Its Time to get IRAQ

by Amazing 87 Replies latest jw friends

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Had the USA known in advance that the WTC was going to be attacked, we could and should have taken preemptive action. There was some 'fuzzy' knowledge that this might happen, but not enough to know the day or hour. Yet, we still could have should have done more to prepare.

    We could wait until Saddam Hussein completes his weapons program, and then nukes a few cities to decide we have enough evidence on hand to go after him. But why wait?

    What evidence do we need? What do we already know? We know that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he has used them on his own people. We know he has developed nuclear weapons. We know that he will attack other nations, given his war with Iran, invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and missles launched into Israel. We know that he has a relationship and contact with Al Qaeda, especially since they share a mutual pure hate of the west. We know that he has violated and resisted the UN weapons inspections for 9 of the last 10 years.

    Was not Iraq's weapons program found and destroyed by the UN? No. A good number of weapons were found and eliminated. Experts involved in the process have given testimony that there is far more still there. The reason the UN has wanted back into Iraq is precisely because there is much more to inspect than previously ... and it is obvious that Saddam's refusal to let them back in is because he has a huge arsenal to hide.

    Is Saddam Hussein a real threat? We know that he will use what weapons he has available. We already have seen him in action. We already know that he pays $25,000 each to families of suicide bombers. This financial incentive incites more suicide bombers. We know that he had plans to invade Saudi Arabia after Kuwait because he lusts to control the world's oil supply ... this control would give him great power. We know he persecutes and tortures the Kurds, an ethenic group living in parts of Iraq. He is a clear and present danger to his own people and to the world in general.

    What about other Despots? Why not go after them too? Yes, we should. But one at a time. Saddam is the largest and most visible threat right now. First, get him out of the way, and use him as an example to show less powerful dictators what is going to happen to them if they don't reform qucikly.

    It's time: Why wait until he does some drastic deed? Why wait for a nuke bomb to go off in New York, or London, or Paris, or Berlin, or Rome, or Moscow, or Stockholm? Why do we need that kind of evidence to decide that this evil man needs to be removed from office? What is it that we are looking for beyond what we already have? I believe we have enough evidence and history with Saddam Hussein to take him out of office, and take control of Iraq until a new government can be formed that will work best for Iraqi's.

  • sleepy
    sleepy

    If only things were that simple.For a start any major strike on Iraq is going to kill innocent people, are their lives worth less than ours?

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    You can't attack countries for what they *may* do. And you can't ignore the fact that there is simply no support for Bush's plans to invade Iraq anywhere in the world asside from Blair. With the Arab League proclaiming an attack on Iraq is an attack on all Arab nations, Bush is a complete idiot to keep talking as he has been.

    While Sept 11 was unjustifiable, it would seem Bush hasn't learned anything from the past and is content to carry on speech that will only incite terrorism and will strain relations between countries that are already friends of America.

    Bush must respect international laws and should be respecting the United Nations and the world community instead of acting unilaterally.

    America had it's chance with Sadaam and blew it and they know it. There is no justifiable reason to attack Iraq at this point in time so America must invent one. The whole world can see the propaganda for what it is and so can alot of Americans.

    Path

    Edited by - Pathofthorns on 6 September 2002 9:10:40

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Yes, war does hurt innocent people. So, let's be overly concerned, and let Saddam set off a nuclear bomb in New York and kill millions. Or, let Saddam continue to kill and torture his own people. What about the innocent Kuwaitis killed when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

    The truth is, comparitively few "innocent" people, or better stated non-combatants, get killed with a well planned strike. Attacking Iraq does not mean indiscriminate bombing of residential areas ... it means sending in strikes at military targets ... and eventually military to seize the capital.

    No, it is not simple, nor did I suggest simplicity. But is is not all that complicated either. What I am suggesting is that the long 12 year wait for Hussein to be serious about weapons inspections is over ... he is obviously not going to bend, so it is time to take him out, and put him on trial.

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Path:

    And you can't ignore the fact that there is simply no support for Bush's plans to invade Iraq anywhere in the world asside from Blair. And you can't ignore the fact that there is simply no support for Bush's plans to invade Iraq anywhere in the world asside from Blair.

    Not true. Recent polls taken in Europe have embarassed their political leaders ... according to some recent news reports here, it is being reported that a majority of European people are in favor of a USA strike on Iraq. One Poll cited on WLS radio AM 890, a popular program in Chicago, cited 60% of the European peoples favored a strike. Secondly, just because the majority of the world's politicians might not openly support Bush, does not mean it is not the right thing to do.

    Republican Support eroding? Some reports came out that even Bush's own party was against striking Iraq, even citing Trent Lott the Senate minority leader. However, I watched Trent Lott on the news about an hour ago, and he is in favor of striking Iraq, and supports the President. So the reports of no support are in error.

  • sleepy
    sleepy

    Can you imagine if we started locking people up for what they might or could do?

    "Hey sir, I see you might burgle my house, you certainly have the capability, 10 years for you in the slammer."

    If we attack people because they might do something where does it stop?America has vast nuclear capabilities and other biological weapons, should the rest of the world attack America and take it out just in case?

  • metatron
    metatron

    I haven't read a single commentator talk about what benefit a new Iraqi regime
    could bring. Techmically, they are a secular state - imagine a wide swath of
    secular, social democratic Muslim states stretching across Turkey all the way to
    Afghanistan and eventually including former Soviet nations like Kazakstan.

    It would be an enormous advance in world peace.

    metatron

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Things look like they are already starting to get a little hot over there... Just saw this on msnbc..

    [url] http://www.msnbc.com/news/802167.asp[/url]

  • Realist
    Realist

    I would say its time to get the US :

    Facts:

    the US has biological, chemical and nuclear weapons (not allegedly but proven)

    the US has attacked more countries since its existence then any other country.

    the Us in contrary to Hussein actually tries to gain world domination (actually established already)

    the US has used nuclear as well as all kinds of other weapons.

    the US has killed millions of civilians with their war strategies.

    the uses unprecedented propaganda to make it sound as if the Arabs would be a threat to the world when in fact they are the only ones intervening all around the world ... NOT for humanitarian reasons but to protect the interests of the US industry.

    Truly disgusting!!!

    Edited by - realist on 6 September 2002 10:10:1

    Edited by - realist on 6 September 2002 10:11:31

  • Simon
    Simon

    Just to be devils advocate ...

    The only country to have ever used nuclear weapons of mass destruction was the USA. Other countries such as the UK, France and others have them too ... should we be bombed too?

    Personally, I think Saddam should be removed but using as little force as possible.

    Unfortunately, he is an example of foreign policy 'gone wrong'. We put him there and set him up with his military (could Saudi Arabia be another Iraq in 20 years time?) and then let him off the hook at the end of the last conflict.

    It is a great pity that such a poor job was done at the end of the last war ... they should have insisted that he was handed over then.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit