Killing sadam

[Die Alive 0]

Between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, who should win the Nobel Peace Prize?

If George Bush and Saddam Hussein were running for leader of you country, which one would you vote for in an election?

-=Die Alive=-

[JAP 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Oct. 04 2002,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, who should win the Nobel Peace Prize?

If George Bush and Saddam Hussein were running for leader of you country, which one would you vote for in an election?

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

None !

I would let them assassinate BEFORE they would get elected !

No seriously, i would rather move to another country then voting for any of them !

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes my logic is to attack any body whith them there nukler wepons, dems be wepons of massotivaaly destruction.  I do not think France is going to supply terriost with wepons, something I would not put past Sadam.<span id='postcolor'>

There are bombs like that all over the world!!!!

Even Belgium has some, what are you gonna do? Bomb whole europe just cuz they have nukes?

Sheesh....

[DarkLight 0]

First of all, i totally agree with Balschoiw

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems that the form of Goverment they use now does not work, so they should use a British or American style goverment. <span id='postcolor'>

*sigh* Oh well, let's just pretend this wasn't posted...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, who should win the Nobel Peace Prize?

If George Bush and Saddam Hussein were running for leader of you country, which one would you vote for in an election?

<span id='postcolor'>

No offense 'course but i'd rather be dead than to have any of those guys...

[arkadeyevich 0]

Something I have not seen discussed here: Supposed the US goes in alone, how hard would it be to defeat iraq?

Some things different from last time:

The common iraqi couldn't probably care less about fighthing for Saddam but this time it is their home country that is under attack by the Great Infidel Imperialist Satan, not just one of Saddams failed millitary adventures. Hopefully someone will stage a coup and remove Saddam from power, but don't count on it.

I suspect that Saddam will know better than placeing his forces out open in the desert this time. What if he fortifies the cities instead?

It might seem like it is a case of kicking in the door and watch the whole rotten structure come crashing down.

About 60 years ago the world most powerfull millitary force made the error of assuming just that when they invaded Russia looking for oil.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (arkadeyevich @ Oct. 04 2002,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something I have not seen discussed here: Supposed the US goes in alone, how hard would it be to defeat iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

Well he has Britain and Australia, perhaps Spain to cooperate. (just a note)

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 04 2002,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (arkadeyevich @ Oct. 04 2002,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something I have not seen discussed here: Supposed the US goes in alone, how hard would it be to defeat iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

Well he has Britain and Australia, perhaps Spain to cooperate.  (just a note)<span id='postcolor'>

You know, the bulk of Australians (at least from the polls I've seen), are against involvement in any Iraq war. But our PM Johnny Howard has his nose too firmly buried up George Dubbya's good-ole-boy behind to listen to what his country wants.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 03 2002,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 04 2002,18:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (arkadeyevich @ Oct. 04 2002,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something I have not seen discussed here: Supposed the US goes in alone, how hard would it be to defeat iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

Well he has Britain and Australia, perhaps Spain to cooperate.  (just a note)<span id='postcolor'>

You know, the bulk of Australians (at least from the polls I've seen), are against involvement in any Iraq war. But our PM Johnny Howard has his nose too firmly buried up George Dubbya's good-ole-boy behind to listen to what his country wants.<span id='postcolor'>

Doesn't surprise me, the only support the US will ever get is very small, especially from europe...

[ralphwiggum 6]

i read US News and Worlreport yesterday, and they had some sections about it and some polls.

i don't have exact numbers, but from top of my head, those who were polled had these to say.

1.US should get allies's support

2.congress's approval needed

3.UN has to be involved(?)

not sure about 3., but the poll asked both "should ..."and "should not..." questions for same thing, and results were pretty much the same.

[DarkLight 0]

Damn sorry, i posted a dumb quote and now i realize my mistake, sorryyyy!

Delete plz...

[Balschoiw 0]

The list of allies for the US is not very long at the moment.

Following my informations these nations are willing to join US

forces at the moment:

Great Britain, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Bahrain, Kuwait

(all except GB need to have UN orders to be able to set troops to another country. They are not allowed to do that on their own.)

Israel also will start a second front if any Scud should hit their territory. They intended to do so during last war but were told not to do so.

The Scud launcher question arisen by Bush is a laughter if you know that Irak only has 11 launchers at the moment. This is fact and has been checked several times.

