Your opinion on the iraq situation

Page 2/5
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5

By Latok

msx guru (3867)

Latok's picture

07-02-2003, 21:19

Are you serious here, Bart? Iraq absolutely doesn't have the rocketpower to make a rocket fly to Europe, man! No way....Maybe Israel, like in 1991, but never Europe. Not to mention Holland or UK.....That's silly, really, it is.

By Bart

Paragon (1422)

Bart's picture

07-02-2003, 22:32

I may hope so! Don't forget that you can buy any type of missile these days in france, the netherlands, china, etc. If you've got money... And Saddam has money. How are you so sure he doesn't have the possibilities to do so?
From the same people who published a students' report from 12 years ago as fresh spy material?

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

07-02-2003, 23:38

About breaking UN resolutions - well, let's carpet-bomb Israel then, shall we? ;p
Hey, I'm all for it Tongue

You should understand by now that the work the inspectors do is a joke. It was a joke last time and it is a joke now. Nothing has changed and it doesn't look like it's going to change.

There are two ways to solve this: either Saddam packs his bags and leaves (best option), defeat/kill him (only other viable option).

You can never, never stop him otherwise. Even if you found and destroyed ALL of his weaponry, he will buy/produce/steal more weapon AT THE EXPENSE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

I'm sorry mister pacifists, but not this time...

By Bart

Paragon (1422)

Bart's picture

08-02-2003, 00:38

don't think I'm not against action against Saddam. I just wish I could be sure it really will be a "clean" operation. Taking out military buildings, capturing Saddam, disabling his army and start the country all over. If it's that and I'm sure of it, you can have all my blessings...

By Sander

Founder (1868)

Sander's picture

09-02-2003, 17:16

The problem with Iraq is that you have three big ethnic groups there, and they don't like each other. Most experts think that might lead to a civil war.

Of course, this is not a reason to keep a dictator in his seat. But remember: as with most dictators in those countries, most of them came into power because the US helped these people in their seats by providing arms and -in the case of Iraq- the basic tools to make biological and chemical weapons. Same counts for the Taliban, these former muhajedin got their arms too from the US.

Saddam isn't a treath to the rest of the world. He is for his own people however. Problem is, we can name 50 other countries in the world with more or less the same situation.

So why Iraq? Because Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the World. Indeed, Israel has broken more UN resolutions than any other country. So don't start about the UN resolution. That's just a scam to bomb Iraq.

Don't start about the UN too. In my opinion, the UN should have interfered when Saddam sloughtered 5000 of his own people back in the eighties. That's still considered one of the biggest genocide operations in the past century. We can name a few others too, and one of those is the problem that nobody dears to interfere with Israel. With 10 million Palestine refugees as a result.

The problems in the Middle East are not easy to solve. Frankly, I don't believe America is the one who can and has to solve those problems.

Look at Afghanistan. Is that problem resolved? No, there are still fights going on there, it is again the biggest heroin producing country and besides Kabul the rest of the country is a mess. Rebuilding that country cost Billions of dollars. We gave a few million. Ironic that 1 day of war in the Gulf cost us about 1 Billion dollar. The initial cruise missile strike America considers cost 600 million dollar alone.

4 days of war is equal to rebuilding a whole country. People won't grow heroin if they have enough money to do otherwise.

I never, and will never believe in soldiers who tell you that they will bring piece.

The other problem we have is that we only see western media here. If European countries are indeed for the free speech as they say, why not give us Al Jazira with English subtitles here, so we can judge for ourselves. We are sensored here as much as most far east countries.

Romanian people have been suppressed for decades but they freed themselves, the dutch freed themselves from Spain, but it took 80 years.

In the end, the Arabs will free themselves from their anti democratic goverments and dictators.

That will be a problem for us indeed, cause the western world helped those dictators and such in their seats. We will have to pay a price for that. Sad thing is, when looking at Afghanistan we still haven't learned dick.

By Leo

Paragon (1236)

Leo's picture

09-02-2003, 18:10

Anyway dictature never last so much , except in north corea, no dictator ever had a succesor, so what about waiting 15 years more that saddam retire, or become so weak that an inside opposition take power.

You may say :" What about iraqis ? they would like to be set free sooner ", but it is
better than dying in a war in which many civilians will die for sure , but so sure for saddam.

The smartest thing to do should is to take into account that saddam will not retire in bad
conditions what about offering him an opportunity to retire and saving the face as regards as iraqis : Something like a UNO congress in bagdad in which many arabs country
will participate with main detracting countries (UK/US).

If they offer choice to saddam between going to trial OR facing a war for sure he will
prefer to go for War , dictators need to save the face otherwise they are uncontrolable.

By Grauw

Ascended (10580)

Grauw's picture

09-02-2003, 19:05

Sander, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with what you just said.

Except for one thing. About the UN, actually the basic idea behind the UN is that if one of the member states is attacked, all members will strike back. More than a 'world peace' (almost wrote piece here ;p damn you) organization, that is what the UN is for. However as soon as one of the member states starts talking about war they definately have to be involved, and in that case they should do their best to find a justification for that war which satisfies the other members, and if there isn't enough, try to avoid it. Other than the Americans, they don't suffer from a one-sided point of view on the situation and can much more clearly see the effects their actions will have on the region. I think the UN has a much better view on the 'instrument of war', its effects and the terrible aspects it carries with it, they see it as an 'ultimate solution' which should be avoided at all cost, although sometimes nessecary (on the latter I only agree to a certain extent). I saw the interview with Kofi Annan on TV a while ago and I really have a lot of faith in the wisdom of the UN to decide on these things. They also have the expertise and the means to verify the accusations, and as a delegation of countries all over the world and not only of the so-hated US they are more or less accepted by the local authorities.

I understand if the US tries to keep up the threat, which makes Iraque much more cooperative towards the UN inspectors. However they should not actually start the war. The problem is, I can't really tell if that is what the Americans are doing. Which could be the whole idea, ofcourse, because if I can't tell neither can Saddam ^_^.

Anyways, I don't so much think it is hypocritical that the UN didn't interfere when Saddam did the abovementioned genocide on his own people, but rather it is hypocritical of the US that they didn't interfere back then, but do when it involves large oil-countries like Kuweit or as soon as Iraque becomes too powerful and in their opinion too much of a threat to America. Oh, and ofcourse the UN doesn't solely consist of America, so in a way it's also hypocritical of the other powerful countries which are all for the war now. If I may mention one, the UK.

But again, on all the other points in your message, I fully agree. As long as Iraque doesn't do any terrible things like attacking another country or its own people, it should be solved locally. Ofcourse other countries all over the world can play a role in this, but more so as a helper than a threat. The way Clinton approached the Israel vs. Palestina conflict for example was a much more constructive one, and things were actually accomplished. Until Bush and Sharon became the new leaders, and now things are as bad again as they were before.

~Grauw

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

09-02-2003, 19:12

You're confusing the UN and NATO.

By Grauw

Ascended (10580)

Grauw's picture

09-02-2003, 19:16

Aye, is that so... Hmz, you are right, I guess.

By Grauw

Ascended (10580)

Grauw's picture

09-02-2003, 19:27

Okay, scrap my comments about the UN not being a 'world peace' organization. They are. Great! The rest stands. And with that done I can now say I really wholeheartedly agree with sander ^_^.

~Grauw

Page 2/5
1 | | 3 | 4 | 5