Saddam has probably been the cause of the deaths of more Muslims than any other single individual in the history of the world which includes the death of his own people. Between the attack upon Iran, Kuwaite, killing his own people and allowing them to die by denying them basic needs, he has caused the death of several millions. By some accounts two million of his people have died since sanctions have been imposed against Iraq because he uses the "oil for food and medicine" program to continue to build palaces and who knows what else.

For all of you people that becry a casualty count for "innocent Iraqi civilians" in an invasion, whatever the count turns out to be, it will be far less than Saddam has already killed and will be far less than those that will die over future years if Saddam is left too his own devices. Saddam is the enemy of his people not the USA.

1. war is bad
2. weapon inspectors rendered Saddam impotent.

nuff said

do you support retarded questions posed over and over again?

do you guys know how much money this costs USA and the UK?
it's all a matter of interests
the other countris are against it because because of the cost

theking, you are 100% right

Exactly....I guess that helped too :Graucho

Also as mentioned before there was a time that Saddam was
supported by the US.....just like there was a time that Osama
was on the payroll of the US and many other dictators that have
commited very serious crimes against humanity...

War against Iraq is about money.....like any other war....if there
is nothing to gain....you stay the fuck out and watch the other
way. All bullshit about threat to the world is nothing else than
bullshit........if there is nothing to gain nobody cares about threat
of innocent people dying in a far away country.

DynaMite

VERY well said. Thank you for summing up various points.

I'm exhausted trying to debate something this controversial having been awake for 23 hours.

:thumbsup

True but the fact remains if there was no economic interest the US
just wouldn´t care.....

DynaMite

that's a good point about the sanctions and the suffering of the Iraqi people, but it's not the pretext of this war. The pretext of this war is for Iraq to disarm WMD, anything else is purely secondary according to the US etc.

If Bush etc had started out with this argument they might have garnished much more support. Or they might have realised that they had a hand in the Iraqi people suffering.. i.e. the sanctions were actually harming the people they were trying to protect. Why did they persist with the sanctions when they knew thousands of children were dying? Sure Saddam is guilty, but the US is not innocent.

You should replace US with UN...

Hmmmmm....

One thing I'll say about this thread... it raises some good points.

But I have no basis of comparison really... I never participated in the others.

:)

Is there one continent where the majority of people support a unilateral war on Iraq?

Well, we haven't polled Antarctica yet.
:winkwink:

But it wouldn't be unilateral anyway, if Brittain goes in with us.

Right now I'm against.
Not extremly against but not pro war.
The biggest prob I find is that the USA does not come with a real good solution of what to do after the war.
What will happen?
Another idiot like Sadam or even worse gets the power?
Or maybe a civil war?
As long as the USA doesn't have a good solution on what to do next I think that cowboy in the white house should not push the button.
I'm not anti america at all but I don't like bush.

...and how many of you "I have the right for an opinion" can find Iraq on the map?


http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11...uiz/index.html

The sanctions were imposed because pre 1991 Saddam used his resources to build a military machine and WMD's including the persuit of Nukes. He used his military machine to attack three countries and his WMD's against one of these countries and against his own people. After his forces were defeated in 1991 he agreed to certain terms and failed to follow through with the terms. If he would have abided by the terms there would not have been sanctions all of these years. The sanctions were and are designed to prevent him from building a new military machine and more WMD's.

During the years between 1991 and 1998 the inspectors sought out and oversaw the destruction of most but not all of his WMD's. When they were kicked out in 1998 there were still hugh amounts of chemical, biological materials that had not been destroyed and thousands of missile/artillary rounds armed with chemicals that had not been destroyed. It is this fact that is in question. Iraq has said that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remaining chemical, biological materials and missile/artillary rounds. They have not presented one shred of evidence to verify this. They have stated that they destroyed the paper work of the destruction of the chemical, biological materials and missiles/artillary rounds. Even if one chooses to believe that statement made by them, there would be physical evidence of said destruction. They have failed to provide the physical evidence of said destruction. There would also be those scientists, engineers and personell in general that would have been involved in the destruction of said materials. They have not provided anyone that was involved in said destruction. The UN and the USA wants proof of what happened to these WMD's and as stated 14 February by the head of the inspection team in his report to the UN Iraq still has not presented any proof of the destruction of said WMD's that Saddam still had in his possession when the inspectors where kicked out in 1998. I will ask you. Where are these WMD's?

