semicolon-zero.com

I just posted this in an other forum:

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who shouldn't be allowed to continue oppressing his own people. Is he a danger to international security, though? No, or at least not a serious threat in my opinion. If he committed an act of aggression against any of Iraq's neighboring countries the UN security council would probably be unanimous against him. Before he invaded Kuwait he even asked if US were OK with it and was told that US wouldn't care if he did. He knows that he was lucky to survive the war back in '91 and isn't stupid enough to willingly start another one.

So, shouldn't the international community do everything it can to put an end to Saddam's dictatorship? What would this require? Saddam is one of the most difficult persons in the world to assassinate since he knows a lot of people would like to see him dead so he is guarded extremely well and his daily scedule is kept top-secret. A war is probably the only way to force a change of government in Iraq. A war would / will cause the loss of thousands of lives and cause suffering to hundreds of thousands, even millions of Iraqis. In my opinion the war would cause more suffering to the Iraqis than it would help them.

The only reason why a war against Iraq can be justified is that Saddam doesn't respect the UN resolution 1441. If he can't be forced to destroy his weapons of mass destruction by diplomatic means a war is acceptable. The reason I could support a war in this case is that UN must have even some kind of authority if it wants to solve things peacefully and if Saddam is allowed to disobey the resolution UN loses much of the authority it still has left. Has the diplomacy yet ultimately failed in the current crisis, then? No, no and no. Saddam has now seen that the current US government doesn't hesitate to use force and has made some nominal concession in the matter. Under the circumstances it may be possible to get him to obey the resolution voluntarily and the need to start a war may yet be avoided. It's been 12 years since the resolution, what would a few months more matter even if the war was ultimately unavoidable?

As to why Bush & the Hawks are so eager to go to war... just see Ford's post in the other serious thread about the war. Also, this site pretty much describes why people have such ambitions as they seem to have: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This war is a sham and I hope the allies get a mild slap across the face

MSNBC.com - FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded. He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja. He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a ?final opportunity? to do so ?fully and immediately? or face ?serious consequences."

"France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world?s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France?s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism."

[sarcasm]LOL I STILL DONT SEE WHY AMERICA IS MAKING A BIG DEAL DOODERS LOL [/sarcasm]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am not sure if it really is justified or not, but it sure is going to suck if it lasts for too long.  :(

i saw the new soad video, atleast i think its new, the boom! one. Iraq's oilfields are worth $3 trillion o shizzle

"France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world?s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France?s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism."

An american should be the last person to accuse another government of arming and co-operating with Iraq. Guess where Saddam got most of his biological & chemical weapons from? Guess who was Saddam's closest ally until the Gulf War? That said, France's stubborness in refusing to negotiate about a new resolution has been a big factor in the matters developing to the current situation.

Edit:

FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded.

Thanks to US, France, Russia, Britain & co.

He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja.

He knew nobody would care. After all, he did have full support of the US at the time and minor matters like this couldn't ruin that relationship. US needed him to counter the rise of the fundamental muslims in Iran.

He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians.

He had full backing of the US in the war against Iran and was told that US wouldn't care if he attacked to Kuwait. My point is, that in the current situation where he has no allies there are much more serious threats to the world peace and USA's security. He knows that if he does anything like this again he will have the whole world against him.

He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a ?final opportunity? to do so ?fully and immediately? or face ?serious consequences."

This is actually a valid point.I have already explained my view about this twice so just read my earlier posts.

An american should be the last person to accuse another government of arming and co-operating with Iraq.

wow you're pretty dense, if newsweek has valid information regarding the fact that France constructed a nuclear generator for Iraq, it's pretty truthful seeing that newsweek is a crediable source of information, it has nothing to do with me or the writer being american.

Why the hell would Iraq want a nuclear generator? riddle me that thx

He knew nobody would care. After all, he did have full support of the US at the time and minor matters like this couldn't ruin that relationship. US needed him to counter the rise of the fundamental muslims in Iran.

so that makes it all right, if he thought "no one would care"

Oh, i will go steal some tv's because no one will care. WRONG.

I'm not denying that Iraq tries to build nuclear weapons. Neither am I saying that France didn't do anything wrong when they sold the reactor to Iraq. I'm just saying that it's hypocritical to raise a fuss about the matter and when your own government has sold Saddam chemical weapons with which he has killed thousands of people.

Edit:

Sorry, didn't read your whole post at first.

so that makes it all right, if he thought "no one would care"

Oh, i will go steal some tv's because no one will care. WRONG.

My point is, that in the current situation where he has no allies there are much more serious threats to the world peace and USA's security. He knows that if he does anything like this again he will have the whole world against him.

Since I didn't say it in this thread I'll repeat: The war will harm the Iraqis more than Saddam would if he was be allowed to stay in power (and kept under close scrutiny like currently).

even if it will harm the iraqi's, not like George Bush himself will create an account on this forum and read everyones opinions, the bush administration already has their minds made up and protesting will have no outcome on the what is actually going to happen, so it's a moot point, gg

So, we aren't allowed to have opinions on things we have no influence on?