Killing sadam

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Oct. 03 2002,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Major Fubar I won't even comment on what you said because I would probably use some words and stuff that would get me banned.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't get me wrong, I'm not America bashing. But I think Bush is an ignorant thug, just like I think my own Prime Minister John Howard is a pig-headed toady.

Fact is, I just don't want to be involved in a world war started because some gung-ho fool wants to flex his political muscle and fulfill some sort of revenge fantasy.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

How many time must I say this? What is the differance between killing him with a bullet instead of a bomb? When you have a guy as evil as Sadam the only thing to do is get rid of him.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,04:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many time must I say this? What is the differance between killing him with a bullet instead of a bomb? When you have a guy as evil as Sadam the only thing to do is get rid of him.<span id='postcolor'>

ASSASSINATION IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.

For fuck's sake if you are going to start a controversial topic at least have the decency to actually argue your points, instead of repeating the same shit over and over again.

How many times must I say THAT?

[Nagual 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 03 2002,12:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... just like I think my own Prime Minister John Howard is a pig-headed toady...<span id='postcolor'>

couldn't agree with you more on that...

Taking out saddam would only have any value in the context of a much larger military offensive, to topple the entire regime.

I don't know about now, but a few years ago assasinating him would of only resulted in his son taking power, and apparently he is so screwed he makes saddam look good.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So your saying if you kill someone thats murdered hundreds if not thousands of innocent (Kurdish)people<span id='postcolor'>

I don't understand why the war pushers in the U.S. Government are even using the Iraqi massacre of Kurdish civilians in 1988 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Yes Iraq has chemical weapons now, they have had them for more than 20 years. If Bush Sr. actually gave two shits about innocent Kurdish civilians, he would have done something about it 14 years ago when it actually happened.

Now that Bush Jr. is pushing for a war, he is trying to use that incedent as an excuse to restart the crusades. What a load of crap.

I remember just after the Persian gulf war when the Iraqi military was at its weakest, the U.S. tried to get Iraqis to lead a coup on Saddam with the promise of military support. The U.S. backed out last-minute and the coup members were all assasinated. Kind of like what happened in the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion.

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Oct. 03 2002,04:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. backed out last-minute and the coup members were all assasinated. Kind of like what happened in the 'Bay of Pigs' invasion.  

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

Minor detail here - After the Bay of Pigs failed the prisioners taken were not assasinated....they were exchanged to the US for medical supplies and baby food. (And yes, at this point in history I believe Castro was the good guy, but alas absolute power corrupts absolutely ).

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Let me explain it again: It is vital that America maintains the moral authority in any conflict with entities that we deem to be evil. If we do not, we lose our international support and goodwill, and we undermine the very principles America was founded on.

We were the victims of a horrific crime last year, there is no question about that. However, the only way to truly beat our enemies, both physically and psychologically, is to stay true to the values we claim to treasure- if we fail to do this, we are nothing better than a bully who had his nose broken, and is now looking for revenge.

Now, the very fact that we are trying to start a war against a country that has shown no signs of aggression other than press releases in a decade is somewhat questionable, but to even suggest that we should solve the problem by murdering the head of state of a sovereign nation- that is fucking insane, and completely un-American. If we want to disarm him, fine, we can do that. If we want to overthrow his regime and bring him before the IWC and bring him to justice, and simultaneously rehabilitate Iraq's economy and its people, we can do that too. But just killing him and then expecting everything to be hunky-dory is stupid, it's cruel, and it is completely idiotic.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Yes, don't forget that the minute the U.S. goes around assasinating leaders it gives disgruntled people around the world a precedent to do the same thing to Western leaders, ie:Bush.

Tyler

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Oct. 03 2002,05:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, don't forget that the minute the U.S. goes around assasinating leaders it gives disgruntled people around the world a precedent to do the same thing to Western leaders, ie:Bush.<span id='postcolor'>

That's a bad thing?

j/k

[Jester983 0]

I forget where I heard this but (might have been here) I heard that his sons are more radical than he is? Is that true?

[Warin 0]

Saddam is a tinhorn dictator. He's not a pleasant man, and maintains his control on Iraq with what are likely brutal and immoral methods.

So?

I've noticed that the US has a habit of labelling dictators in two ways:

1) Evil nasty bad guy who needs to be 'taken out'

2) A good friend to the US, a stalwart ally in our 'War on Terrorism'

It's all perspective. Dictators are OK as long as they are 'OUR' dictator bad guy. Before the US starts casting stones and making all sorts of self righteous comments, they need to look at their past glass houses.

