by Amazing 87 Replies latest jw friends
Simon,
: Personally, I think Saddam should be removed but using as little force as possible.
That's like saying the Governing Body and all corrupt dub leaders should be removed with as little force as possible.
Should we sit down to a nice cup of tea and ask them gently to please step down or we'll have our attorneys send them a nasty letter?
Do you remember Neville Chamberlain? He thought much like you, you know.
Farkel
No Farkel what we should do is get a few thousand men send them off in fighter jets and bomb this S*** out of Iraq, make sure that all those evil Iraq's die as we know that westerners are so much better and never do anything wrong, never pollute the earth or exploite its inhabitants, never have their own problems with thousands of murders every year millions of people being victims of robbery and theft yet tell other countries how holy they are, dont stock up on nuclear , chemical , or biological weapons or have big companies in them that make fighter jets, missiles , tanks and landmines and sell them to third world countries and dont think they are in charge of the world .
sleepy,
You might change your opinion if you read about Neville Chamberlain and his opinions about Hitler. Hitler and Sadaam have much in common: megalomaniacs thinking it is their destiny to rule the world, slaughtering all those who look cross-eyed at them, predators on neighboring countries, mass-genocide of their own people, and LIARS.
You don't negotiate and make "treaties" with those people. You eliminate them.
Farkel
Farkel,
I believe that it is peace in our time. Here is the paper.
According to the BBC, US and UK planes attacked Iraq earlier today.
Englishman, wandering a bit.
How will you pacifists react if we wait and let Saddam become another Hitler, and some terrorist nukes are detonated? More airliners crashed into buildings? No, people, we need a preemtive strike and we need it NOW!
The U.S. will be crucified if we do nothing. We were hammered for late start in WW1 & 2. Remember? Europe could have been spared much destruction if only the U.S. would have, oh...my...GOD....INTERVENED sooner.
TR
Much of the world scratches their heads at Bush's "cowboy logic". America is already hated in much of the world and doing something like this will only worsen relations with their enemies as well as their friends. So much for pre-emtive strikes ensuring the world will be a better place for Americans.
I think Bush is playing the "terrorist victim" card and taking too many liberties using the 9/11 tragedy to take care of America's unfinished business. Nothing worse than using a tragedy to advance an agenda you already had before it happened.
Path
One GLARING difference between the US, the UK, France, etc having nukes and Saddam having Nukes is who we have used weapons of mass destruction agaisnt verses Saddam. During the Gulf War Iraq bombed Israel with SCUDS even though Israel was no part of that war. Saddam has gassed his own people in the hundreds of thousands. Saddam if giving santuary to several high ranking members of AL Qaeda. If we wait for him to get nukes hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people will die. Israel will be a target though Saddam has not interest in the Palestinian issue. Yes, when we hit Iraq innocent civilians will die, perhaps thousands of them. If we DON'T hit Iraq, hundreds of thousands or even millions will die. It's the bad choice worse choice scenario.
Look, if there is a peaceful way to remove Saddam GREAT! Tell me what it is. I'm all ears!
I agree!
If we dont address this cancer now, it will spread, like Hitler did.
"Tony Blair has apparently learned the lesson of September 11th, that tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the U.S., Britain, and other Western countries are endangered if Saddam Hussein teams up with these terrorists."
""The number of really evil tyrants in the world is very few, but what makes them powerful are the Neville Chamberlains of the world, the European Unions of the world, and the Bush 41ers of the world who look at evil and don't see evil. This is what empowers evil.""
What's up with this? They demand proof and yet they don't...?
|
France said it was against publishing top-secret evidence on Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction, saying the public arena was not the place to wage such a campaign.
"These are not issues which we can deal with publicly. This calls for serenity and seriousness, and we should therefore beware of any leaks and any saber-rattling proposals," Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told France Info radio.
On Tuesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would in the coming weeks release damning information about Baghdad's alleged efforts to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, to prove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
The foreign minister said that France and Britain had shared information on the proof of such a weapons program. and it "is out of the question to divulge these exchanges."
De Villepin said it was important to act responsibly in evaluating whether a "country could own chemical or biological weapons, and if it could turn into a threat."
He added it was important that France evaluate such risks together with its European partners.
"The international community is today very worried, which justifies our determination in the face of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
Washington on Wednesday stepped up its war rhetoric, with President George W. Bush calling Saddam Hussein a "serious threat" and saying he would take his case against Iraq to the United Nations next week.
De Villepin said "France, the world, cannot accommodate such a risk, and that is why we demand with insistance the return of the UN (weapons) inspectors to Iraq and that the country conforms with the demands of the international community."
If it did, he stressed, it was up to the UN Security Council to decide on any international action.
UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 in the face of an imminent US and British missile attack on Baghdad, and have since been barred from returning despite insistent UN demands.
You can't attack countries for what they *may* do
Of course you can. If a man is on your front step loading his handgun are you going to sit there saying "as soon as he shoots me I'll shoot back"? No you'll plug him.
Saddem has not cooperated with the UN over and over again. He is a threat and needs to be stopped. I suppose lots of people will be upset with the USA all over again, but this country is going to use it's resources and stop that turd for good. Will civilians be killed? Of course, the cowards in Iraq hide key military targest by schools and hospitals. Can you imagine any civilized country doing such a thing?
The Iraqi people are going to be hurt also, but, they've allowed a terrorist to run their country and that terrorist does plan to attack his enemies as he has done in the past. This time he will use the bomb.
Simon the US did use the bomb in WWII. I for one disagree with that decision as the Japanese were at the negotiating table working out terms of surrender. After the second bomb was dropped the surrender became unconditional. We would have not settled for anything less. But we did drop tons of leaflets over those cities days in advance of the bombings. The stupid ass Japanese leaders told their people the leaflets were a USA hoax. More idiots.
Our thinking then was the war needed to end NOW. Too many lives had already been lost. It had to end.
