| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the US invade Iraq? |
| Yes |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
| US invasion of Iraq? Also about the World Bank |
|
In my newspaper today the top story is 'Document outlines attack on Iraq'. The details are a bit sketchy, but it seems the White House leaked - whether on purpose or not it doesn't say, I would guess it was intentional - a document that would likely be the basic guideline of our strategy were we to attack Iraq. This document apparently isn't to specific, I'm sure it wouldn't have been leaked if it were, but the document itself, the comments the papers have gotten from the DoD (Department of Defense), and the fact that we haven't mobilized the 250,000 troops which is the number given in the document, suggests that if we are planning on invading Iraq, to drive Hussein out of power, it would still be a few months away. The CIA has been trying for over ten years to remove Hussein without putting any civilians at risk but have been completely unsuccessful. And since and old Presidential Ordinance does not allow them to assassinate him it is unlikely that the CIA will ever succeed.
Now, I'd guess that we've all heard a few of the horror stories about Hussein's treatment of his own people. Starving them to insure loyalty, torture of anyone thought to be disloyal, using them as human shields so that we wouldn't bomb his offices, testing biological weapons on them (unconfirmed), the list goes on. I'm not even going to disscuss the possible ties to organized terrorism because I don't know of any confirmed ties.
So the question is... Would it be moral for the US, and possibly the UK as well, to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein?
*the polls will be open for 7 days*
Last edited by Roach on Thu Aug 01, 2002 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:23 pm |
|
|
OhBrandi
The Pun-Slayer
Joined: 04 May 2002
Posts: 1038
Location: Somewhere this side of sanity. |
| Re: US invasion of Iraq? Please read my post before voting |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
In my newspaper today the top story is 'Document outlines attack on Iraq'.
What newspaper?
_________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Thanks, JM
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Neverwinter Nights Co-Moderator= |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:29 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
You may find the story here.
Also, here.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:32 pm |
|
|
Llama
High Emperor
Joined: 11 Oct 2001
Posts: 509
Location: Earth |
Every country leader that harbors terrorism is a threat to every single man, woman and child on this planet. Should the morality should not ever be brought into a discusion about terrorists and those that harbor them? No. |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:34 pm |
|
|
XeroX
The MasterCopy
Joined: 13 Dec 2001
Posts: 7125
Location: The Netherlands |
If they attack, they must make sure that they kill him.
If not they could make things worse and put the intire arab nation against them.
They must make sure the new controling power of Irak can be trusted.
They also want to succure there oil supply with the attack.
_________________
The original RED poster (retired now)
=Moderator of The SportsFans Club=
=member of The NFG + Shadows + WWW + PC=
To join the Sportfans PM me
www.feyenoord.com |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:37 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Why not? The US military should see some action once in a while... just make sure that there are little green triangles above Canadians.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:40 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
i have to admit that i think the release of the document in question was more political than literal. the UN has been having difficulties getting saddam to submit to their weapons inspectors (they just unsuccesfully ended another round of talks). so, i think the US is trying to force saddam's hand by threatening to invade and remove him. it is interesting that the timing on this released document came so quickly after the failure of yet another round of talks.
however, i do think it is about time that the US & UK did something about him. after recently reading an article on saddam in the atlantic monthly i have to question the timid approach that has been taken so far. i know it isn't US policy to remove world leaders that they disagree with, mr. fidel castro, but there has to be a limit to the amount of BS the world community takes from any given world leader. and i suspect that saddam crossed that line some time ago.
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:44 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
A good point made by txiabxyooj about the timeing.
quote:
Originally posted by txiabxyooj
i know it isn't US policy to remove world leaders that they disagree with, mr. fidel castro, but there has to be a limit to the amount of BS the world community takes from any given world leader.
Castro is just angry because we hired the mafia to kill him a while back. The attempt, or perhaps the failure, is course what brought about the Presidential Ordinance I mentioned before.
My local paper gave a little more detail as to what was and wasn't in it than the sites Sauron posted (or at least the CNN one, you have to register for the NY times to see the second one) so heres the one I read this morning. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/3604116.htm
quote:
Originally posted by XeroX
If they attack, they must make sure that they kill him.
If not they could make things worse and put the intire arab nation against them.
That's probably true, but I expect that if we do attack that we will try to capture him first and send him to The Hauge (spelling?), like the Yugoslavians did with Milosavich (spelling?). I think that's part of why we didn't get him in '91, we couldn't capture him and we were afraid of what the international community would think if he just suddenly turned up dead. |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 9:36 pm |
|
|
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
Which Saddam? The same one they were financing for years? The same one that the daddy Bush let walk away after slapping his hand a bit?
