0
outofit

what is your opinion on iraq?

Recommended Posts

I know I post to the good threads late and regrdless off that fact, Is anyone else with me when I say let the people see the proof of the crimes and the build up so there is no disputiung the fact before we start the killing and make more powerful enimies?


"Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools." Napoleon Bonaparte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think all countries' names should have two syllables or less. It keeps the total number of countries down because you start to run out of syllables after a while. Plus you just have crazy things like United States of America getting shortened to "US", since everyone only wants to use two syllables anyway.
The US will not kill Saddam. We didn't last time and we won't this time. As bad as he is, the US government understands him. The government would rather have a "known" in power than an "unknown" take over.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Sadamm is crazy.

No argument there.

>What if he trys to nuke us.

He does not have nukes; the soonest he will have them according to our best intelligence is a year from now, if he gets what he needs (enriched uranium.) If you are worried about nukes, worry about the former USSR's nuclear arsenals, and the nukes and ICBM's that Pakistan and India have. (They are nearly at war with each other now.) Or worry about China; they are even more likely to one day to call _us_ the terrorists, especially if we seem to invade every country that worries us.

In terms of worrying about nuclear attacks on the US, Iraq is way down on the list of potential bombers.

>I mean he does not care if his people die maybe he does not care
> about himself and would not hesitate to launch some missiles even
> if he knew in the end he would not win.

Uh, we told him we were going to take him out no matter what. He already knows he won't win.

>We have to get him! We can not let him destroy us and a few nukes
> could change life as we know it.

Well, as we are the only country who has ever used nukes against civilians, I can see how we'd be afraid someone else might do that to us. However, Saddam is far from the biggest threat in terms of us getting nuked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I really worry about being in a nuclear war . . . .

If that's true, I sure hope we someday get better at diplomacy than invasion. Someday we might invade (or threaten to invade) someone who _does_ have nukes and ICBM's, and they might decide that they're gonna take some Americans with them when they go down.

>and I will never forget that movie "The Day After".

Watch "Brazil" some day; you'll get a good feeling what an endless 'war on terror' could be like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of good talk here some very valid points, but I still haven't heard a good or valid reason to send many good, loyal, and brave, young men and women to their death in a far off land. And make no mistake folks, that is what we are talking about here. This will not be like Desert Storm, people defending their homeland against an invasion force are far more likely to fight a long and bloody campaign, than if they are defending captured territory. I'd hate to see Baghdad become another Stalingrad. Once they are successfully overwhelmed, I have a horrible feeling that a thousand martyrs will spring up and embark on a series of horrific terror attacks on US/alliance citizens. We will then be faced with the worst possible outcome, an invisible enemy, already within our borders. Do we really want to be scared to go to the mall in case some fanatic has placed a pipe bomb in car in the lot? Or nail bombing memorial services, hitting what terrorists like to call legitimate targets? I don't think so, but that is what terrorism entails.

There has to be another way, how difficult would it be to tighten sanctions on a country whose principle export is oil, via a relatively small water way? Can we at least give the weapons inspectors and the UN a chance to do their jobs first....

You simply can't invade a country because it poses a threat, otherwise, the UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, and the US would be at each other's throats and we would descend into the expensive mistrust of the cold war era.

Now then, don't get me wrong, Saddam is an evil piece of shit, no arguments there. I am just not convinced that an invasion is the right way to do things, neither do we have a valid reason to invade Iraq.

When I say we, I mean the US, and the UK, as we seem to be just as involved as our colonial cousins are. Its just that we in the UK have a little more experience in living with terrorism, and it ain't pretty.

Peace to you all,
Dave
--------------------

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0