Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 738 times:
No, I wouldn't support any action against him, but fortunately it seems Lithuania won't get involved. ecause if it would, we would loose our people just to kick some Saddam who bothers no one except countries on Iraq borders. Is disposing that regime worth our people? Obviously not. If Bush will carry this policy, America will send it's people to fight civil wars in sub-saharran Africa soon enough...
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 729 times:
He maybe has something to hide, but I am sure CIA knows that. Don't underpower US and UK intelligence capabilities. He does not has ICBMs, so, he could only drop nuclear weapons on the neighbors like Iran or Kuwait. Call me inhumane, but even if he would, it is not any problem for the western world, only for those other middle east cuntries who will get radiation. I believe they are strong enough to respond themselves. Iraq wasn't able to fight off Iran in 8 years, remember.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 721 times:
There he goes again. There's strong opposition from every other country that's friendly to the US against any military action against Iraq, or any attempt to get rid of Hussain. Scary to see Bush going back to his "every man for himself" attitude.
On a side note, why does everyone call him Saddam?! Do you think Hussain's propaganda speeches in Iraq talk about the evil enemy "George", his allies Tony, Jacques, Ariel etc etc?!
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 717 times:
777236ER, Saddam is his last name. Because of the ethiquette rules in Iraq, last name must be written before the first name. So, he is Hussain Saddam actually. Same etiquete applies for Japan, China and several other countries.
PH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 709 times:
Well, I think if there is enough proof Saddam is making weapons of mass destruction the Western allies should destroy Saddam completely. It has worked with the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan, who has now a sort of democratic regime instead of the radical moslim one. So why wouldn't it work with Saddam(although I think there will be a lot of opposition in the Middle East against any militairy action against Iraq)
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 667 times:
It would not be be good to put Saddam out of power since with Saddam we know what we've got. If he dies, we do not know who will take over.
Hello? Let me use your own words in another context...
It would not be be good to (cure the cancer in our body) since with (cancer) we know what we've got. If (we cure it), we do not know (what the next disease will be).
Point is, a staus quo that could leap out and destroy you isn't an enviable status quo.
I think if there is enough proof Saddam is making weapons of mass destruction ......That's just the point, there isn't.
No proof? Those pictures of dozens of bloated, rotting Kurdish bodies in the streets of the villages Saddam had gassed were all 'Hollywood'?
PLEASE...I don't know if it's easy to find it in the UK, but pick up a copy of the newest Atlantic Monthly magazine. This is a traditionally LIBERAL US publication...no fan of the military, plenty of places where it offers differing viewpoints...but the cover story for May gives more than ample proof that this guy and his closest followers all need to meet a rather quick justice. And soon.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 641 times:
Easy to say, not so easy to do.
A few special forces and lots of Iraqi opposition toppling him?
What opposition? Totally fragmented, different groups hate each
other, the Iraqi military is strong in local terms, not like the Taliban.
200,000 US and probably up to 30.000 British troops?
Where from? The Saudis won't play this time, nor will any other Arab states, with the possible exception of Kuwait, which won't be enough.
Assuming a change of Arab policy, however unlikely, high potential casualties, this won't be Desert Storm 2, lots of close quarter fighting in built up areas with also high civillan casualties.
Remember, at least 1 million Iraqis are reliant on the current regime, they've nothing to lose, not like running from Kuwait.
Blair could lose everything, most of his party will not wear UK support, not without very clear proof of Iraqi involement in Sept 11th, and there is not any of that.
He could ride out opposition, but when a British Prime Minister hits the inevitable problems, usually domestic, he then needs his parties support.
Opinion polls suggest a majority of the UK electorate are not in favour either, they support the war against terror, but not what looks like unfinished Bush family business.
Most Americans would probably support an attack, high casualties and/or slow progress, or even failure, would soon change that.
So Bush could lose out too.
Saddam may be evil, I doubt he's stupid. His goal is his survival, not his people's.
Backed into a corner facing defeat, the chemical/biological weapons could be unleashed.