There are a lot of nations with the capability to produce NBC weapons. But Saddam is being singled out because Bush needs a scapegoat to take the attention of the American public off of a horrid economy (One day this week was the worst day on the NYSE since the Great Depression). As I see it, it's also a desire to be something of a Hero in the US created 'War on Terrorism'

It is very amusing that the US thinks it's possible to declare war on a noun. Terrorism isnt something you can declare war on. It's something you can fight and strive to eradicate. And after Sept 11, 2001 I cant blame the US for wanting to do just that. The problem comes in when diplomats and bureaucrats (Rumsfeld and Powell are not elected...) start deciding to decare war on sovereign nations in the name of a concept.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's a bad thing?  j/k <span id='postcolor'>

If you think that the U.S. is on the warpath now, I would hate to see things if a U.S. leader were to be assasinated. Reprisals galore.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I heard that his sons are more radical than he is? Is that true?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know. We better kill both just to be sure.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is very amusing that the US thinks it's possible to declare war on a noun<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq is a noun. ie: a person, place, or thing.

Tyler

[cybrid 0]

Ok i'm going to make a bold statement, so hate me if you must

I think that your all just jelous of the most powerful country on the face of the planet. The United States of America is the modern day roman empire, just like that one guy said....you know the one I mean....british dude, was in a band or somthing. Anyhow, i don't have a problem with a powerful country telling other people what do, so as long as the U.S. dosen't start a nuclear/bio/chem war, I could really car less. And how is it in any way illmorale to shoot and evil ruthless dictator?

And I say all this as a Canadian, a heritic Canadian. I am considered so because I hate our liberal government system and all their bending over backwards for minorities, tax raising, no military funding, commie, political correct crap. We even have tax brackets in this country (which are actually working to my advantage now because of my low income) but what is this? communisim or somthing? or at least a mild form of it?

John Cretian can kiss my hairy yellow ass!

And by the way I was not serious about the british dude, I'm pretty sure it was John Lennon.

[Jester983 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Oct. 02 2002,08:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I heard that his sons are more radical than he is? Is that true?<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know. We better kill both just to be sure.  

Tyler<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

As the old saying goes "The army is for humanitarian needs, its for killing people and breaking things."

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I say all this as a Canadian, a heritic Canadian. I am considered so because I hate our liberal government system and all their bending over backwards for minorities, tax raising, no military funding, commie, political correct crap. We even have tax brackets in this country (which are actually working to my advantage now because of my low income) but what is this? communisim or somthing? or at least a mild form of it?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I agree with you 100%. The U.S. had the same problems while Klinton was in office.

Yes, the U.S. might be another Roman Empire, but don't you remember what happened to the Roman Empire? Where is it today? I don't feel jealous of the U.S. at all, I just think that they are using thier power in the wrong way. Do you think that if we invaided Afghanistan prior to 9/11 it would have stopped the attacks? I think the whole 'war on terrorism' is misguided. All the U.S. needs is better border control and intelligence.

Tyler

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Oct. 03 2002,05:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And how is it in any way illmorale to shoot and evil ruthless dictator?<span id='postcolor'>

If someone believed a man was an immoral, evil, and ruthless dictator, and they shot them.. it would be ok?

Now how about if that someone was an islamic fundamentalist that truly believed that George W Bush was all of those things. That is his perspective... so if he then shot Bush... what would happen? Would people say 'Hey... that's what he believed and he had the strength of his convictions, so he should be admired' LOL. Hardly! His country would like be turn into a parking lot!

I am not suggesting that Shrub is any of these things. I may not like the man, but he's certainly not evil. So dont flame me to pieces, I am playing the devils advocate here

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I would also like to bring up one other question: what has Iraq and Saddam done to America? I mean, actually done. They've called us mean names. Boo-friggin-hoo. He has used WMD (but not against us). This is a valid argument except we KNEW he was going to do it, and still didn't cease aid to his military effort. And apparently, though I had not heard anything about this, assassins supported by Iraq tried to kill former President Bush. Pretty short list.

Now, what has America done to Iraq? We ripped the heart out of their largely conscripted army, while at the same time failing to oust the leader who forced those troops to fight what was not their war. We imposed crippling economic embargoes that hurt the Iraqui people more than their intended target (Saddam). We bomb Iraq every time our president needs a boost in the polls. Now, we are threatening (again) to do whatever it takes to oust their leader.

Now, why are we wanting to take Saddam out again?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jester983 @ Oct. 02 2002,21:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay im not a person who is into politics so bear with me here.

Personally, I think it might be a good idea to get rid of saddam. I would just fear that he could launch a nuke at either europe or america.

Now for those of you guys who say "bush wanted Iraq to let the weapons inspectors in, and he got that, so he should call off the war."

I think thats total bullshit. I mean hes just going to do the same thing as he did last time the weapon inspectors were there.

Saddamn: "Okay you can go there, there and there but you cant go there. Thats my Bomb factory."

I mean think about it.

Now someone in here is probably going to come along and call me a complete moron. Which I understand because im not into politics. But I just had to put in a little bit of my own input.

Hope you respect that. If you dont like it. Too bad! <span id='postcolor'>

First of all he can't deliver his weapons to the US effectively, second; it would be great security if we could repeat the last 10 years with Iraq, nothing bad has come to anyone but his own people because of sanctions. What's the big rush all of a sudden, is there a fire in the Bush?