This is a another classic case of myopic thinking on GF"Y, which usually harbors some of the most myopics thinking on the planet...

North Korea-
In the 1980's we had N. Korea hemmed in nicely, but they were threatening to build nuclear reactors. Congress took a hardline stance against it...some dipshit named Jimmy Carter went to North Korea and personally negociated a treaty allowing them four reactors, which has now allowed them to build nuclear weapons. Once a country has nuclear weapons, it's pretty hard to deal with them as they have the ultimate card to play. Duh?

Iraq-
It is almost incomprehensible to me to hear you guys defending this guy, get a ticket on the clue bus....

1. for the last fifteen years he has harbored Abu Nidal, one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, once he realized inspectors were coming for real, Nidal mysteriously killed himself. Have you ever read anything about Abu Nidal? I would think that this would indicate at least some ties to international terrorism.

2. He amassed and reported to inspectors during the initial inspectionin 1992, massive amounts of VS, Sarin, anthrax, smallpox, and racin. Without documentation, he now says that all that stuff is gone. Unfortunately, there are no records of it's destruction, how it was destroyed or where it was destroyed. You buy that huh?

3. He has shown himself to be a serial aggressor, Iran will attest to that. Oh, and there was that little shindig in Kuwait...where he invaded that country. He probably will behave like a schoolboy from here on out, he has changed his ways...not.

4. This war is about oil, huh? We occupy Kuwait, as you recall...even though they are a much smaller country than Iraq, their oil reserves far exceed those of Iraq. I haven't heard, or am aware of any complaints from the Kuwaiti government that we have been pilferring their oil, have you? So much for oil conspiracy theory. Additionally, if you have studied your Mideast economics, Saudi Arabia has been intentionally overproducing OPEC guidelines at our direction to lower gas prices.

5. Russia and China oppose the move because that would give the US a strategic base of operations right in their backyard. These two countries would then be subject to much tighter intell ops than we are currently mounting. They are a paranoid bunch and always will be.

6. France should be ignored, their standing army is miniscule and the Mirage jet, even in it's updated form is a piece of shit...capable of flying in a very limited role, at best. Low payloads and avionics that are laughable. They look nice at air shows...I am pilot, by the way. Having lived a year in France, the people are, by in large, inbued with the idea that they are relevent in world events. Hint- Napoleon died a long time ago and France has not been an economic or military power of consequence for a long time...the only thing they lead the world in is arrogance. I suggest they take a stroll down to Normandy and look at the rows and tows of white crosses, I have two uncles there. Incidently, in WW2, it was quite a defense they put up, conquered in less than a week. I rest my case.

7. Germany I really don't understand, other than it helped the PM get elected, wars are not popular.

the long and the short of it is we are going to deal with Iraq at some point in time, we could do it now, or wait to till he attains the status of North Korea, in which no negociations are possible, because they can lob nukes...by the way, did you notice in Yahoo on Monday that Saddam did disclose he imported 140 pounds of enriched Uranium from South Africa last September? He destroyed that, too.

By the way, don't let the facts disrupt your emotional argument...yep, kids get killed in war...as a matter of fact, in the war I was in, kids also killed people in war. Bombs and bullets don't discriminate at who they kill. That is a fact, but possibly something much bigger might override humanitarian concerns, You think?

:thumbsup As to ties with terrorists it has been reported that he supports terrorist groups that oppose Israel and has been reported that he pays the families of "sucide bombers" $25,000.00

There's some great posts in this thread, but this has to be the single most convincing one.

It addresses almost every issue raised in the opposition to war. Excellent post man. I have no reason to post again, because you covered it here.

If there was anyone on the fence, I think you just brought them over.

:thumbsup

Serge-

I know exactly where it is...I wrestled for the US national team twenty five years ago and both Iran and Iraq are have very strong national wrestling teams. Very boring countries, tho. No booze, the women wear potato sacks around and the whole place, back then at least, shut down at like 8pm...these people don't know how to have fun.

As I recall, the food was a little shaky, too.

Bush can't find Iraq on a map I bet!
He thought Wales was a city in Texas.
And wonderd in what state Luxembourgh was located.

In reply to letshunt's post.

1) That may be correct, nobody actually knows. Iraq claim he entered illegally and shot himself when found by Iraqi soldiers. Again, there are several rumours. You picked the one that best supports your view. That's fine, but it doesn't make it the truth, which is unknown.

