17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq (page 2)

expatbrit

or the removal of the US, British and Isreali governments could remove a significant destabilising factor in the WORLD.

If you prefer the stability of psychopathic tyranny, I suppose I would agree with you.

Expatbrit

Shakita

peacefulpete:

you said:

When the world's superpower attacks an unarmed third world country it is not a war it is butchery.

I question your choice of words when using "unarmed" in describing Iraq. Please look here:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Iraq is definitely an armed country. Can its weapons reach the US, no. But they can reach the surrounding countries that have chosen to support the UN resolution and have become somewhat of a problem with Saddam, Isreal in particular. No doubt Saddam will choose to, again, "butcher" his own innocent people of Iraq if war does break out. He has in the past and will not think twice about doing it again. You really have to read more on good ole Saddam, if anyone here is the "butcher", is is this third world dictator. I, personally, do not want to see him acquire a nuke to hold the world hostage.

Mrs. Shakita

Commie Chris

Top 11 Proposed Names for the Impending Attack on Iraq:

11. Operation Enduring Scapegoat.

10. Operation Obliterate Iraq's Oil Infrastructure So That Dick Cheney's Halliburton Can Rebuild It At A Huge Profit, Like After The Last War With Iraq.

9. Operation Belated Father's Day Gift.

8. Operation Because I Said So.

7. Operation We Couldn't Find bin Laden.

6. Operation Personal Vendetta.

5. Operation George Oilwell.

4. Operation Speaker Delay.

3. Operation Enron Amnesia.

2. Operation Desert Shrub.

1. Operation Just (Be) Cause.

IslandWoman

Saddam Hussein is a man living in the past. He should have been around during WWll and played war on the side of Germany, Japan and Italy. He would have made a good partner.

But he is out of his time, his time is past and he and other aggressive leaders such as the North Koreans who find themselves with few friends and do not find a place for themselves in this present time either, will one way or another die or fade away it is inevitable. Lawfully or unlawfully they will go. imo

And any American chicken hawk politician who from a desk itches for war and causes young men and women to die in battle needlessly, MUST GO ALSO!

All warmongers must go, ours and theirs.

IW

peacefulpete

If Hussein had a nuke he would not use it, it would only be statis symbol. The fact that he used chemmical weapons to curb a civil war 11 years ago only suggests to me that he thinks like Bush who has disclosed his willingness to use nukes if he deems it necessary expediate the war. I said unarmed and that is the very point of this war. He was ordered to disarm his nation of any ablity to threaten is neighbor and all evidence has shown he did. Noone has told him to eliminate small arms or basic feild artilery as these play no real role in modern warfare but enable his government to maintain internal security. He is a relic of imperialist times and his people may and I repeat may be better off without him, but none of this is motivating this so called war. Afganistan lost 20,000 civilians and much of it's tattered infrastructure and it is no closer to what we in America would call freedom. It has been suggested that this is an extensive political misdirection and the dialogue and rheteric will continue till spring and then it will be too hot for our troops so it will wait till next fall when it will serve again as a political tool to ensure reelections. It is likely that this was the reason Hussein was left in power in 1991. I hope this is so but I fear to save face now Bush will have to drop bombs on some other pretense dispite any plans otherwise. His lies about "proof" of weapons of mass destruction as he likes to call them have been exposed to the world. Besides Cheney ,Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are running the show now and they smell blood.

Robdar

All warmongers must go, ours and theirs.

Island Woman, the more I read your editorials, the more I loves ya.

Robyn

Farkel

I say let Sadaam Hussein remain in power. After, all he's proven time and time again that he's a man of peace. He unililaterally attacked Kuwait and tried to destroy their little county in peace. He fought with Iran for years in the interests of peace.

His brother in law defected and Sadaam schmoozed him back to Iraq and SWORE that he would not hurt his own sister's husband. Then he ordered that man's HEAD delivered to him on a platter and such was done.

Yes, by all means let the world keep Sadaam in power. He's a positive force for his own Country and for Islam and the World community. He used chemical weapons on his OWN Kurdish people and wouldn't hesitate to use them on any who oppose him, but he's a nice guy after all. He murdered his own brother and loves to humor himself by watching his own real or perceived enemies castrated and then murdered in his presence. He loves to watch human beings disembowled while he is dining.

Yep. Sadaam Hussein is just a harmless guy and we shouldn't worry about him at all. Not in the least. Heck, Adolph Hitler was misunderstood, too. He didn't do no (sic) harm to anyone either. All the history books lied about Adolph. He just wanted to paint crappy pictures and all the rest of the stories about him are just lies.

Let us all embrace and love Sadaam Hussein for who he is and for the great deeds he's done for himself (65 castles) and his people (abject poverty and misery) and hundreds of thousands of executions by various means. You gotta love a guy with his kind of heart and compassion.

Farkel

back2dafront

4. An invasion gives Hussein a reason to use his full arsenal of weapons against attackers and nearby countries because he would have nothing to lose.

Contradicts 1 and 2. First they say Iraq is no threat to neighbouring countries, now they're worried about Iraq using its weapons on neighbouring countries.

Read carefully expatbrit - it says "AN INVASION gives Hussein a reason...." He's not a threat until he's invaded, get it?

You would think that Israel would be the one trying to go after this guy if they thought he was so dangerous, yet I haven't heard a word from them. All they've said is if he attacks them they'll respond with scud missiles. No agressive behavior though, unlike the USA. How do you explain that one?!?!

Commie Chris,

LOL!!!!!

back2dafront

Fark,

*He loves to watch human beings disembowled while he is dining.*

Are you SERIOUS? Never heard that one before.

What a FREAK. I bet he listens to Marilyn Manson. :-P

Geez, when you put it that way...

I'm glad I'm not President. Having to sacrifice a ton of innocent lives to get one crazy maniac....just wish there was a better way.

peacefulpete

The question is NOT whether I think he should go, it is whether any nation has the right to unprovoked war. Whether we like the jerk or not he is protected by internationally acknowledged rights as a sovereign state. These laws are in place to prevent the more powerful from arbitrarily crushing the weak and returning to the imperialist dark ages. Does this mean that on occasion a bad ruler gets away. Yes. Just as our justice system has rules that work to prevent abuses but on occasion result in the guilty going unpunished. It is the cost of being civilized, like it or not.

17 reasons why US should not invade Iraq

Share this