NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so personally i wish that Saddam should be punished for half of what he done to-let alone, the Kurds. Like maybe he should be told about all the suffering he called and then a death penalty at the end or something. But the thing is-could he have been thrown from power without war? Was the war in iraq at all good, as in throwing a proffesional human butcher from power...?

Saddam Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or face militaristic consequences

Saddam Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or face militaristic consequences

Which is a little interesting to me...seeing as we'd already swore to kill him. You remember the public announcement by congress of the plan to kill Saddam Hussein a few years back right? If he actually had started leaving, and we bombed the car he was in...would that have been justified? I find it an interesting question. The US official position was that he should die, yet the administration was still inviting him to flee...into the coalition gunsights.

Saddam Hussein and his sons have 48 hours to leave Iraq or face militaristic consequences

Which is a little interesting to me...seeing as we'd already swore to kill him. You remember the public announcement by congress of the plan to kill Saddam Hussein a few years back right? If he actually had started leaving, and we bombed the car he was in...would that have been justified? I find it an interesting question. The US official position was that he should die, yet the administration was still inviting him to flee...into the coalition gunsights.

Yes, we were watching him like a hawk during the remaining 1 hour left. Remember how Bush had the chance to kill Saddam in the final few hours?

He refused to attack because the 48 hours weren't up.

Once the 48 hrs were up, 10 minutes passed and BAM! Missile strikes.

Wow so far no ones thought he couldve been overthrow some other wayP

:shock:

Wow so far no ones thought he couldve been overthrow some other wayP

:shock:

YOU have an idea?

Well sure it would have been nice if the Un and its member nations (what just about everybody!?) had joined in and ousted him along with other creeps like him (in iran, cuba and so on) but no they didn't won't and never will. The Un and its members are to busy fucking with us and making money (oil for food program)

Iraq, that great debate gets another thread!

If it was just for the sake of the people of Iraq (which I dont believe, to me it was oil and finishing off what daddy Bush started) then why them?

Why not free the people of Zimbabwe? Why not free the people of North Korea? China? and on and on. Those 3 are obvious targets but I bet if I researched it a bit more I could identify a great many more countries where the people are oppressed by the government.

There are countries in the world just as bad if not worse than Saddams Iraq so why pick on them?

Any chance it might be that they have oil?

Any chance that Bush Jnr wanted to say to Bush Snr, I finished him off for you dad?

:twisted:

...Why not free the people of Zimbabwe? Why not free the people of North Korea? China? and on and on. Those 3 are obvious targets but I bet if I researched it a bit more I could identify a great many more countries where the people are oppressed by the government...

And while you have a point about those three (and others), just how long were we supposed to let Iraq give the United Nation the middle finger for before the "cease fire of 1991" was recalled? Could our inactions have spawned more act of difiance toward the internation community? Nahh, couldn't be could it?

Wow so far no ones thought he couldve been overthrow some other wayP

:shock:I have an idea. Slowly expand the northern and southern no-fly zones until Saddam's effective power is reduced to only that area around Bagdad in the Sunni triangle. The Kurds had already established a strong, independent society in the north once they were free from Saddam's interference. There's no reason to believe the Shi'ites in the south wouldn't have done the same in the same circumstances. Of course, you'd have to admit that Iraq wasn't going to be a single country anymore, but the slow strangulation of Saddam might have worked if we'd had the desire to try it out and carry it through.

I'm just amazed that he managed to keep all those radicals under control for so long... before Sadam was removed from power he had all these radicals under control.

The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?

I'm just amazed that he managed to keep all those radicals under control for so long... before Sadam was removed from power he had all these radicals under control.

The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?

These radicals came from Afghanistan.

And these terrorists were not Anti-Saddam. Why would they be?

But they are Anti-American

I'm just amazed that he managed to keep all those radicals under control for so long... before Sadam was removed from power he had all these radicals under control.

The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?It tells you what history tells you--it's hard to keep a diverse population under control without being a repressive regime. that's what makes the US system of government so outstanding--we're able, perhaps because there's no single dominant ethno-religious group, to pull together under the idea that all people are equal under the law and so we are responsible to each other as Americans first and our ethnicity or religious ties second. In Iraq, you may be a Kurd first and an Iraqi second--see what I mean?

so why did they wait until after the war to fight?

The americans had practicly no problem at all occupying Iraq, but then his supporters start attacking!

During the occupation phase, Iraq's only defence was propoganda. the moment that America assumes control, then they attack. If they had fought during the beginning, they may have given America a run for it's money.

Perhaps they didn't like either side.

I'm just amazed that he managed to keep all those radicals under control for so long... before Sadam was removed from power he had all these radicals under control.

The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?

That they miss thier privleges and compensation for thier thug-like loyalty and protective infrastucture to Sadam. But that's just the Iraqis, that doesn't explain away the Jihadists that are ordered by their leaders to come in and do thier best to keep democracy from taking root. Because if that were to happen, the Jihadist infrastructure and privlege would disappear too.

...The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?

It also tells me that freedom & liberty scare the hell out of some people especially when those people are the only ones who seems to have and profit from it while the rest are oppressed.

What's your stance on it?

Personally I think a dictatorship COULD work, but because the dictators always become too drunk on power and think they could do anything, it all falls apart. A dictator who does not get drunk on power would work. Keep the people in line or they die, whilst giving them enough freedom to enjoy life... as long as they behave. :twisted:

...The moment the Americans move in it decends into chaos... what does that tell you?

