War on Iraq

Should Saddam Hussein be removed with military force?

  • Yes definitely, an eye for an eye!

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • No, war just sucks!

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • I have no idea.

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • There are other options such as diplomacy.

    Votes: 12 36.4%

  • Total voters
    33

thomas

Unswerving bicyclist
Messages
142
Reaction score
5
Points
18
U.S. President Bush has made ousting Saddam Hussein a top priority of his administration, calling for a possible attack on Iraq as part of the global campaign against terrorism. His plans have sparked wild debates about whether the U.S. should launch a new war in times of domestic and global recession and political instability in the Middle East. Even close allies seem to be sceptical and reluctant to follow. Is there really a "moral obligation" to oust "rogues" and "evil nations"?

I'm personally very interested in that issue. I'm also interested in your views, in particular in those of our American visitors. By no means is this thread meant as U.S. bashing. I'm just curious about your opinion.

If you take the poll, please share your thoughts.
 
Big fat NO...

George seems to be set on a military solution to everything he takes a fancy to. The hypocrisy of a man in charge of the largest nuclear stockpile in the world pushing his views on weapons of mass destruction is disgusting.
 
I am not sure what should be done in Iraq. Saddam seems to be dangerous with its weapons of mass destruction, but apparently more dangerous for its direct neighbours than Western countries. Iraq would not have long distance missile or anything capable of reaching even Europe, from what I have read here and there. Who knows ?

If it's to instaure democracy that they want to topple him, it's probably not going to work. There has been no strong opposition leaders in a position to succeed Saddam. It is feared that his death or "removal" plunge the country into chaos and confusion. It is not going to help and Americans don't seem to have a plan for after.

Diplomacy is not going to work, I think. You don't remove dictators with words. But what when Saddam will eventually die ? His 2nd son might be able to succeed him, but that would be better. A solution must be found on who is going to replace him that will be able to maintain democracy.

Being cynical, I could say that seeing its Middle-Eastern neighbours, it would be utopist to want to pass directly from dictatorship to democracy in Iraq. But if it has happened in Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII, why not in Iraq ? Islam is not helping, especially with its tendency to want women to stay illiterate and dominated. European countries all have a secular heritage of ideas of liberty and democracy that Iraq (or Afghanisthan) doesn't. The problem in the mentalities exist through culture. That's what makes me pessimistic about the situation in Middle-Eastern countries.
 
My opinion is NO WAY. Let the countries in the middle east do what they want until they attack us or attack another country. Bush is just getting his nose into another bad situation. Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction are not one to mess with.
 
Do embargos work ? ? ?

I say give Iraq "MTV!!"

or pin point transmissions of "The Patridge Family" to Saddam's House, that should break anybody.
 
I say give Iraq "MTV!!"

That is actually a great idea ! That will give young Iraqi a taste of the Western world and might turn them in favour of peace and internationalisation as well. That's a bit how China got opened to the world.
 
Young Iraqis know probably more about the West than their Western counterparts know about the Middle East.

As for Saddam:

Who backed and supported him since the 70s?

And why didn't Papa Bush oust him in 1991 when U.S. forces were already in sight of Baghdad?

Conclusio: there's nothing like a good game of chess, lol.
 
lol ... I was joking but you do have a good point there.

This is a pretty difficult topic and just like Thomas pointed out and what Maciamo wrote above this is a really a sketchy situation that we got here.
 
Thomas you ask a pivitol question that isn't really being asked by the major US news media- Why didn't Bush Sr take care of it at the time. As I recall they said it would have collasped the coalition by forcing the Arab nations out. With the current statements coming from most Middle Eastern states now I don't think much has changed. What seems clear is that the politics of the moment are being influenced by things other than the hearlded war on terrorism. I think its the personal electoral motives of Bush and his Republican cronies that have more to do with their fevor for getting Saddam.

By the way with modern technology the Iraqi youth have been getting MTV for years from what I hear but Saddam's willingness to kill outright any opposition makes revolt thru osmosis of Western ideas highly unlikely. That process in China didn't stop the government there from gunning down it students anymore then it would stop Saddam.
 
Since I have really followed the matter in close enough detail my question is that if Saddam is the horrible corrective extraction is necessary?

I've thought at times that if finely placed sniper might not correct a few problems.
 