You know, I really don't get current US foreign policy. Trully, really, totaly don't get it. If it were just George running it, I'd just say he was a self-centered, egomaniacal, moron, like my old boss was (this is why there is no more that company). But he doesn't really run the country. Bunch of supposedly competent people do. It almost seems like the repeat of the second world war. Where US government sacrificed Pearl Harbor to get public support and declare war on Japan. I know this is still a touchy subject with many Americans, but it seems that 9/11 event was nothing else but another sacrifice like Pearl Harbor. US (or should I say George jr.) needed a war and he needed public support. Just going out and shooting Arabs was not a good idea. So, he let few thousand civilians get blown up and now he can go shoot Arabs all he wants. I know this sounds bad, but unfortunately, that's how the situation looks like from a semi-neutral perspective. What the general populous in the US does not understand is that they are playing with fire. It's kindda cute to wave flags and keep claiming how you're the greatest in the world, but unlike cold war, where everybody stayed home and just claimed they are the best, these people fight back. And they don't play nice. Especially since they are at the end of their means.
About the best thing US could possibly do today, is to disappear from the world scene. Not step on more toes and tell more desperate people how much they suck. US does not want Saddam dead. If he was dead, US military and intelligence would be out of a job. They need him. George needs him (god forbid people actually stop flag waving and ask themselves what did he actually do for them lately beyond endanger their lives like they haven't been endangered since the world wars).
Argh... enough politics before this turns into another magnetic toes thread.
_________________
(@) |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 9:57 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
(or should I say George jr.
We call him W, or Dubya
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Which Saddam? The same one they were financing for years?
We have an embargo on his oil, the only financing of Saddam done by America is done by oil companies that by their oil from an illegal middle man and don't ask where it came from.
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
You know, I really don't get current US foreign policy. Trully, really, totaly don't get it.
It is a bit strange but it's actually very simple, let me explain it to you. When we see something terrible happening we watch the situation, then if something happens that lets us justify our involvment to the international community, we do what the Judeo-Christian moral ethic tells us is right. I don't really agree with that line of thinking, but morally it is far better than an isolationist view.
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
It almost seems like the repeat of the second world war. Where US government sacrificed Pearl Harbor to get public support and declare war on Japan. I know this is still a touchy subject with many Americans, but it seems that 9/11 event was nothing else but another sacrifice like Pearl Harbor.
You make it sound like we asked both to be attacked. Pearl Harbor was attacked because because Japan thought we'd get involved eventually, and was trying to cripple our navy before we could make a move. Or perhaps they planned on invading us after Hitler had taken most of Europe, the bread basket of Russia, the Mid-east, and northern Africa. If they had invaded us and won, your country would have been next. And yes more recently, we were willing to risk retaliation to keep Iraq or Iran from invading Saudi Arabia, and allowing the fanatics from building an overwhelming power structure in the region.
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
US (or should I say George jr.) needed a war and he needed public support. Just going out and shooting Arabs was not a good idea. So, he let few thousand civilians get blown up and now he can go shoot Arabs all he wants.
You're very prejudiced aren't you? We're shooting/bombing terrorists not Arabs! Terrorists don't have a race or a creed, that would imply that they were human, which the members of Al Queda, and the leaders of the former Taliban are most defiantly not!
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
About the best thing US could possibly do today, is to disappear from the world scene.
Trust me, we don't like being the world's watchdog, but this world would be a much worse place without one, and we don't see anyone else volunteering.
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
If he was dead, US military and intelligence would be out of a job. They need him. George needs him (god forbid people actually stop flag waving and ask themselves what did he actually do for them lately beyond endanger their lives like they haven't been endangered since the world wars).
 Odd place for a joke, (odd joke too) but that was a pretty good one.
quote:
Originally posted by MoonDragon
Argh... enough politics before this turns into another magnetic toes thread.
Why do you think I posted this thread? |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:07 pm |
|
|
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England |
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
Trust me, we don't like being the world's watchdog, but this world would be a much worse place without one, and we don't see anyone else volunteering.
Woah there Suicidal Cockroach I agreed with most of your post but something that many Americans seem to forget is that the UK also does a hell of a lot alongside the US.
I think we all agree that Septemeber the 11th was a terrible event that must not be allowed to happen again but lets get this clear that the UK helped out a lot and offered support to the americans and also was a key supporter and implemeter of the anti-terrorist movement in Afganistan. I fear that many in America (judging by channels such as CNN) do not realise that this wasn't something that the USA did by itself.
We often support the USA proposal but we are not as ready to jump into military action as the USA - that doesn't mean we are not involved in policing the world (that is what both NATO and the UN are for).
I'm not saying the US are not important in helping maintain global peace but they are not the one and only country doing it.
