do something, when all they're doing is repeating history. History repeats itself if not learned from.

 

But the cease fire was negotiated under UN NOT US terms. Therefore it is the UN's and not the US responibilty unless we are under a direct threat (which the director of the CIA, British Intelligence, and most of the civilized world do not beleive). If he had attacked another nation, or attacked the US, then it would be different, otherwise it is up to the UN Security Council and not the US to decide Iraqs fate.

 

Didn't the UN stop America declaring war on Iraq? And they're a laughing stock right now because people have just ignored them

 

I guess people in USA are too dumb or blind to see the truths under their country's actions.It's a shame that such a country is the greatest force in the world.

 

There's no way of knowing what the majority of the Iraqis truly want, though. Anyone within Iraq who speaks out against the government (or speaks up at all, for that matter) gets killed - if they're lucky. Others have their tongues cut out and their family beaten to death in front of them. Those outside Iraq have fled or have been exiled, and though opinions of US intentions differ, one idea is constant: Saddam needs to go. We have to go on what we know and what we've seen from him. I don't ever think war is the best answer, but Saddam has had plenty of opportunities to settle this peacefully. He's made it clear that he's not changing.

I believe we will go after other nations (like North Korea), but we can't get them all at once. That's crazy. I'm not naive enough to think oil isn't a factor, either. But the events that play out as a result of this war, during and after, will be watched so closely by the rest of the world that any attempt on America's part to do anything other than "the right thing" will result in our allies and enemies alike completely discrediting anything we try to do from now on.

The big difference is that talking has done nothing in Iraq. They've remained consistantly defiant and deceptive for the last 12 years. Even North Korea can be talked down. And I know America has no place to talk when it comes to political morality...but who does? At least we have the power to do something about problems like these and use it.