It would be nice but I'm sure they have tried and to date, failed. I also think some small time action, covert but extensive, could also gain the necessary outcome. I mean, if nuclear,chemical or biological are the real threats then you have no real choice but to remove the threat. This is especially true with the non-strategic tactical nature that Saddam might develop. I don't think most experts see him as being able to launch an inter-continental missile. I think they worry about a bomb coming in by ship or germs being carried by a single person. If that happened I would worry that many Americans would demand massive retaliation.
 
its very hard to say what should be done, its a very very delicate situation. i think either way we look at it thousands of innocent lives are going to be lost because of this.
personally i think its all very stupid i'm sure there is a very logical way around this but we're so blinded by our wepons and our struggle to be the most powerful that we dont see it
*sigh* well theres nothing much i can do lets just hope they dont do anything TOO stupid
 
I don't want to get too nasty but....

@Moyashi "I've thought at times that if finely placed sniper might not correct a few problems."

This is a filthy statement... The logic of Murdering someone because you disagree with them is disgusting. The US is still obsessed with the murder of JFK (they use the fancy word "assassination" like it's a different thing...), yet you're quite willing to countenance murder.

I wonder whether the world could tell the difference between a Post Saddam and Pre Saddam Iraq after this kind of intervention.

The McDemocracy which George uses as a shield to do as he wishes is a bit of a joke, when one's own elections can be bought and sold then perhaps there are some more pressing issues closer to home...

P.S. Go Huskies!
 
Now if you look behind the smokescreens of "exporting democracy" and "fighting terrorism", what's it all about? IMHO, it's about controlling natural resources.

Afghanistan is crucial to transfer natural gas from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean (that's why the Taliban regime has previously been courted by Western governments).

As for Iraq, one of the world's largest oil producers, isn't it obvious too?
 
I've thought .... it's not like I'm saying I condone.

Hmmm, even my father and grandmother being Germans have stated that they wished that somebody had off'd Hitler when they had a chance.

I wouldn't even consider the idea of assination, since I wouldn't recommend repeating history.

But like I said above, is he that horrible? I really don't know. All I know is that the US have created most of their own demons.
 
My question has always been what is bad enough. I must admit that I am not a pacifist because I believe sometimes actions do deserve an aggressive response including violence. My issue has always been about when. As Thomas points out many nations, most especially my own, are more than willing to resort to military action when so-called vital interests(ie economic) are involved. My opinion is that we all have an inherent interest in human rights and that life above all else should rule. When life is threatened the whole international community should be willing to take a stand. Unforunately the old rule that still goes is that you can do anything you want with your own people but just don't go outside your borders. That why Rwanda and the killing of the Kurds in Iraq happened but the invasion of Kuwait is what prompted action.

:bow:

PS Does the go Huskies refer to the dawgs of Seattle?
 
I whole-heartedly agree with you, Jim.

Originally posted by jiminnwa
That why Rwanda and the killing of the Kurds in Iraq happened but the invasion of Kuwait is what prompted action.

Emphasize Kuwait, because if Saddam had occupied an Iranian province, not even CNN would have sent a correspondent.

It's interesting to read Japanese views

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=popvox&id=282
 
No war please...

To be honnest I am a little! selfish on this matter. Each time, the same thing happens... America fight against somewhere... and we have an economical crise here in Turkiye. I am tired of loosing %10 of my salary each time that usa attack somewhere :)

and... If they attack Irak it would be worst, because USA have a military base in Turkiye which means that if usa attack Irak, Irak will attack us. I don't think that Saddam will care about the opinion of Turkish population.
So, the conclusion: %90 of Turks are against a war between Irak-USA, but if there would be a war, we will fight against Irak, because USA want to attack Irak. Is it clear? :)
Conclusion of the conclusion :) No war please.
 
War just sucks ....... doom sayers are pulling up Nostradamus again ... saying this time that his timing was off.
 
Browsing the news it's clear that global opposition against a war is rapidly growing.

Dick Cheney's gung-ho rethorics:

Cheney vs. Scowcroft
How to duck the arguments against attacking Iraq.

=> http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070189

Europeans "concerned":

EU alarm at U.S. posture on Iraq

=> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/28/iraq.eu/index.html?related

Even Blair "sceptical":

Blair 'warns Bush' over Iraq

=> http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/01/blair.iraq/index.html

Will Bush go it alone?

For those who are interested in other than mainstream news on the issue

=> http://www.endthewar.org
 

This thread has been viewed 25171 times.

Back
Top