Sadam Hussain

[mac15]

well with all this business with him latelty, I was just wondering do you think he will lead an attack on America, and do you think he actually has nucular weapons, and chemical weapons

me personally, I think he has, but he won't attack America

[alex_ant]

Yes! An Iraqi military attack utilizing chemicalbiologicalnuclear weapons is imminent! We must invade Iraq and oust the evil dictator Saddam, for the good of democracy and God-fearing Christians everywhere... oh, and for the childern.

[mac15]

oh won't somebody please think of the childern

[rainman::|:|]

This is why the son of a president should not be president. He has an agenda. I don't give a rats ass if Sadam is massing chemical or nuclear weaponry, there's absolutely no reason to make war on him. Sure he went against a '91 pledge to allow UN inspectors, but come on, how much legal weight does a "pledge" have. He has not waged any attack on us, nor has a link been proven between him and terrorism. I hope to God bush sees reason before we stick our nose yet *another* place it doesnt belong.


pnw

[MacMaster]

chemicalbiologicalnuclear

[Ensign Paris]

I personally think the US with the UK as a ful partner should a) invade or b) attack Iraq to kill or remove Saddam. Then they should work with the iRaq people to make the country work

Ensign

[3rdpath]

saddam is a minor threat but waging a war...c'mon. daddy bush left him there for a reason...if the economy is bad-gotta have someone to start a war with. it works every time( for both parties...)

and just wait, soon osama's gonna be rumoured to be in iraq...ahhh, the "evidence" just waiting to be found....given the time and media spin, we can justify anything.

btw, how did osama and saddam( and iran for that matter) get their weapons? from the good ol USA. the US is the largest dealer of arms to the third world countries. funny how we condemn Russia for selling weapons but when we do it --it's ok. our weapons make peace but everyone else's make war.

magical, isn't it?

and why, when so many of the 9/11 terrorists were saudi's( and financed by saudi's) don't we wage war with them? hmmmm, oil maybe?

how come there aren't any TV ads that say" if you drive a fat-butted SUV, you're financing terrorists" instead of lamely trying to tie it into the "war" on drugs...

[MacMaster]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris
Then they should work with the iRaq people to make the country work

Ensign

Didn't we already try that with Afganistan? And then they thought that we were EVIL! Will it work for iraq?

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by MacMaster

Didn't we already try that with Afganistan? And then they thought that we were EVIL! Will it work for iraq?

and iraq...and iran....and somalia...and vietnam...

who are we really trying to help? what are we really trying to protect? and why do the civilians in these countries suffer 100% of the time?

[Nick Hammer]

Oh, common now. Do you all actually believe what you are saying? He has done nothing wrong? He gassed the kurds in the early 90's. He launched scud missiles at Israeli civilians. He HAD a chemical/nuclear program going on before Desert Storm and do you actually think he has stopped that? He oppresses his own people and brutally rules that country. And as recent as last year there is that rumor going around saying that a Iraqi official met with one of the 911 high jackers. He has been on record saying that suicide bombers were good and is even paying each of their families a lot of money. This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.

[ShaolinMiddleFinger]

I say we should go steal their oil and let them burn!

[Jays]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.

I agree totally, haven't we learned from history that dangerous dictators, like Hitler for one, could have been stopped before disaster strikes!

Sadam has openly (in Arabic) stated exactly what his goal is: the distraction of U.S.A and Israel. He is the biggest fret right now even more than Osama.

Or we hit him first or he gets us all!

btw has anyone els noticed on the video's shown recently by CNN Al Qaida using Mac's. They at least have one thing right.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
Oh, common now. Do you all actually believe what you are saying? He has done nothing wrong? He gassed the kurds in the early 90's.

Two words: Tuskeegee Experiment

He launched scud missiles at Israeli civilians.

The US has launched missiles at various civilians (many more than Iraq has) as well.

He HAD a chemical/nuclear program going on before Desert Storm and do you actually think he has stopped that?

The US has something just as bad going on: a mature and sophisticated nuclear weapons program. And it continues to this day.

He oppresses his own people and brutally rules that country.

The US Government oppresses many of its people and I'm sure many would call its rule brutal. So by your same criteria, we should bomb ourselves as well.

And as recent as last year there is that rumor going around saying that a Iraqi official met with one of the 911 high jackers.

Great, let's bomb the crap out of them because of a rumor that they were consorting with TERRORISTS. (Read: People the US doesn't like)

He has been on record saying that suicide bombers were good and is even paying each of their families a lot of money. This guy is a menace to the world and needs to be taken out.