2) One thing that was completely ignored by the US press was Saddams offer to Blix to take him to the sites where the missing WMD's were destroyed and provide digging equipment so hi-tech equipment could be used to ascertain what was destroyed and how much by earth sample analysis. Blix has said his equipment is capable of this. Since it his highly unlikely that Saddam would just dig a random hole in the ground and fuck with the inspectors (immediate material breach), I am holding judgement, as would any neutral onlooker I believe. (NB this was a recent development).

Add to that the fact that 3 months of inspections have found nothing and the US's complete inability to point to any WMD and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for 'some' more time for inspections.

3) Your take on this is what you have read/seen in your press. In actual fact, both wars were the result of a long history of circumstances and both have occurred before. This is not unusual in the ME and the US has gone to war for less (as have many countries). More to the point, those two wars occurred b4 the first Gulf War, it wasn't grounds for attacking Iraq then, so using that as an excuse to attack Iraq now is a bit disingenious to say the least. (and lets not mention the US gave Iraq permission for both wars and actually helped pay for one of them).

4) Hmm, I thought Iraq oil reserves were second only to Saudi Arabia ? The US is hardly gonna pilfer oil from prolly the most pro US country in the ME, way to get completely fucked. Funnily tho, enough I agree with you that oil supply is not the main reason for the war. I believe it's more complicated than that.

5) Not gonna bother to answer this one it's so daft. (Turkey nearer to both).

6) While I may agree with you to a degree. Ancient history.

7) Reflecting the view of your people is not necessarily a bad thing you know.

Quote:
the long and the short of it is we are going to deal with Iraq at some point in time, we could do it now, or wait to till he attains the status of North Korea

He is not going to reach the status of NK for a long long time. So a neutral would say, 'hold off on the killing, lets at least try and be sure'. Somebody who was really concerned about rogue states with WND's would tackle NK now, Iraq later. What can you deduce from this 'selective' warmongering ? That wmd's are NOT the primary reason for this war.

' Myopic thinking' ? Hardly.
'Thinking', Yes.
You are just repeating the simplistic propaganda that has been created for people just like you without any attempt to look deeper.

Bingo......this hits the nail on the head!

DynaMite :thumbsup

No, I don't.

Scoobey whatever-

Nope, scoobey good try...but the liberal mantra of "they are pulling the wool over your eyes" simply doesn't fly. Neither do the flimsy retorts, you deemed as relevant.

The information I get is from reading books, understanding history and seeing beyond the end of my nose. I don't even get a newspaper or magazine. This is no Viet Nam. Although, assholes like you kept us from mopping the whole deal up in short order...we never lost a battle, just the politics. Think about it, 50,000 guys dead for no reason. Your ilk must take great pride in that.

I still have members of my old unit, SF 5th group, in Afganistan and from what I understand Iraq. Oddly enough, the information I get from them neither jibes with your view or the media view. It clearly states the views I expressed.

I am under no impression that this is an ideological war, it is a tactical war. Contrary to someones earlier statement, the Taliban is not in Pakistan proper, they are in the non ruled tribal lands of west Pakistan. We are not allowed, but have going in anyway, to attack these scumbags there. That particular area is predominantly Pushtun and supports the tabliban.

I have long realized that when faced with facts, many liberal thinkers rely on name calling and "we don't know that is true for sure"....it's not the way the world works. If it quacks, waddles and swims like a duck...it's probably a duck.

War is a most distasteful option, it's not like movies, people don't die quietly and the carnage is sometimes more than the mind can assimilate without going mental. Been there...not going back.

Unfortunately, some guys only understand one thing, getting punched in the head. Saddam is just such a guy, along with pimpdog.

scooby doo as scooby does

If Saddam is left in power the UN is not going to lift the sanctions, ever. The lifting of sanctions would mean that Saddam will be able to go back to selling Iraq's full production of oil. Is there any doubt in your mind that with the monies generated he would begin to rebuild his military and reconstitute his WMD capability and continue his persuit of Nukes and delivery systems.

Since I do not believe that the UN imposed sanctions will ever be lifted as long as Saddam is in power then if, you believe the reported 2 million deaths because of the sanctions (Saddam using the "oil for food and medicine" program for other purposes) then would a war not save, at the least Iraqi lives, in the long run? Why not just forget about the multiple reasons that the USA may have for taking down Saddam and attempting to establish a democratic republic in Iraq and concentrate on the saving of, at the least Iraqi lives. You and others view an invasion as the taking of "innocent Iraqi" lives, when it will in fact save "innocent Iraqi" lives in the long run.

