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
I'm not entirely clear on why Saddam 'needed to be stopped'. What exactly was he doing last March that needed stopping? He didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, he wasn't supporting any terrorists, militarily he wasn't a threat to anybody and it had been well over a decade since the last time he commited any major atrocities against the Kurds or Shi'ites.

I imagine at least half of the people on this board aren't American, myself included, so there isn't really any need for us to obey his authority or anything. I suppose if I met him in person and he asked me for a glass of water I would give it to him because its common courtesy. But this being a message board which Mr. Bush undoubtedly will never read and not a face-to-face meeting with the man I don't think the normal standards of decorum need apply.
Its nice to see that many people here oppose Bush and his war with Iraq. The internet is filled with Neo-Conservative rhetoric, but not here. I was never a fan of the war. The pre-war pretex was bullshit. I rather have Bush doing it to liberate the Iraqies as the pre-war pretex. But no, Bush had to bring up WMDs which he has disarmed and accusing Saddam of helping the Al-Qeida, even though Saddam is secular, therefor an enemy of the Islamic terrorists. This war in Iraq is giving them an opertunity to try and take over. That is what is happening now. Our troops are dying, civilians are dying. And some of our Republicans want to reinstate the draft. What a bunch of weirdos. Of course Republicans will lash out "that is unpatriotic!" :eek:kashii:
The other day, six hundred. About one thousand some time before but... why do they suddenly free them? If they were in prison, it is because they had done something. I guess they were dangerous guys who were a thread for the stability of the country, dangerous to honest people or their belongings...

What I mean is... why were they in prison? If they were criminals, they are going to fill the street with dangerous people just because some mindless humiliations... Is it maybe the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and once they have paid for their sins they are freed? (Which means they have put into practise the islamic laws I thought they were against...)

If not, this is serious. They keep some thousands in jail with no reason at all. (Well, this is not new as they already have Guantanamo.) They are jailed summarily and kept in prison with no motivation and when scandal gets out of control the sense of guiltiness takes place (I truly believed they couldn't have any) and decide to free them all massively...

My doubt is... Why are they freed? And what is even more important... Why were they jailed?

I've read that somewhere between 60% and 90% of prisoners detained by the Americans are completely innocent of any crime. The 60% figure comes from the US military, the 90% from the Red Cross.

It seems that whenever the military conducts a raid or some sort of security operation they will usually arrest every military age male in the area. So a lot of innocent people who were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time end up getting arrested. Then they are taken to the prisons where the Military Police interrogate them and try to sort out which ones are rebels and which ones aren't. I imagine that just about everyone claims they are innocent so it probably takes them a while to clear people, which explains why so many innocents are held for such long times.

It really is a shameful way to act. It turns the fundamental principle of American law, "Innocent until proven guilty" on its head. Basically everyone arrested is "guilty until proven innocent", and as it is very difficult to prove you aren't a rebel a lot of people are getting railroaded by the system.
What's worse, if the detainees are tortured (or semi-tortured in a humane way, or whatever the US ministry of defence would call it) they might admit guilt just to be left alone.
But the funny thing is that we do not mind about.They reject to get into ICC because they want inmunity for their soldiers to commit any kind of attrocity and they can not be judged for it. They do not sign Kyoto protocol because they do not want to cut off gas emissions. They've mass destruction weapons, they avoid any action or resolution to come true against the atrocities Israel do to Palestinians, they commit crimes against humanity once and again and we still want to sit by their side in any meeting. Bush is worst than Saddam, because Bush commit more atrocities than this one, and also says it is in the name of freedom!!! Shameful.
I know this is straying from the subject, but isn't it ironic that the exact place where the first set of written laws were created by Hammurabi in ancient Babylon, the place where civilazation might have started, is now the location of much controversy and the de-evolution of laws and rules, where people are beign killed and tortured for reasons Bush still isn't clear about?
Reasons are crystal clear. Bush junior got his father's frustration with Saddam and took advantage of the 9/11. They had removed the Taliban regime in Afganistan... so... why not Irak? And so they could control the second largest petrol reserve.


This thread has been viewed 24981 times.