I hope my post goes a small way towards providing you with an alternate viewpoint. This is not "good vs. evil." Saddam Hussein thinks HE and his people are "good," and WE are "evil." Who is right? Could it be that neither are right, and reality is much more complicated?

[Durandal7]

Saddam Hussein, more like Sodamn Insane. What a rush

Just figured I'd lighten the mood a bit before this becomes an all out flame war.

[Wes]

Spymac reports apple will soon be developing iRaq, personal owned biological weapons. Idea: Esign Paris

Seriously, I think that Sadam should be assasinated and then the people should set up their own government.

[Choppaface]

i don't think the question is whether we should or not, it's how well the public would support it if we did

[Nick Hammer]

The US has launched missiles at various civilians (many more than Iraq has) as well.

Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.

The US has something just as bad going on: a mature and sophisticated nuclear weapons program. And it continues to this day.

Um, yea. And that is what keeps America alive. See, we use our weapons as a deterrence. Not a offensive weapon. Common, how many countries in this world would push us around and maybe try to attack us if there was not threat of a nuclear reprisal. We don't gas our own people. Once again, we go out of our way to make sure our weapons are safe on not used to harm our own civilians.

The US Government oppresses many of its people and I'm sure many would call its rule brutal. So by your same criteria, we should bomb ourselves as well.

Um...please show me where we are oppressed? Where are we being brutalized? We are allowed to vote for who we want to lead our country. We have more freedoms then any other country in the world. Iraqi's have none of this. Let's try to have a election over there and see what happens.

Great, let's bomb the crap out of them because of a rumor that they were consorting with TERRORISTS. (Read: People the US doesn't like)

I didn't say that. I brought up that point to show that there was even more of a reason to LOOK into going after Saddam. He might have had a part is September 11th. Therefore, we should look into this and see what truth comes out if it.

[krossfyter]

alex ant the united states does not intentionally attack civilians....why must people continue to use the "well america kills civilians too" argument?? i dont understand.

once again the difference...

america: does not intentionally kill civilians
sadam: does intentionally kill civilians

[Ifeelbloated]

There seems to be a neverending problem with the whole middle eastern region. It's a political tar-baby. We as Americans have thought it was just THEIR problem way over THERE. I guess it was just a matter of time until it happened. We never could have imagined it on such a spectacular scale though. If we take out Saddam there will just be more like him ready to step forward and take his place.
We're in a catch-22. If we don't do something we'll definitely have to wrestle with a bigger beast down the road. If we do invade Iraq, we'll most likely be seen as the bellicose imperial zionists as the extreme fundamentalists make us out to be. We can't win either way. Damn, it makes me sad to think it but I think we're headed for another world war.
Until there is a Palestinian state, there will never ever be peace in the middle east. I don't see the Israelis or the Palestinians backing down either. I've heard time and time again about what do people on the street in the middle east think about America? They say they like the American people but they hate our government and it's foreign policies.
I think we as Americans are letting our ignorance and apathy about the whole region burn us in the long run. I don't want to get into our dependance on foreign oil, even though that's the base issue.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
If we do invade Iraq, we'll most likely be seen as the bellicose imperial zionists as the extreme fundamentalists make us out to be.

hey they alread do see as such!


bomb the sh*t out of them.

[Durandal7]

I don't think he will attack America with nuclear/chemical/biological weapons but I do think that he wouldn't hesitate to use them on Isreal and possibly other neighboring countries.

The biggest problem is that if Saddam gets nukes and attacks Isreal then Isreal will most likely retaliate with Nuclear weaponry. Then the Palestinians would rise up and other Arab countries would support them and then America and the UN would stick their nose into it. This scenario could easily turn into WWIII no matter what we do.

We can either remove him from power and take away any nuclear capability or research or we can wait for the entire Middle East to nuke each other to oblivion.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer
Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.

So murdering people is a reprehensible crime if it's done intentionally, but if it's done unintentionally, welp, that's war for ya?

Um, yea. And that is what keeps America alive. See, we use our weapons as a deterrence. Not a offensive weapon.

And what is keeping Iraq alive? Weapons as a deterrence and not an offensive weapon. Their invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the result of a long-standing border squabble that had been in effect since the British Mandate. They invaded because they felt they had a right to that land. Did they really have a "right" to it? Who is the US to say? Would the US still hate Iraq if Iraq had been more considerate of the US's petroleum interests?

Common, how many countries in this world would push us around and maybe try to attack us if there was not threat of a nuclear reprisal.

