Iraq war question...

[conserv.pat15]

This question is for those who are oppsed to the war in Iraq... What would have been your solution to the problem of Saddam?

 

[Goobieman]

Firmly say "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"?

Isnt that what we did April 1991 - March 2003?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

DEmand that since they decided to ignore the previous 14 resolution that he obey the 15th or we'll draft a harshly worded 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st etc etc etc etc......

 

[vexati0n]

lol, nice poll. Why didn't you give the options you were really considering, which were probably like, "Cry to Michael Moore," "Hold a Candlelight Vigil," or "Complain that Bush didn't Do Anything" ?

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, yes. In a perfect world, he would have been drawn and quartered a long time ago. But he was no more a threat to Americans' freedom than the jackass in Darfur committing genocide right now.

I would have funded opposition to him, or just assassinated him and anyone who succeeded him until we got someone we could live with, but not this war for war profits. I understand we have the most powerful standing army of all human history, but do we really need to start wars just to show off?

Like I said, Saddam Hussein was evil. He was so evil I'm surprised he isn't related to Rumsfield. But we can't go gallavanting around the planet striking evil tyrants everywhere. We obviously chose Iraq based more on the fact that his country is in a strategic position militarily, not because he was any worse than many dictators of 3rd world nations who have an inferiority complex because they can only raise an army big enough to kill their own citizens, and definitely not because he was any real threat to America.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

you guys think the UN is irrellevant. Why such concern for upholding its resolutions now?

Saddam was a caged Rat. Iraq was invaded for geopolitical; advantage. They were the weakest, easiest to invade. Now we've got some real military influence in the middle east. that was the goal, not liberating anyone.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's not like Husein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, with conventional mean or WMD in the foreseeable future.
It's not like he had a collaborative or operational relationship w/ al Qaeda.

So what exactly and specifically was "the problem of Saddam?"

 

[Gibberish]

Would have done the same procedure as Iran. It is up to the UN to decide if action should be taken against a foreign dictator, not a single country.

Bush needs a thinly spread out military to stoop so low as to have political talks with other countries that provide a possible threat.

 

[conserv.pat15]

lol, nice poll. Why didn't you give the options you were really considering, which were probably like, "Cry to Michael Moore," "Hold a Candlelight Vigil," or "Complain that Bush didn't Do Anything" ?

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, yes. In a perfect world, he would have been drawn and quartered a long time ago. But he was no more a threat to Americans' freedom than the jackass in Darfur committing genocide right now.

I would have funded opposition to him, or just assassinated him and anyone who succeeded him until we got someone we could live with, but not this war for war profits. I understand we have the most powerful standing army of all human history, but do we really need to start wars just to show off?

Like I said, Saddam Hussein was evil. He was so evil I'm surprised he isn't related to Rumsfield. But we can't go gallavanting around the planet striking evil tyrants everywhere. We obviously chose Iraq based more on the fact that his country is in a strategic position militarily, not because he was any worse than many dictators of 3rd world nations who have an inferiority complex because they can only raise an army big enough to kill their own citizens, and definitely not because he was any real threat to America.

First of all, an assasination would not work because someone just like Saddam would come into power... a complete change of government was a better solution to this problem.

Also, Saddam was a threat... He was a dictator who hated the U.S. and had WMDs and ties to terrorism.

 

[Iriemon]

This question is for those who are oppsed to the war in Iraq... What would have been your solution to the problem of Saddam?

What was the big problem? Hussein was contained and basically impotent. Like many petty tyrants he puffed and talked tough but there was little behind it. When he was pressured he backed down. Given time and the right mixture of political and economic incentives and threats and nothing would have come of him, he probably would have responded. Worked with Kaddafi, who was worse that Hussein.

Bad as he was, he was certainly not the worst tyrant of all time. He was brutal when there were uprisings against his rule, but was not a Radical Islamist, he was relatively secular, left the one million Christians there relatively unmolested, and even had a Christian as his foreign minister, hardly the acts of a radical. Brutal as he was, he did keep his country relatively stable. I'd rather have him in power there than Radical Islamists, which is a real possibility now.