It also tells me that freedom & liberty scare the hell out of some people especially when those people are the only ones who seems to have and profit from it while the rest are oppressed.

What's your stance on it?Hold on a sec--could it be that some of those people who are currently fighting the US see them as just another set of oppressors? Could it be that those people who are fighting the US are fighting for their liberty and freedom? Put yourself in their shoes for a second--invaders from a country with an insatiable thirst for your greatest national resource show up with tanks and guns and say they're "liberating" you from your ruler. Why should you believe that they're going to let you rebuild your own society and then they'll leave with no strings attached? You'd be a fool to think that. And so, if you want to remove the new oppressors, you attack them however you can. I'd do it if some other power were occupying the US--I'd be "Red Dawn" all over their asses, however I could.

And while you have a point about those three (and others), just how long were we supposed to let Iraq give the United Nation the middle finger for before the "cease fire of 1991" was recalled? Could our inactions have spawned more act of difiance toward the internation community? Nahh, couldn't be could it?

Since when did the US give a damn about the UN anyway? This isn't a UN invasion, this is an unsanctioned American Invasion. And oh yeah you might say "Coalition" but thats crap, the second largest force in the field is the British with 8000 compared to how many US troops? 125000 was it?

Dont try to drag the UN in, you guys wanted to go it alone, so take responsibility for your actions.

I do not speak out of passion here alone, it may not have been reported over in the US but an open letter has been issued by 50 British diplomats criticising Tony Blair and his policies in the middle east and the fact that he slavishly follows Bushs lead regardless of what is right for Britain

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1089546,00.html

These guys understand diplomacy and foreign affairs better than I do.

:twisted:

He should have been allowed to remain in power. None of this mess would have happened. Do you see now what Saddam was preventing?

If I was America and I TRULY cared about human rights, I would force him to stop being such a Tyrant. Also - Killing a son or two would probably make him realise that they meant buisness and he would comply. The US has demonised Saddam Hussein WAY too much when he is probably one of the best dictators.... EVER

And these terrorists were not Anti-Saddam. Why would they be?

But they are Anti-American

Now that shows a massive oversimplification of the whole situation. Iraq is divided along religious lines - between the majority Shi'a and the minority Sunni.

The Shi'a hated Saddam passionately - they revolted against him in the first Gulf war and were put down violently when the US failed to come through for them.

Now some of the resistance are Ba'athists - collaborators from Saddam's old regime. Some of them are Shi'a, who regard Saddam and America with equal loathing. Some of them are, in all likelihood, al Queda sympathisers who hated Saddam (because his was a secular state, and he fought against the Islamic theocracy of Iran) and are turning up because they don't like Americans on Middle Eastern soil full stop.

...Hold on a sec--could it be that some of those people who are currently fighting the US see them as just another set of oppressors? Could it be that those people who are fighting the US are fighting for their liberty and freedom?...

it could be true but in most case I belive these are not ordinary citizens responsible for the chaos.

1/ Remove some of his power by ending sanctions or at least giving clear and reasonable statements as to what the iraqis had to do for ending the sanctions, not that dictat where they could not end it anyway. Note this would have saved lifes as well as removing some power from Saddam.
2/ End the unlimited help to Israel, so as to remove the monopoly of Saddam in supporting ths palestinians and so as to remove some foreign support for him.

At the very least, wome sort of a planfor after Saddm was the minimum of minimum

...Hold on a sec--could it be that some of those people who are currently fighting the US see them as just another set of oppressors? Could it be that those people who are fighting the US are fighting for their liberty and freedom?...

it could be true but in most case I belive these are not ordinary citizens responsible for the chaos.Based on what? I'm not trying to be snippy here--I'm curious. I know the US media, which is parroting the US military line, is saying that it's al-Qaeda, or Ba'ath loyalists, or outside infiltrators, or who knows this week, but honestly, what else would you expect them to say? That we've lost the battle for the hearts and minds of these people? That's an admission of defeat right there. So they have to blame some outside defining force. But I'm starting to have real doubts, mainly because I've learned over my 35 years that people everywhere are all generally the same--we all have the same concerns as far as our family's safety and security is concerned, and I know how I would feel in those circumstances. And it's a reasonable way to react. It doesn't take much to make a man into a revolutionary. All you have to do is take away his belief in the system. We've done that in Iraq.

...Based on what? I'm not trying to be snippy here--I'm curious...

My own instincts about the human condition. It's what I believe and you can't change that, you can only influence it.

Rather than me going back and cutting & pasting my last two posts on the first page of this thread with my slow-ass dial-up modem, you could go back and look at what I've written if you're truely interested in why I believe what I do.

why should he be removed from power? Iraq is a suvereign country. Noone should interfer in their own affairs.
How about if some other country decide to take out Bush because he was not legitimately elected and for what he is doing in US and in other countries round the world?

...take out Bush because he was not legitimately elected and for what he is doing in US and in other countries round the world?

This is precisely the reason why Bush needs to win again. Conservatives need to continue to stack the Supreme Court with those friendly to Republicans. In this manner, when conservatives see election results that they don't like...take it to the highest court and what-do-ya-know...viola!...election results those imbiciles can live with. :roll:

Does that about cover it?