(hmmm, must sleep)

[cybrid 0]

Apparently Saddam was funding the taliban for the attacks and what not (as to my understanding). I really don't understand the situation 100% but if Saddam was giving the funding, whats stopping him from launching a direct attack on the us? especially if he has wepons of mass destruction?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If someone believed a man was an immoral, evil, and ruthless dictator, and they shot them.. it would be ok?

<span id='postcolor'>

We are not talking about the thoughts of one man here, I'm sure a large percentage of the U.S. population would like to see saddam dead, or at least captured (seeing as how everyone seems to think that killing of any kind is wrong these days.)

[SirLoins 0]

Did any of you "anything once again to stick it to Bush" guys READ the press conference? Apparently not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

Also the "war to cover up the economy" argument is lame. But you guys can't come up with anything else. Status Quo.

Plus, I thought all of you anti-capitalist, socialist left wingers would be in 7th heaven with the US economy. We have and will always have the strongest economy in the world. It will just take a while to fix Clinton's cooked books. (please Ralph, no more lectures. You believe what you want, and I'll believe the truth)

It's getting really old, but once again I will defend my President.

If we wait for a smoking gun, we will have waited too long.

DOR, stick to your "guns" (pun intended).

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">whats stopping him from launching a direct attack on the us? especially if he has wepons of mass destruction?

<span id='postcolor'>

A.) He has no means of delivering chemicals to the U.S.

B.) He is under the international microscope right now, if he attempts any kind of military action or so much as farts the wrong way, his ass is grass.

Tyler

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Oct. 03 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apparently Saddam was funding the taliban for the attacks and what not (as to my understanding). I really don't understand the situation 100% but if Saddam was giving the funding, whats stopping him from launching a direct attack on the us? especially if he has wepons of mass destruction?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If someone believed a man was an immoral, evil, and ruthless dictator, and they shot them.. it would be ok?

<span id='postcolor'>

We are not talking about the thoughts of one man here, I'm sure a large percentage of the U.S. population would like to see saddam dead, or at least captured (seeing as how everyone seems to think that killing of any kind is wrong these days.)<span id='postcolor'>

Okay, A: The Taliban was not involved in any terrorist attacks. the Taliban is (was   ) a extremist theocracy that was in control of Afghanistan that gave shelter to Al-Quaeda because they practiced the same twisted version of Islam.

B: Al-Quaeda does not need funding from Iraq. All their money comes from Saudi Arabia (a dictatorial regime that we happen to be buddies with).

C: Al-Quaeda did not have anything to do with Iraq before it became politically expedient. Iraq is a secular Arab state, and Al-Quaeda is a extremist Islamic terrorist group that would gladly run a plane into Saddam's headquarters for all the violence he has initiated against fellow Muslims.

And no, a large portion of the US does NOT want to see Saddam dead, they just want to see Iraq liberated from his dictatorship.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 03 2002,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did any of you "anything once again to stick it to Bush" guys READ the press conference? Apparently not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

Also the "war to cover up the economy" argument is lame. But you guys can't come up with anything else. Status Quo.<span id='postcolor'>

Listen up you arrogant son of a bitch. There are other reasons people disagree with American policies than just because they don't like the president. Using the "Oh, you just don't like conservatives" argument is intellectually lazy, and in this case, completely irrelevant. They have produced credible theories as to why Bush would want to force a war with Iraq, and all you can come up with is "Well, you just don't like Bush".

I have read the press conference, and the very IDEA of a spokesman of MY president even suggesting that we support the murder of another head of state, makes me want to throw up. And I thought conservatives were the ones with morals.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we wait for a smoking gun, we will have waited too long.<span id='postcolor'>

I fail to see the logic in this. I keep hearing it, but it comes out sounding like Hawk bullshit. Saddam is not Hitler, he's a two-bit punk who is only interested in power. A decade ago he bit off more than he could chew, and now he is America's favorite scape-goat. He is not dumb, and he realises that if ANY Islamic or Arab terrorist group does initiate attack with NBC weapons, even if they arent from his country, he will be toast.

[cybrid 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Okay, A: The Taliban was not involved in any terrorist attacks. the Taliban is (was ) a extremist theocracy that was in control of Afghanistan that gave shelter to Al-Quaeda because they practiced the same twisted version of Islam. <span id='postcolor'>

Umm, oh yeah, I was going to as the difference between the taliban and al-quaeda, but i was to ashamed//embarrased to ask.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A.) He has no means of delivering chemicals to the U.S.<span id='postcolor'>

Really? isn't it pretty easy to send just about anything between continents these days?

[cybrid 0]

Actually Tex, i'm pretty sure I read news artical(s) on Iraq funding Al-Quaeda. If I had any ambition i'd go and find one.

anyway, I'm going to bed now, its 002h in my time zone and i'm tired or somthing (watching 4 straight hours of beavis and butthead dosen't help either).