Besides this about 130.000 - 250.000 allied will be needed to win a ground war. This is a very high number compared to any other war. The war can be won in approximately 2 - 4 years if no other Arab-league member decides to get involved. Iran already sympathises with an Anti US engagement and could make the conflict more worse than we all can think of at the moment. Like Rumsfeld already said, the conflict can take about 25 years to be finished. Nethertheless neither US nor NATO is able to keep up a war that long. Middle East states are able to as many local conflicts that last for over 1 generation now prove.

I wouldnt be the one to test how long and how far the Middle East people are able to oppose the western forces.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr Bush just stated that  he will attack Irak in any case. With UN mandate or without it..<span id='postcolor'>

Err, no.

"The choice is up to the United Nations to show its resolve," Bush said at the White House. "The choice is up to Saddam Hussein to fulfill his word, and if neither of them acts, the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders."

That Republican mouthpiece, The Washington Post

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He insists on a war, not obeying any international law or authorities. Guess it´s time world public stands up against this madness.<span id='postcolor'>

That's what WE'VE been saying all along!  Oh wait a second... you're not talking about Hussein, are you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Meanwhile Pakistan tests another Nuke.<span id='postcolor'>

As does India. Shocking.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are allowed to, cause they are US friend No 1 in that region since Afghanistan war and CIA connections are very tight to this country.<span id='postcolor'>

Are they violating UN resolutions too? Even if they are it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal -- after all, Iraq's been doing it for four years.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Atta for example received 10.000 US Dollar from ISI ( Pakistani secret service) before 9.11.<span id='postcolor'>

Link? Pardon my ignorance.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I ask you now . Which one of these two countries is more a threat ? Pakistan or Irak ?<span id='postcolor'>

Please clarify. More of a threat to whom?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where is Mr. Bush´s war on terrorism there ? Where is his "Defending of freedom" ? Where ?<span id='postcolor'>

We'll find out as soon as Pakistan kills 3,000 of us.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Oct. 04 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am UN trooper and we all agree that the war on Irak is enforced cause of different reasons that Mr Bush tells.<span id='postcolor'>

Then please enlighten me. Should UN resolutions be enforced or not? Try to disregard the speculative crap about how we want to take over the Iraqi oil fields, or "wagging the dog" comparisons. Bottom line: Iraq is failing to comply with UN mandates. Cut and dried.

Now before you start in about how I'm supporting unilateralism, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't act alone. Let me re-phrase that: I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't HAVE to act alone. Why is the UN afraid to take a stand here?  

Semper Fi

[DarkLight 0]

I don't understand what the fuck is going on here, Iraq has given the inspectors the permission to check their weapons.

Bush has reached what he wanted, now what the fuck is he still nagging about?

Argh this crap is making me so daaamn angry!

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Oct. 04 2002,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand what the fuck is going on here, Iraq has given the inspectors the permission to check their weapons.

Bush has reached what he wanted, now what the fuck is he still nagging about?<span id='postcolor'>

Bush's goal never was to get the inspectors back - he wants (and wanted) Sadam removed. Nothing less. He's actually opposing the return of the inspectors, as they pose an obstacle to his war plans.

First they give him the chemical weapons, then they stand back when he uses them - and when they need a scapegoat (even if it's as cripled as Iraq after 10 years of sanctions), they tell the world "oh boy, look at that evil man - I think we need to shoot him".

How I love american foreign politics...

[Satchel 0]

"Why is the UN afraid to take a stand here?"

Because the immediate- and long term consequences are incalculable after Hussein and his regime would be removed, not only for Iraq itself, but the whole region. Plain and simple put the Bush administration is after Hussein and his Regime, justified with a stalking-horse called WOMD.

I start getting the feeling that a new resolution would be wholly in favour of the Bush administration if it would enable them to attack Iraq as soon as Hussein or one of his minions just let go of a fart- confrontation seems unavoidable, even if weapon inspections would be satisfactory for Mr. Blix and his team.

Don´t get me wrong, i´m certainly not the one who would like to invite Hussein for a cup of tee, but i´m also aware that military action could bring factors that are not covered, or not thought out well enough yet, with eventually grave consequences for stabilization in the region.

What bothers me personally the most however is the way the law of nations is kicked with feet in such a drastic way by THE civilized western country that pretends to hold these ideals high, a preemptive war however puts us back in the timeline, and raises concerns about things to come. An preemptive war on Iraq will unquestionably serve as a role model for future conflicts, with law, ethic and moral taking a backseat. Shoot first, ask questions later....or better don´t ask.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Oct. 03 2002,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How I love american foreign politics...  <span id='postcolor'>

Join the club....