So basically, if the US uses nuclear reprisal as a deterrence, that's okay, because we're Right and they're Wrong.

We don't gas our own people. Once again, we go out of our way to make sure our weapons are safe on not used to harm our own civilians.

The U.S. Government has committed atrocities against its own people, but this is beside my point. The Kurds were gassed because they wanted a piece of Iraqi land for their own. That is, they wanted to carve out a piece and secede. What would happen if thousands of armed Americans rose up and demanded they be given a chunk of U.S. land in order to form their own country? ... They'd probably be gassed, too. If not gassed, then shot or bombed.

It is very important to understand that I'm not trying to justify this. I'm only trying to undermine the arrogant notion that US = good and Iraq = evil. Both countries are good and both countries are evil. The rest is all bias, agenda, and zeal.

Um...please show me where we are oppressed? Where are we being brutalized?

Again my point is not to justify the Iraqi government's continuing to go on about its business. It's to make a point that, hey, the picture in the U.S. isn't all that rosy either. We have no right to say that Iraq is evil and we are good. Of course oppression exists in the U.S. Ask any one of the millions who has to choose between paying rent and eating, and whose children are forced to deal with the repercussions of that decision. People starve in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are homeless in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the politically castrated in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are filth-ridden ****holes in both the U.S. and Iraq. There are the terminally poor, unable to pay basic health care or education in both the U.S. and Iraq. How can you argue that Iraq's government should be toppled because it is a bastion of oppression and brutalization when the U.S. is just as well?

We are allowed to vote for who we want to lead our country.

OK, this is true. Then it follows that if non-democratic forms of government are not "right," then in addition to attacking Iraq, we must also attack:

- Syria
- Libya
- North Korea
- China
- Zimbabwe
- Rwanda
- Somalia
- Pakistan
- Cuba

Among others. Otherwise we're being quite selective. There are many better examples of tyranny and fascism than Iraq. So why are we clamoring to attack Iraq, and not, say, Cuba? C'mon, Fidel has been around a lot longer than Saddam.

Could oil have anything to do with it?

If committing atrocities against your own people is what you have a problem with, why don't we attack Rwanda instead of Iraq? You are aware of the 100-day 1994 genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered with machetes, guns, and garden tools by their government? Sounds terrible, huh? And the U.S. did nothing. So, like I said, if a government slaughtering its own civilians is what you're against, I don't understand why you're all for a war in Iraq, of all places.

We have more freedoms then any other country in the world. Iraqi's have none of this. Let's try to have a election over there and see what happens.

Why Iraq and nowhere else?

I didn't say that. I brought up that point to show that there was even more of a reason to LOOK into going after Saddam. He might have had a part is September 11th. Therefore, we should look into this and see what truth comes out if it.

Alright, sorry then, I must have mis-interpreted you.

Alex

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by krossfyter
alex ant the united states does not intentionally attack civilians....why must people continue to use the "well america kills civilians too" argument?? i dont understand.

once again the difference...

america: does not intentionally kill civilians
sadam: does intentionally kill civilians

A correction:

America: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own
Iraq: Has intentionally killed civilians including its own

Read up on My Lai, No Gun Ri, the Panama invasion, the Tuskeegee Experiment and the plutonium experiments of WWII, for starters.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by krossfyter
bomb the sh*t out of them.

Hey, that's great. Why don't you go crawl under a rock or something? Dickhead.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Nick Hammer

Um...The US does not intentionally target civilians. Civilians have been killed before by us but that is war. Innocent people always die in wars. And that is where we are different. The US goes out of its way to not let civilians die. Saddam intentionally targeted them.

Hiroshima ring a bell?........Nagasaki?.....

everyone believes what they are doing is right...hitler, saddam, truman, churchill, stalin, johnson, castro, clinton, bush.........some of them are easier to classify than others but how/where do you draw the line. the US can't be right ALL the time...and why aren't the rest of the world's leaders calling for saddam's ouster?

lets be brutally honest here: the US leaders don't give a rat's azz about the living conditions( freedom, nutrition, economy, safety... whatever the excuse of the week is) of the world's populace...if it was a priority, don't you think they'd solve the problems HERE first? we could end US starvation...we could provide health care for every person in this country. we could insure good education for all income brackets...what stops this from happening? no one wants to have less so that others can have a little more...corporate/political power thrives on greed...somewhere along the way, humanity was taken out of the equation...and THAT belief also controls our foreign policy.

so lets just be blunt--we want to kill saddam for what he has and what we want. and that is oil.