ONE MORE ISSUE ON IRAQ

Yerusalyim

HEY SADDAM AND ALL YOU PEACE NICS!!!!!!!!!!!!

NA NA DA BOO BOO!!!!!!!!!

Yeru hon, I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a peaceful solution. We ALL know in our heart of hearts that this isn't possible with a psychopath like Saddam. (he shot his early grade school teacher to death and went home to sleep for crying out loud - dude was born that way)

Did you mean pacifists instead of 'peace nics' ? I'm sure that you would rather not send your men into battle if it wasn't necessary. I was a military wife for 9 years and knew all the stressors of stand-by etc. Due to another one of your posts, it appears you command or teach soldiers. Soldiers care about each other. They've got to - to be able to do what their gov'ts expect of them.

I personally would like Saddam and his family destroyed - yes - killed, and I AM a peaceful person. What worries me now is that the Arab world is all behind him and says that the Middle East will become hell if USA attacks. Can you tell me why they would do that? (back Saddam, I mean) Or do you think this is a ploy to decieve Saddam, because earlier they would say one thing in public and another in private. How can anyone like or trust Saddam!

The Canadian Gov't is presently requesting proof. When this happens Yeru - not if, when, I hope the allies and even China, Russia etc get involved.

After what he did to Kuwait (and I know a muslim family who endured searches by his men. the family now lives in my area) and blasting all those oil wells open - it shows he doesn't give a flying phuk about anything or anyone.

bttt Can you explain why the arab world is now backing him?

hugs, (and thank you for your support in another thread)

Mimilly/Salem

RandomTask

Saddam is manipulating the rest of the world into thinking he is some sort of Martyr. Poor Saddam!

Must we remind everyone that he is an opressive, murderous dictator who lusts for the power to control or destoy the entire region that his counry is in? Sure, a peaceful solution would be nice, but what are you supposed to do when he refuses and has been refusing for years to comply with agreements that he made to be inspected for production of weapons of mass destruction?

Ok, this does have to do with oil, but what happens when Saddam gets the kind of power over the region that he lusts for and controls much of the world's oil supply? Is that a good scenario? Furthermore, he has given the world every indication that he is an aggressor and will stop at nothing to get the power and influence that he desires.

He has murdered his own people. We have dealt with people like him before, people like a certain german dictator who tried to take over Europe in the late 30's and early 40's. They are cut from the same cloth.

expatbrit

Mimilly:

By the Arab world, I would assume you mean the current regimes of the twenty odd Arab countries.

What they are doing is not "backing" Mr. Hussain. In any war they will not committ forces to his support, as they know that their countries are first on his territorial ambitions Their "backing" will go no further than typically colourful rhetoric about "opening the gates of Hell" etc.

Yet they do not want the Americans and Allies to go into Iraq, and there are two main reasons for this:

1) Instability in their own powerbase. In the event of an invasion, Muslim extremists in their own countries will try to arouse the population using religion. If the regimes are seen to be supporting the US, it raises the chances of their own people deposing them in a religious frenzy.

2) If Mr. Hussain is deposed and a Western sponsored democracy in Iraq is successful, it too will threaten their powerbase. Most of the Arab states are dictatorships in which the ordinary people are kept poor and undeveloped. The last thing these despots want is democracy raising the education (and thus the desire for freedom and material advancement) of their people.

Thus, they will raise the objection that an invasion of Iraq will cause instability in the Arab world. What it really will do is threaten their power. Besides, the current stability produced al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. Some instability might be a good thing.

Expatbrit

Edited by - expatbrit on 6 September 2002 12:39:30

ThiChi

"Liberals are generally all for nation building. They wanted to nation build in Haiti, for example. They couldn't wait to nation build in Kosovo, and they can't wait to nation build in the Middle East, with a Palestinian state. But in Iraq, we're talking about a regime change that would end up with a pro-American, Western-style government - maybe even a democracy - and liberals don't want any part of that. "

ThiChi

""Saddam Hussein has done more in the way of environmental pollution than all the world combined with the oil well fires after '91's war, and yet the Earth Summit doesnt hold him accountable. The same goes for human rights. Saddam Hussein is getting a total pass, and who's being blamed for trying to do something about it? We are, the United States.""

Realist

question to all americans who would like to see an attack on hussein:

did the US intervene in the middle east first or the arabs in the USA???

Yerusalyim

Question for Realist, has the US intervened in the Middle East without the Arabs asking? This will be the first time that occurs. Yes, some of this is about Oil, oil is in our national interest and that of world peace.

Yerusalyim

Mimily,

I can assure you no soldier worth his salt WANTS to go to war. We generally recognize before our political overlords WHEN that fight is necessary. We knew back in Persian Gulf War 1 that we would have to come back. Now is the time. IF there were a peaceful solution that both was a real solution and assured real peace, GREAT but so far sanctions etc have not worked there, No reason to think they will start to work anytime soon. The people suffer while Saddam eats like a pig.

sunscapes

yes thi chi, that's a Rush Limbaugh quote from last week.

Just to be fair, do you have talent on loan from God?

ONE MORE ISSUE ON IRAQ

Share this