Nice one Satchel....

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Oct. 04 2002,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't understand what the fuck is going on here, Iraq has given the inspectors the permission to check their weapons.

Bush has reached what he wanted, now what the fuck is he still nagging about?  

Argh this crap is making me so daaamn angry!<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has agreed to admit inspectors under the old resolutions. Just a reminder, these terms hampered the inspection teams so much that they withdrew in '98 after being denied access to sites.

The U.S. draft requires, among other things:

-- Unrestricted access to all sites (including Hussein's palaces) without prior notice,

-- Permission for any of the 5 permanent Security Council members to provide inspectors and recommend sites for inspection, and

-- UN security force backup.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ Oct. 04 2002,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because the immediate- and long term consequences are incalculable after Hussein and his regime would be removed, not only for Iraq itself, but the whole region.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, my question involves enforcement of UN resolutions, not regime removal. If the UN doesn't want to enforce the rules, rescind them -- problem solved. However, if military force is used to enforce them, would that be considered a pre-emptive strike? It seems like more of a police action to me.

Edit: Removal of phantom smilies

Semper Fi

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

Darklight my post about my logic to attack everybody with nukes was a joke, I am not that crazy. The U.S. form of goverment is the best, the people who run it may not be the best, but it is better than Clinton or Gore.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 04 2002,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Darklight my post about my logic to attack everybody with nukes was a joke, I am not that crazy.  The U.S. form of goverment is the best, the people who run it may not be the best, but it is better than Clinton or Gore.<span id='postcolor'>

*just got off post restrictiction- must- resist- flaming- arrrrggggghhhhhhhh*

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*just got off post restrictiction- must- resist- flaming- arrrrggggghhhhhhhh*<span id='postcolor'>

Its hard at first, but then you get use to it.

[IceFire 0]

I can't believe what I am reading! "The US form of government is the best".

WTF?

Are you on something??

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

In my opinion its is, yours may be different. The only think Im on is Coke.....Coke-Cola ok thats was lame.

[IceFire 0]

I think there are just different government systems.

None are the best, and noone has the right to force different government systems on other people if they do not like it no matter how much "better" one thinks it is. People have different cultures in different parts of the world and many would wish to keep their own forms of government instead of just copying the US.

[Balschoiw 0]

Oh have a nice talk about national ignorance or whatever but maybe I can just remind you that we are talking about a thing here that can change everybody´s life.

I am tired to repeat me over and over again.

We have the "Every little war Bush starts is ok cause we bring the people peace and US democracy" - party wich is luckily a very small one. And on the other side we have people that THINK before they tell a pile of crap.

I never thought anyone that got history lessons in school about law and how democracy grew, how to interact between cultural and ethnical groups could still be so ignorant.

I hope not all of the world will go mad someday and I really hope USA will change it´s foreign policy. If not, we all will move into a neverending search for the next US "enemy".

Pretty sick !

I can´t hold back, but if you compare some of 3rd Reich´s speeches to current Mr. Bush speeches, there is not much difference. I know now all will start yelling at me, cause it fits the latest fashion to do so, but I stand behind that.

Read this:

Author: Carl Schmitt (Governmental leader of "Staatstheorie"

and high court leader (I hope this is the right experession for the highest judge in a country)

Date : 1932

Title: "Begriff des Politischen"

" An economically funded imperialism will try to get the world

into a state, where it can use financial control, limitation of raw materials, destruction of the foreign currency etc. to turn the world into a controlable and exploitable state. The nation will see it as legal , to use force to dominate peoples or countries to achieve this economical increase even with methods of war. It will also use measures like limitation of food, limitation of pharmacy, limitation of diplomatic contacts.

Finally it has the technical ability to violently end the nations life with advanced weapon technology, that has been made possible with the economic wellfare and excellent state of knowledge and science.For the usage of this measures a totally new vocabulary is written. The word "war" does not exist any longer. It is called "sanctions, embargo, international police, measures to uphold peace and freedom". The enemy is not "the enemy " anymore. He is called "peacebreaker, enemy of democracy and hor´s l´humanité (dont know the meaning of this maybe a frenchy can help out )"

A war fought for the uphold or increase of economical power has to be accompanied by propaganda to make it "the last war of mankind".

compare Mr Bush´s speech on "either with us or with the terrorists" where he uses exactly the same phrases. I was shivering when I read both.