Um. You don't know any history at all, do you? Hitler was Dictaror of an impoverished nation. That is what made him so dangerous. Crack a book.

You and I know (it definitely is not public knowledge) that Special Operations Forces (which includes the Special Forces) operate around the world on a daily basis and there is little doubt in my mind that they have been operating in Iraq since 1991.

A true American has spoken!

You should say BEFORE.. CIA was aware since 1999 of possible attacks. They presented their evidence to the Whitehouse, which choosed to ignore it. These facts ( Next Monday Night, 8:00 PM on Radio-Canada TV ) do not justify those acts or excuse them. But if I am not mistaking, retaliation was taken in Afghanistan, where those terrorists ( mainly Saudis ) were trained, financed and sheltered.


So, the WTC casualties are awfull but at one point you have to stop blaming eveybody and anybody .

I don't like war, like anyone else.

But, I'm tired of Saddam fucking with the world and his own people.
If their gonna go in and get him out.

By god, they better finish it this time.
No jackin around another 12 years later like before.

The man is BAD news. If they don't get rid of him now.
He will cause havac a few years down the road and we will ALL wish he was gone by then.

I am 100% behind a war with Australia and FUCK all you "no blood for Foster's" pussies!:ak47:

I am for war. Not becuase of any of the aforementioned arguments but because it is damn near necessary in order to maintain American financial dominance.

Saddam switched his market reserves to Euros in late 2000. Since then, the Euro has become financially stronger and more stable than the Dollar. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and many other nations are on the verge of transferring their reserves to Euros. If OPEC transfers to Euros, which seems inevitable unless we not only attack Iraq but keep a strong hold on it for quite some time, then the American dollar will cease to become the International trading unit. Hence, America will become financially fucked.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Uh i didn't say that Hitler wasn't. Simply implying that Iraq is currently impotent. It's just a bit rich/sensationalist to say he'll turn into Hitler from the current situation.

Let me guess - long time listener, first time caller? :)

Talk radio again you say(your standard answer I see). What about talk TV. Ever wonder why talk radio is so BIG? Take a Wild Wild guess?

i don't support a war at all because all it leads up to is simply plain old death. but at the same time if we can't avoid it or try other ways to end it then war is the only option. i'll fight for my country as i swore to do if it comes down to it.

And why is Iraq impoverished? and yes innocent people's will be killed, it happens in all wars. Make's no Diff. if 100's of millions people the world over take to the streets. There is going 2 be a war.

Well said.:thumbsup

I think so 2.

what the fuck is the UN going 2 do, not shit. 2 funny.:1orglaugh

Yip Texas. were you from the USA or Texas?

opps thought I read country not continent:1orglaugh

TV news is right wing biased too. Have you turned on a TV in the last few years? Please don't tell me you're one of those brainwashed people who thinks that CNN is liberal?

Lets cut the spin.

cbs, nbc, abc are highly liberal. Brokaw, Rather, Jennings are diehard democrats. Anyone that denies this needs help.

The major newspapers are run by liberals.

CNN is pro government and seem content to just pitch softball questions and not rock the boat.


The only place to find a right wing opinion is fox news and talk radio.

There is a reason fox news is kicking cnn and msnbc's ass in the ratings. Because they reflect the views of middle america.

I would not support a war against Iraq and I do not support the massacre there that the US and Britain seem intent upon. As a resident of one country and a citizen of the other, I am ashamed of both.

Like everyone else, I have no clear knowledge of the threat that Iraq may really represent, although having been in the target area of his missiles in 1991, I find it extremely hard to believe he represents a more serious threat today. But even if I am wrong, what the US government wants to do is an obscenity: an act that is unlikely to be a solution and out of all proportion to the problem.

It is nonsense to pretend that this slaughter of mainly defenseless civilians is intended as some kind of social engineering for the benefit of the Iraqis. In the past 70 years the US has supported far too many tyrants to be able to claim that it has the slightest interest in the welfare of regular Iraqis.

With the US economy in the state it is and amendments to the Patriot Act threatening to turn the US into a police state, US citizens would be far better off being concerned about what is going on in their own country than looking to peddle death half way around the world.

Hilarious post.

I 100% believe it, And a lot of other places also.