We are seeing ourselves now how factious the country is; how we also have had to use brute force to try to maintain order in that country. Ironically, many now (including several on this board) are saying we should be more brutal, less "PC" and take of the kid gloves in ruling that country, ie we should be acting more like Hussein.

Frankly, if someone was killing Iraqis to maintain order, I'd rather have had it been Hussein rather than us. The blood is on our hands now, and our occupation and killing muslems inflames the Muslem world even more against us, the opposite of what we should be trying to achieve.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

First of all, an assasination would not work because someone just like Saddam would come into power... a complete change of government was a better solution to this problem.

Yeah, because that is working wonderfully.:roll:

Also, Saddam was a threat... He was a dictator who hated the U.S. and had WMDs and ties to terrorism.

Is that so? I thought there were no WMDs left and the ties to terroism were minimal at best.

 

[conserv.pat15]

you guys think the UN is irrellevant. Why such concern for upholding its resolutions now?

Saddam was a caged Rat. Iraq was invaded for geopolitical; advantage. They were the weakest, easiest to invade. Now we've got some real military influence in the middle east. that was the goal, not liberating anyone.

The U.N. becomes irrellevant when it does not enforce its resolutions... can you explain why the U.N. passed the resolutions if they are not going to enforce them?

 

[conserv.pat15]

It's not like Husein was going to attack the US directly or by proxy, with conventional mean or WMD in the foreseeable future.
It's not like he had a collaborative or operational relationship w/ al Qaeda.

So what exactly and specifically was "the problem of Saddam?"

How do you know Saddam wasn't going to attack directly or through other means(terrorists)? The fact is that he did use WMD in the past and did hate the U.S. I would rather eliminate the threat now than let it grow.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Would have done the same procedure as Iran. It is up to the UN to decide if action should be taken against a foreign dictator, not a single country.

Bush needs a thinly spread out military to stoop so low as to have political talks with other countries that provide a possible threat.

So you think we should leave our security up the the U.N.?

 

[Goobieman]

The U.N. becomes irrellevant when it does not enforce its resolutions... can you explain why the U.N. passed the resolutions if they are not going to enforce them?

The UN is not the sole source, not sole arbiter, of international law, and our action aganist Iraq was legitimate regardless of any UN support.

Expecting the UN to enforce a resolution against a country (Iraq) that was buying off two of the permanent members of the UNSC (France, Russia), and requiring that we do not act until the UNSC says we can is an exercise in futility. There's no reason the US or any other state that sees another state as a threat should have to wait until they get 'permission' from the UNSC before taking action.

 

[The Mark]

In the days leading up to the Iraq war, I was all for it and supported our president.

During the first months of the war, I still supported it and our president.

Since then, my support has lessened somewhat, with all the constant references to how bad it's going, etc, etc, etc, by various media, politicians, activists, etc.

But that was when I was unable to listen to my favorite talk show hosts.

Now, after listening to their reasoning, it makes much more sense than the reasoning I was limited to hearing before.

My support is now back fully behind the war in Iraq. But my personal jury is still out on our president.

Just seconds ago, I heard on the news that President Bush has just ordered the troops in Iraq to undergo ethics training because of the recent incident that has been in the news.

I feel that this is a bad idea. I think that all the politicians, news media, and political activists should undergo ethics training instead. That would be much more helpfull.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

How do you know Saddam wasn't going to attack directly or through other means(terrorists)? The fact is that he did use WMD in the past and did hate the U.S. I would rather eliminate the threat now than let it grow.

You're joking right? Attack directly? Remember Gulf war 1? They had no army, no tanks left. They could never have mounted an attack against the USA. Well, this certainly discredits you and shows your knowledge (or lack therof) about Iraq. you should be :3oops:

 

[::Major_Baker::]

In the days leading up to the Iraq war, I was all for it and supported our president.

During the first months of the war, I still supported it and our president.

Since then, my support has lessened somewhat, with all the constant references to how bad it's going, etc, etc, etc, by various media, politicians, activists, etc.

