To Americans and the rest of the world...

[SlowwHand]

Woo-hoo!



Saddam's grave



and the Iraqi people

[gunkulator]

Doesn't make it right, but we are making comparisons, not absolutes, no?

Yes, yes. However, RIGHT NOW Saddam is a tinpot dictactor. In the past, Europe has scolded the US for supporting other tinpots irregardless of how they came to power. Europe RIGHT NOW finds itself in the very position that it used to scold the US for.

[Velociryx]

That's some of that superior, enlightened Euro mindset for ya, gunk....

-=Vel=-

[Drake Tungsten]

That's some of that superior, enlightened Euro mindset for ya, gunk....

Yes, they're totally against simplistic, black & white worldviews, except when adopting one can make the US look bad...

[gunkulator]

Yes, they're totally against simplistic, black & white worldviews...

Well, I doubt you'll find even one person here who thinks Saddam is anything but a brutal dictator. That's just about as black & white as you can get.

The question is what do we do about it? I'm not saying war is the answer, however perhaps a bit more than yet another sternly worded resolution is the right thing to do.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes, yes. However, RIGHT NOW Saddam is a tinpot dictactor. In the past, Europe has scolded the US for supporting other tinpots irregardless of how they came to power. Europe RIGHT NOW finds itself in the very position that it used to scold the US for.

Europe isn't supporting Saddam.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

That's some of that superior, enlightened Euro mindset for ya, gunk....

Yes, they're totally against simplistic, black & white worldviews, except when adopting one can make the US look bad...

Even in a grayscale world, overthrowing democratically elected governments makes the US look bad.

[gunkulator]

Europe isn't supporting Saddam.

Oh please. Europe had to be dragged screaming and kicking to impose sanctions on Saddam. What do you call ignoring his snubbing of the UN plus allowing private industry to invest in Iraq?

I suppose I could claim that the US never supported the brutal regime of South Africa since technically we wagged our diplomatic finger at them for being bad boys.

It's all about money. Those that are getting it don't want the gravy train shut down.

[Jon Miller]

The imperialist thoughts again
I am very sorry about 9/11 and i know very innocent people was killed but that doesn't give usa the right to atack Irak. Unless you believe the stupid bush's excuses (the axis of evil, Irak with links to Al-Quaeda) is obvious that the only reason to attack Irak is the Oil price.

ha ha ha

That's what the usa has done all over it's history, implanting puppet dictatorships on every country they could but when the dictator didn't obeyed the USA then they knock it down with the excuse of defending democracy and free-speech.

I agree, and I am against it

If you don't remember well, some years ago the USA SUPPORTED SADDAM but when saddam started to work for the good of Irak and not for tha good of the USA, then they started the gulf war. I'm not saying saddam is a good guy, but saying that the usa only attacks dictators when it's for they convenience.

I agree (in general)

Also, don't you remember of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

yes

Was that a good act?

yes

I think we know who are the bad guys....

Not the US

Jon Miller

[Q Classic]

in response to the person who asked whether nuking japan made the us the bad guys?

no, it didn't. japan was the bad guy during that entire war, during the 40 years preceeding the war, and nothing can erase that.

[faded glory]

Iraq is in defiance of bush and America. Bush isnt serouisly going to back down.

Niether is the US, and I serouisly doubt a bunch of has-beens like France and Russia are gonna get in the way of American determination. Sure they are gonna play around on the UNSC, but if they block the resolution I will bet anyone here 20 dollars the UN will cease to be a significant world organization next year at this time. If you dont think Bush is serouis, your very mistaken.

[PLATO]

SANDMAN:

Bad taste: Nah, always interested in your opinion...even in a ressurected thread.

Infrastructure: Inevitably and regrettably infra structure suffers during war. This point is not about that short period of time. Over a fairly short time, as Iraqi oil money is put to use for the Iraqis, the infrastructure will be better than it is now.

Cruise missles: Are you really under the impression the US will fire them at civilians to create terror, or were you just trying to bolster your infrastructure argument? If the former, you have not been well informed on US military doctrine or the stated goals of this operation.

Food: Yes, enough food for 22 million people. US already making plans to utilize the current UN food distribution system that would be helping feed these 22 million if Saddam wasn't stealing from it.

Casualty estimates: I have been all over the UN site looking for this estimate. I have heard nothing near this high for civilian casualties from any source. Maybe you could help me out here. Having a pretty good understanding of the supposed US war plan, I can't imagine that it would even be 10% of your low figure.

Casus Belli: This is not supplied by the resolution, but rather by the total non-compliance with not only the international will but also cease fire violations, mass murder, financing of terrorism, attacking his neighbors, diverting Iraqi national income for personal purposes, summary executions, former use of weapons of mass destruction, etc...

Juicy western contracts: Are you upset because they will be US contracts and no longer French contracts. Do you know who builds most of the infrastructure in the middle east? Most major projects are already "juicy western contracts". The point here is that their will be more of them than there is now and the Iraqi people will be better off for it as they will have a better infrastructure than they do now.

Oil revenue to pay war debts: Yep! If you were oppressed than this would probably be a small price for you to pay. In any event, the amount of oil revenue that is going to the benefit of the Iraqi people should increase as these 10's of billions that Saddam is syphoning off are now going to be in the mix.

Toxicity of depleted uranium: Lead is also toxic and never goes away. Depleted uranium is not radioactive. It is no more toxic than many other kinds of metals.

Impossibility of surrender to air units: My advice to the soldiers...leave now and avoid the rush. Soldiers are legitimate targets. Obviously an air attack will not take out even the majority of them. The rest are advised to surrender at their earliest opportunity.

Saddam accused of playing games: Probably correct. Its just hard to get past that TWELVE YEAR TRACK RECORD and believe the little bugger has just turned into a really nice guy.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
in response to the person who asked whether nuking japan made the us the bad guys?

no, it didn't. japan was the bad guy during that entire war, during the 40 years preceeding the war, and nothing can erase that.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
You learn your history from the movie Pearl Harbour?

Guess he also learns about the indian wars from old John Wayne movies.

[Dis]

If the U.S. never entered the middle east during desert shield/desert storm, 3000 more people would be living in New York and Washington today.




yes a troll response to the original post. but I want people to think about that. I have been thinking about it a lot.

Does inaction lead to terrorist attacks or action? Was Bill Clinton's inaction the reason 9/11 happened? Or was it the action that Bush Sr. did in 1990/1991? Discuss