outofit 0 #1 October 7, 2002 i personally feel we should have neutralized the problem (saddam) when we were there in 1991 with gulf war. i know that i will here from some that our objective in 1991 was to remove saddam from power and to institute a new regime but to remove iraqi forces from kuwait; however, it would have seemed reasonable and economically feasible to have done it then and we wouldn't be dealing with a decade old problem. what r your thoughts? It is better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
geanky 0 #2 October 7, 2002 I would personally just beat to death Saddam and Osama. Maybe some type of real long lasting and painful torture....but that is just me. learn to fly in 3d Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nws01 0 #3 October 7, 2002 I saw somthing on Conan O'Brien the other night and it was Bushs plan to stop Iraq and the Taliban. The number one thing he was gonna do is ...make it so they can't fly around on those magic carpets! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #4 October 7, 2002 I would personally just beat to death Saddam and Osama. Maybe some type of real long lasting and painful torture....but that is just me. ---------------- On the next Celebrity Boxing... :) -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dumpster 0 #5 October 7, 2002 I say just nuke 'em all, let "God" (in whatever manifestation-) sort it out- Easy Does It Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #6 October 7, 2002 Okay, let's lay down the ground rules. First, I think we can all agree that Saddam Hussein is without question a latter-day Hitler. He's a butcher of the highest order, a mass murderer, a megalomaniac, and completely off his fucking rocker. What some people dispute is whether or not he's really a danger. Well, make no mistake, he IS. Just because he hasn't tried anything wacky lately doesn't mean he's suddenly seen the error of his evil ways. He is even now devising means of scamming the UN regarding his weapons of mass destruction, thinking of ways to finally shoot down a U.S. Aircraft, and licking his lips at the thought of gassing to death more innocent Kurds, Shiites, and whoever else. And he also is doubtlessly penning even MORE ridiculous romance novels. And for that, he deserves to die. However.... and this is a big however.... it's not that easy. As dangerous as Saddam is, he does serve a valuable purpose. He's a buffer against an even more dangerous and much more insidious foe-- Iran. We NEED Hussein around, because as long as he and Iran are staring down the barrels of each others' guns, they can't aim all of them at us. Let's not forget that the majority of Iraq's population is of the Shi'a persuasion and have been brutally repressed by Saddam's Sunni affiliated Ba'ath party, who demographically are the religious minority. Soooooo, we can't KILL Saddam, 'cause if we do, his likely replacements will be Shi'a Muslims who find a very convenient ally right next door, and that would be very bad for us. So, since we're stuck with Saddam, how do we deal with his hokey bullshit and occasional power plays without upsetting the already-perilous balance of power in the regime? Well, the traditional answer has been sanctions. And sanctions work, right? WRONG. They did work not so long ago, back when the world stood united in righteous, "Don't Fuck With Us Anger" against Hussein. However, that situation has reversed itself completely. Why, you ask? Well, a couple points. First, Russia, China, and that fucking shithole excuse for a country we call France all see potential markets in Iraq-- markets they desperately need. Practical considerations on their part call for an end to the sanctions, and since they all happen to be permanent MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNSEL, we can pretty much accept that our UN Support has withered away completely. Second, the Arab countries (that were scared shitless of his crazy ass ten years ago) now see him as a potential ally against Israel. Without question, no matter how dangerous he is to the, his anti-Zionist line has brought him back into the good graces of his Arab neighbors, and there he shall likely stay. And without the Arabs on our side, we really have our hands tied. Third, Hussein has skillfully convinced the world that WE are the bad guys. By painting a picture of starving Iraqi children, he has somehow convinced every kind-hearted, well-meaning non-profit aide group in the world that the Iraqi people are the victims? These are of course completely untrue-- the UN has been more than generous in allowing him the means by which to feed his people. He rejects them, because he can use the image of starving Iraqis precisely as a propaganda weapons against the sanctions. Saddam is a scary combination of twisted and intelligent. Like Stalin, he's purposefully starving his own people-- and he shows them off the news cameras, blaming it on our sanctions? "But... it's not true!" you say. No, it's not..... but so the fuck what? This sick fucking liar has somehow convinced the world that he is the victim, and our support had completely and totally withered away to nothing. Our only remaining ally in this is Great Britain, and as much as I admire the British people, they can't do shit on the world stage. Where does this leave us? Nowhere. As a practical matter, the sanctions are dead-- we just won't accept it yet. It's only a matter of time before we are forced by world opinion to revoke them.... and if we don't, the world's just going to ignore us anyway. And, even more frightening, were we forced again into military action in Iraq, we would be totally alone, without any regional support. And make no mistake-- we would LOSE. So what do we do? Well, it's simple............ Let's give Saddam exactly what he claims to want. Let's make him an offer he can't refuse. Let's say: "Okay, fucker. You want the sanctions gone? No prob..... provided you offer unilateral and unconditional cooperation to U.S.-British Weapons Investigators, and open every warehouse, storage plant, and 'baby milk factory' you have. We'll drop the sanctions completely-- you can sell all the oil you want, buy all the food your people need-- hell, you can be the fucking jewel of the Middle East. But the one nonnegotiable condition of this arrangement is complete and total disclosure/cooperation with our inspection teams, period. And, if at any time, you welsh on the deal, not only will the sanctions be placed back into effect, but swift military retaliation will follow." We pull this card, and Hussein is fucked. Why? He can't win either way. Of course, he won't want to cooperate, but suppose he does. Well, shit we've got what we want. Hussein is defanged, there's no further bloodshed or starvation, and the world is safe again. And, if he doesn't cooperate (and he won't), world opinion wills wing right back against him. He's going to e advertising to the world that he has something to HIDE. Even his staunchest allies will say 'What the fuck/ they're giving you what you want, right?" And pretty soon, they'll clue in to what he really wants.... and he will once again be a pariah in the world community. Then, the world can stand again united against Hussein, and there will be no wiggling out this time. But, as you see, this is all dependent on us playing his own game BETTER than him. We take the moral high road, and he undercuts us through duplicity. Fine, motherfucker, we'll undercut you right back. What are you going to do when the we offer you EVERYTHING you've asked for.... and you REFUSE? I suspect you may have a bit of explaining to do... "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #7 October 7, 2002 Slappie, I'm impressed. It's good to see someone thinking beyond "it would be cool to blow him to bits." I agree, our best way out of this is playing the game better than he does. We should be at the UN now pestering the arms inspectors to get in there NOW, and give us a call if the Iraqis hide anything at all. And after you call us, call the BBC and CNN and get that out to the world. After we do that, whatever else happens, we win. If he thwarts the arms inspectors? Well, sorry, you knew we had that UN resolution, and now we have to back up those arms inspectors with a few hundred tanks and close air support. If he agrees? Sure, he will play the shell game, but we will have all the resources of US intelligence to locate and track his weapons - and the people on the ground in Iraq to get there and inspect them. And if, by chance, he actually grudgingly cooperates? We will have yet another Fidel, another impotent anti-american madman who can't hurt us, waging his own internal wars until someone overthrows him, or until he dies of old age. We still win, and no innocent Iraqis (and more importantly to me, none of our military) will die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #8 October 7, 2002 > however, it would have seemed reasonable and economically > feasible to have done it then and we wouldn't be dealing with a > decade old problem. I agree it would have been easier to do it back then, though not as simple as one might think - you may have noticed that Bin Laden got away, and may just be running a much-reduced Al Quaeda from a different location. And how do we institute a new regime? Plant americans to run the place? That sort of government might last a month. Hold free elections and let the people choose their own leader, as long as it's not Saddam? That might just end up being his son, who (if news accounts are accurate) is even more of a lunatic than Hussein himself. Or perhaps someone completely different - but in the aftermath of a US invasion that kills, say, two thousand non-combatant Iraqis, I have a feeling a pro-US leader will be a little hard to find (or, at best, would not last long as a leader.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #9 October 7, 2002 We are in between Iraq and a hard place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hagar 0 #10 October 7, 2002 More bad news: Saddams son Uday has just converted to shia islam to get more popular support. His brutallity is unmatched, and he makes Saddam seem "nice" in comparison. A regime change may not necessary be a good thing if Uday takes the throne after Saddam. Quote And make no mistake-- we would LOSE. Why is that often looked at as an impossible outcome? A former Marine Corps officer on why invading Iraq may be harder than last time. http://www.g2mil.com/May2002.htm Quote And he also is doubtlessly penning even MORE ridiculous romance novels. And for that, he deserves to die. I have to agree with that--- PCSS #10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #11 October 8, 2002 My thoughts are that American foreign policy has caused more more problems than it has fixed. Isn't the good old USA responsible for arming Iraq with conventional (America supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980's) and biological (several shipments including more than 20 batches of anthrax between '85 and '88) weapons? And isn't it your president's desire to do what his daddy couldn't (or didn't) do that is clouding his judgement? No war for oil ... It would also seem that all these "Iraq, Iraq" cries are diverting attention from a failing economy, where thousands upon thousands of workers are losing their jobs because of greedy and devious coporate leaders. You've gow WAYYYYY more Americans dieing at the hands of other Ameicans in shootings than at the hands of terrorists ... what's the leadership doing about that? How many people died as a result of drunk drivers in 2001? No "war on drunk driving" is there? The powerful military leaders need to keep the military spending spree going, and now that the cold war isn't there, there's got to be a "new enemy" so the war machine can keep rolling along. Well, those are my thoughts. Hey -- you asked! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #13 October 8, 2002 Dude, I have no problem with you being a pacifist, however, you've gone over board on this one: QuoteYou've gow WAYYYYY more Americans dieing at the hands of other Ameicans in shootings than at the hands of terrorists ... what's the leadership doing about that? Tell that to the thousands of civilians who lost their lives 9/11/01. Tell their families that we're not doing anything to prevent it from happening again. Maybe you are too far removed from the situation and are desensitized. Let us worry about OUR economy. Not you. And unless you start jumping from a balloon, you better worry about oil. BTW, check out most the Canadian military hardware. MADE in U.S.A.!! Peace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #14 October 8, 2002 Quote BTW, check out most the Canadian military hardware. MADE in U.S.A.!! Canadian Military? "Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 October 8, 2002 QuoteCanadian Military? Canada has a Military? France surrenders.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #16 October 8, 2002 Well said MR Shark !!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #17 October 8, 2002 QuoteCanada has a Military? France surrenders. How did they get the horse across the ocean?"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moodyskydiver 0 #18 October 8, 2002 I like the way our Navy spelled it out for ya in a previous post... "...just an earthbound misfit, I." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #19 October 8, 2002 >>You've gow WAYYYYY more Americans dieing at the hands of other >> Ameicans in shootings than at the hands of terrorists ... what's the >> leadership doing about that? >Tell that to the thousands of civilians who lost their lives 9/11/01. While I understand your point, I honestly don't think that a mother who loses her children to a drive-by shooting will think "Hey, that's OK - it wasn't a terrorist act!" Any violent death is a tragedy; any victim has a family and friends. 3000 people died very tragic deaths on 9/11/01; 15,000 americans died just as tragic deaths in 2001 when they were shot by other americans. It's easy to go after Bin Laden and Al Quaeda because they were a well-defined target, and were quickly identified as the responsible party. It's a lot harder to go after the people who killed the 15,000 americans last year, but just as important. No violent death is OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #20 October 8, 2002 >Isn't the good old USA responsible for arming Iraq with conventional > (America supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war in the 1980's) and > biological (several shipments including more than 20 batches of > anthrax between '85 and '88) weapons? And in 1995 Cheney's company (Halliburton) sold Iraq the pulse neutron triggers needed to build plutonium based nuclear weapons. We do seem to have a habit of shooting ourselves in the foot. We should stop doing that. >How many people died as a result of drunk drivers in 2001? No "war > on drunk driving" is there? Actually, we have a war on drunk driving. (http://www.carcrashvictims.citymax.com/articles/article/167687/1225.htm) We have a war on illiteracy, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, a war against cancer, a war on AIDS. For a supposedly peaceful people we seem to like at least the idea of war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #21 October 8, 2002 "And in 1995 Cheney's company (Halliburton) sold Iraq the pulse neutron triggers needed to build plutonium based nuclear weapons." Thats who I am working for now (Halliburton, not Cheney!). Well not really working, just showing up and post whoring...-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil 0 #22 October 8, 2002 No doubt - if Saddham goes, we won't be upset about it. What can we do, to make sure, that the region will be stable after his departure? Very little. To many ethnic groups are out there just waiting to claim their stake. A very tough call. The only one that would have an advantage would be Israel for time being, all the others would have to worry about keeping their ethnic groups stable within their own countries. To bad the ol' man didn't take care of it long time ago... ... .. .how high can you fly with broken wings ... life's a journey not a destination Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #23 October 8, 2002 "We are in between Iraq and a hard place" Bwaaahahaha....spilt coffee on keyb*+@>-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #24 October 8, 2002 QuoteMaybe you are too far removed from the situation and are desensitized. My friend has spent countless hours in the wtc, and in fact his sister had an appointment in one of the towers at 2 pm that afternoon. I just think your government is diverting your attention from other issues of importance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #25 October 8, 2002 QuoteMy friend has spent countless hours in the wtc, and in fact his sister had an appointment in one of the towers at 2 pm that afternoon. Seven of my co-workers died there. I understand your point, but I think you're making a tasteless comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