But that was when I was unable to listen to my favorite talk show hosts.

Now, after listening to their reasoning, it makes much more sense than the reasoning I was limited to hearing before.

My support is now back fully behind the war in Iraq. But my personal jury is still out on our president.

Just seconds ago, I heard on the news that President Bush has just ordered the troops in Iraq to undergo ethics training because of the recent incident that has been in the news.

I feel that this is a bad idea. I think that all the politicians, news media, and political activists should undergo ethics training instead. That would be much more helpfull.

Who are your favortie talk show hosts?

 

[conserv.pat15]

The UN is not the sole source, not sole arbiter, of international law, and our action aganist Iraq was legitimate regardless of any UN support.

Expecting the UN to enforce a resolution against a country (Iraq) that was buying off two of the permanent members of the UNSC (France, Russia), and requiring that we do not act until the UNSC says we can is an exercise in futility. There's no reason the US or any other state that sees another state as a threat should have to wait until they get 'permission' from the UNSC before taking action.

I agree with you.

 

[Goobieman]

You're joking right? Attack directly? Remember Gulf war 1? They had no army, no tanks left. They could never have mounted an attack against the USA. Well, this certainly discredits you and shows your knowledge (or lack therof) about Iraq. you should be :3oops:

Um...
No one ever made the argument that Iraq's conventional forces were a threat to the US.

 

[The Mark]

Who are your favortie talk show hosts?

Oh....:3oops: Conservative talk show hosts, mostly the well known ones like Rush Limbuagh, Sean Hannity, don't agree with michal savage's anger though.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Um...
No one ever made the argument that Iraq's conventional forces were a threat to the US.

Originally Posted by conserv.pat15
How do you know Saddam wasn't going to attack directly or through other means(terrorists)?

conservative Pat did.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

In the days leading up to the Iraq war, I was all for it and supported our president.

During the first months of the war, I still supported it and our president.

Since then, my support has lessened somewhat, with all the constant references to how bad it's going, etc, etc, etc, by various media, politicians, activists, etc.

But that was when I was unable to listen to my favorite talk show hosts.

Now, after listening to their reasoning, it makes much more sense than the reasoning I was limited to hearing before.

My support is now back fully behind the war in Iraq. But my personal jury is still out on our president.

Just seconds ago, I heard on the news that President Bush has just ordered the troops in Iraq to undergo ethics training because of the recent incident that has been in the news.

I feel that this is a bad idea. I think that all the politicians, news media, and political activists should undergo ethics training instead. That would be much more helpfull.

Thats what happens when you fight a PC war. They should also have to undergo some compassion training. And how about politeness and sensitivity training. I want my soldiers to be more sensitive to the feelings of the animals that are trying to kill them.

 

[Iriemon]

Thats what happens when you fight a PC war. They should also have to undergo some compassion training. And how about politeness and sensitivity training. I want my soldiers to be more sensitive to the feelings of the animals that are trying to kill them.

Hey, if you really think the problem is we are too PC in Iraq I know a guy who'd be great for the job of running things. He's in trial now, but I'm sure the government could use its contacts to get him into the position.

 

[The Mark]

Thats what happens when you fight a PC war. They should also have to undergo some compassion training. And how about politeness and sensitivity training. I want my soldiers to be more sensitive to the feelings of the animals that are trying to kill them.

Yes, a very good idea......:lol:

I have limited experience with military persons, but those I have met, in some cases become friends with......It seems to me that they have a much better grasp of ethics than many people in government, the media, etc.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How do you know Saddam wasn't going to attack directly or through other means(terrorists)?

Well I don't know from personal experience. I'm merely taking the word of the US Intelligence Community.

The fact is that he did use WMD in the past and did hate the U.S. I would rather eliminate the threat now than let it grow.

Teriffic sentiment in a theoretical world. However, in practice it's woefully insufficient. There're many treats in the world. It's an impractical and inefficient course of foreign policy to invade every country that presents a potential danger. Potential danger is not cause enough.