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~ |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:21 pm |
|
|
Roach
SBR Belfry Bat
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 3233
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kendrik
Woah there Suicidal Cockroach I agreed with most of your post but something that many Americans seem to forget is that the UK also does a hell of a lot alongside the US.
I apologize. That part was worded very poorly. I did not intentionally imply that we are the only ones that serve as watchdogs. I should have said that we do seem to be the ones that get the largest share of blame and insults hurled at us for our actions. Because of that, and the fact that I don't think we do enough, it becomes easy to get carried away when faced with anti-American rhetoric. |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:34 pm |
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
To get back to the financing part. I think Moondragon was referring to the time before the Gulf War. Sadam Hussein's party was not the biggest of Iraq a long time ago, but he was supported by the USA and other European countries. They together helped him to get where he is now.
They thought he could bring stability into the region, which in fact he kind of did, by making sure there were no opponents anymore. Nor the USA, nor Europe took any actions upon that. The region became more stable and that was the target. That several 'dissidents' died in the process, was not really an issue. Nobody ever thought of using the word 'morality' in those days.
All of that changed even before the Gulf War. Sadam Hussein didn't do anymore what we wanted him to do and thus a replacement was very needed. But after looking away for so long when he elliminated all opposition, it was too late. There was nobody who could take over. So we were basically stuck with him, especially as there wasn't an arabian country that would support such an action. None of them really liked him, but he was still 'one of them'.
Then the Gulf War came and the region got the full attention. The other arabian countries saw a chance to get rid of Sadam without 'loosing face' and were eager enough to support the united nations in that war.
There was a chance to elliminate Hussein at the time, but it would probably cause a lot of deaths on both sides and that would not have been politically acceptable at that time.
Times change and eventhough I don't agree with a large part of Moondragon's post I do think that we from the 'western world' tend to forget how things came to be as they are now and we really like to forget that we put him there.
_________________
Kewl quotes:
I often have an odd sense of humor - Roach
Why quote somebody else, think of something yourself. - XeroX
...you won't have to unbookmark this site, we'll unbookmark you. - Val
Reports Myrthos for making me scared and humbled at the mere sight of his name - kayla
Last edited by Myrthos on Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:47 pm |
|
|
Kendrik
Thin Blue Line
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 550
Location: England |
quote:
Originally posted by Suicidal Cockroach
quote:
Originally posted by Kendrik
Woah there Suicidal Cockroach I agreed with most of your post but something that many Americans seem to forget is that the UK also does a hell of a lot alongside the US.
I apologize. That part was worded very poorly. I did not intentionally imply that we are the only ones that serve as watchdogs. I should have said that we do seem to be the ones that get the largest share of blame and insults hurled at us for our actions. Because of that, and the fact that I don't think we do enough, it becomes easy to get carried away when faced with anti-American rhetoric.
No problem - perhaps I worded my post a bit to strongly as well. I support the US (although not nessesarily your choice in president  ). I enjoy the fact that we have a good relationship with you and hope that it never changes.
It's just when the war in Afganistan was at it's peak all the talk seemed to be about the American action and the brave american soldiers. The other troops seemed to be forgotten about (such as the British). My other concern was that the Americans didn't realise that it was our Primeminister who travelled all around the world to gain support from other countries for the action in afganistan (this was to allow you president to spend time in the US to support the country after 9/11 (which was only right).
This is not a relpy to your post or anti-american rhetoric it's just I'm aware at that time you all had bigger things on your mind and am just trying to stress that the US is not alone in it's war on terrorism.
_________________
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."
JAMES BRANCH CABELL
~Member of The Nonflamers' Guild~
~~Champion of the (Unofficial) RPGdot Text Signature Contest 2002~~ |
|
Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:48 pm |
|
|
txiabxyooj
Fox Spirit
Joined: 06 Dec 2001
Posts: 971
Location: here, there & everywhere |
kendrik you are right, the UK does offer strong support to the US. we appreciate it. many nations see fit to attack americans for anything and everything they perceive to be an injustice or that just pisses them off. i think the british have a big heart and even though there have been tough times between our nations we always manage to work it out. i am one american who appreciates everything the UK has done for america. i have lived in cambridge and brentwood and think the world of your people and country. hell, my dream would be to move to britan permanately. so, before this post gets too long, i want to thank you and let you know that atleast one american thinks your island is second to none. (ps. jelly babies and digestives are way too expensive in the states.  )
_________________
"The origin of things, if things have an origin, cannot be revealed to me, if revealed at all, until I have travelled very far from it, and many revolutions of the sun must precede my first dawn. The light as it appears hides the candle." --Santayana
=member of the worshippers of the written word=
=member of the Non-flamers' guild= |
|
Sat Jul 06, 2002 12:21 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