Perhaps against the US itself, in the form of long term sleeper agents using them.
Remember, Sept. 11th was carried out by 19 men with box-cutters, who needs easy to detect and destroy long range missiles?
Then what will replace him? An Iranian dominated Southern Iraq, with civil war involving the fractious Kurds in the North?
If it can be done avoiding the pitfalls above, great, but there are more pressing problems in the region now, the US needs to help solve them and get a bit of credibility back in that part of the world first.
Saddam is boxed in, keep it that way until a workable solution to the problem of his being in power can emerge, and it will eventually.
Watewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2283 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 635 times:
Bush extending his military too thin? Afghanistan's going to be a long one, and Iraq won't be any easier. It's one thing to drive out Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait, but it's a whole new ball game when you want to get rid of head of state on his own turf.
Goodbye From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 908 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 626 times:
Georgie Bush is such a hypocrite. In an interview he said "far be it for the President of the United States to say who should lead a country", and then later in the interview he said "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam Hussein."
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 624 times:
Goodbye, he is not saying who should be the leader of Iraq. He is however saying that Saddam is unacceptable. It is not hypocricy. Saddam's successor will not be choses by Bush, just as Afghanistan's leader was not chosen by Bush, even though he COULD have installed a puppet government.
Saddam has proven himself to be a reckless adventurer. He launched a war with Iran, Kuwait, threatened Saudi Arabia, and massacred minorities within his own country. He has connections with North Korea, which does have ICBM capability, in addition to the old SCUDs. He already has the power and the weapons to tear a big chunk out of Israel - his only question is how he would survive the counterattack.
By the way, I know a guy here who used to work in one of Saddam's presidential palaces during the Gulf War. The word locally was that with the exception of a few staged TV appearances, for which he would rush back, Saddam spent most of the war smuggled across the Jordanian border - as a woman, with the veil and everything.
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 613 times:
For those (non-Americans) who say the US shouldn't topple Saddam---
Can we assume that when he is gone and elections are held in Iraq - your country will not do business with this newest democracy in the ME? That you will demand that Saddam be returned to his place as murderous dictator? That you will explain to the newly free Iraqis why you thought they weren't worth saving?
If the US does get rid of Saddam, I want a list made of all the countries who criticize the action. Then, they should not be allowed to benefit from the freedom and stability that will result unless they make a payment to the US in cash.
I can't say for sure, but I bet the vast majority of Iraqis would trade their oil (which doesn't benefit them now anyway) in exchange for the removal of Saddam. So, like some are suggesting is the case in Afghanistan, this could be a great oil incentive for US action.
Also, I think it might not be such the big war a lot of you are imagining. I can see a tactical assault on Baghdad and a few key facilities that will easily end Saddam's power. Estimates of US casualties prior to the Gulf War were in the tens of thousands, the end result was a few hundred.
Previously, it might have been ok to ignore problems like Saddam. Now that its clear the oceans no longer protect us, the United States should respond decisively.
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 612 times:
I agree that Saddam is unacceptable. But for the moment, i think US & UK should wait for the right time - if they start an attack in the near future, they will break up the "coalition against terror", and that would be worse than live with Saddam for one more year. And it could also lead to a new Israel vs. Arabs war...
So I'd say, wait a bit and attack at a better moment.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 597 times:
Good point, Racko...and remember the life of Saddam Hussein is at the mercy of a 25 cent bullet, whether you manage to corner him with 300,000 troops....OR find the right inside man who can pop him at breakfast.
Arsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7791 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 598 times:
Hold on a minute........how can u talk about getting rid of mr.hussain when the violence in the middle east is at an all time high? A big reason why the arab world despises the USA so much is because of it's attitude towards the israel/palestine issue. Now....i'm sure if the americans can manage to bring peace to the middle east and stabilize the region then i'm sure a lot of peole in the arab world and indeed the rest of europe, would be backing an attack against Iraq.
But i agree, Saddam Hussain must go once and for all!
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 591 times:
I read what Sonic, Avion, 777236ER and Goodbye say, and I'm reminded of George Orwell's line in the book "1984" that talks of "your enemy as necessity". It almost sounds like that's what you guys are saying-that somehow this bastard is "necessary" in the context of today's world.
Sonic-he doesn't need ICBM's. What's to stop him from putting a nuclear weapon on a ship, and sailing it to a port like London, or New York, Or Los Angeles, or even Palanga, Lithuania, which sits on the Baltic Sea? It can happen. So your assumption that he has no ICBM's keeps Lithuania safe, is an assuption of a bygone era. Nuclear weapons don't have to be delivered that way anymore. Plus, who is to say that radioactive fallout will not someday come floating by Lithuania and kill a few thousand or tens of thousands of people?
The sense I get here is that those opposed to going after Saddam don't want to for several reasons: 1. They're afraid to, as Sonic seems to be; 2. They think he's somehow "indspensible" to the Middle East, in some wierd sort of way; 3. He's ony after the U.S. or Israeli interests, so it doesn't concern the rest of the world; 4. Oil.
My biggest fear about Saddam going has nothing to do with the guy himself-he can rot in hell, and I imagine he will after he leaves this earth-but my fear is that it COULD create a political vacum in which someone else could take advantage of an Iraq in turmoil-and pray tell me what country is in position to "take advantage" of an Iraq in turmoil? There's only one, and it's Iran.
Amazingly, I do agree with Racko-the U.S. should not rush into such a campaign. I have a feeling it would not be until 2003 that such a conflict would be feasable, unless Saddam does something pre-emptive, or keeps turning up the heat as he's doiing now.
I also think that, eventually, it may be necessary to deal with Iran militarily, which will make with dealing with Iraq look like child's play. Plus, I think there's another country that, very soon, will have to choose which side it's really on, or else IT could face military action from the west, and that's Saudi Arabia. They float peace plans, yet pay $$$ to families of suicide bombers. They can't have it both ways forever. Only problem here-and Saudi knows it-is that starting a conflict there could igniate a regional or world war.
And Goodbye, remember our personal truce? You're skating, my boy......
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 584 times:
It almost sounds like that's what you guys are saying-that somehow this bastard is "necessary" in the context of today's world.
So the US kill him. Then what? You've got a dozen Arab countries baying for blood, you've upset the rest of the world, and not to mention what will come of Iraq. Do you think it'll be so easy to get rid of him, and establish a nice little democracy there where everyone loves the US and everything's a bed of roses?
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 586 times:
Boy, this Saddam Hussein sounds like the whole United States condensed into one man!
Yes, because the US government has poisoned its own citizens with Mustard Gas. And please remind me, when was the last time the US invaded Canada or Mexico? Well, there was 1812, but that was only because the British (Canadian) attacked and burned our capital.
I don't know Alpha 1, I'm not part of your agreement, but I'd say he's damn near slipped and fell.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
25 Sonic: Alpha 1, no, I am not afraid killing Hussein, but I think we don't need it (it's not worth the money such war would cost and the people we would lose)
26 Alpha 1: 777236ER, only a fool would think it easy or would not come with a price or with problems. I don't think anyone here beleves that. But it's an option
27 Arsenal@LHR: One thing for sure is that doing nothing is not an option.
28 B747ca: Eliminate him and all his supporters and set up a puppet government a la Afganastan. Plain and Simple.
29 Alpha 1: One problem, B747ca, there isn't really a "puppet" government in Afghanistan, since there was known opposition to The Taliban even before 911. That go
30 Arsenal@LHR: The only worry i have is that who comes in and takes over if/when Saddam is overthrown. Rdgs Arsenal@LHR
31 NWA742: I've talked to many people on this issue. It seems that many feel that Saddam is not a threat, and also many feel he is a big threat. Some say "Iraq's
32 Bambicruz: dude! i don't like you! you represent the bad portion of the tunisian people who for the most are more open than you! you should seek economic growth,