| Author |
Should the US invade IRAQ?
|
|
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-13, 5:08 pm |
| I hope this does not degenerate in to a mass flame session, but??? From what is comming out of the white house It seems to be that its going to be more of a case of when then if. | |
| Boulware5 2002-07-13, 5:30 pm |
| Yes, the US should and finally take out the evil Sadam once and for all. Can't let him build weapons of mass destruction. | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-13, 6:13 pm |
| but who is to say whoever is put in Saddams place will turn out to be as evil as him? It would be incredably unpopular, could turn many states against us. But on the other hand, im sure the state of Iraq is developing weapons of mass distruction and wouldn't hesitate on using them. | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-14, 4:36 am |
| Still waiting for the official view from the war cabinet ... | |
|
| the US has better things to do, then start another war. lets concentrate on the economy and create jobs for people rather than blow up money on a war and leads to killing of a lot of civilians unintentionally.
have we forgotten worldcom and enron already ??
besides, the image of USA will be further degraded in the eyes of the world....
just my opinion. | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-14, 6:06 am |
| Quoting A.L.I.C.E, artifical intelligence:quote:
> > Should the US invade Iraq? I hope this does not degenerate in to a mass flame session, but??? From what is comming out of the white house It seems to be that its going to be more of a case of when then if.
Maybe you should ask someone older. Why do you hope for it. Who or what is what is comming out of the white house. It seems to be that its going to be more of a case of when then if?
| |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-14, 1:12 pm |
| It looks like George Michael has got his wish and people are debating the Iraq situation.
Before I get inundated or flamed off the face of the earth: His song is about our prime minister questioning and not blindly following the leader of a super power on a decision as important as the title of this thread, don't believe they hype or the fact that it's been misconstrued the single is about nothing more.
Everyone has a view on the subject and as for a thread in an IT forum regarding politics, the question of should it be here is as important as if a pop song should have been released raising the same issue.
But I'm glad to see that people are taking an interest and debating on an issue as important.
It will be interesting to see how this thread progresses.
 | |
| Mauwakee 2002-07-14, 1:17 pm |
| I was wondering how many people that wanted to invade have ever been in combat. I am Vet and was part of the Grenade (SP) landings. That people can not or will not serve always seems to be the ones to attack the hardest. Just a thought from someone that has been in combat. | |
|
| well i think the us, or britain should take some more serious action againts sudam. The world left it to late to act against hitler when he was building his arms. Sudam is obviously building up his arms now, and if someone does not stop him soon, i fear the worst | |
|
| If Saddam continues to block weapons inspections,he needs to pay price.Not sure if a full scale US invasion of Iraq would have desired effect.
Something more subtle like a bullet through the brain would get my vote. | |
| azimuth40 2002-07-14, 4:43 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by foggy
If Saddam continues to block weapons inspections,he needs to pay price.Not sure if a full scale US invasion of Iraq would have desired effect.
Something more subtle like a bullet through the brain would get my vote.
How about the world leaders in the center of the Hague at high noon with water pistols.
I been in combat and it sucks. The mistake was not finishing it last time and then letting down the population who would have revolted and gotten the rest of his henchmen.
A few snipers would be the best bet now as it whould have been in 39. | |
| enforcer 2002-07-15, 3:55 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by foggy
Something more subtle like a bullet through the brain would get my vote.
Stand still, give us your precise location and it will be arranged. Any particular wording on your flowers?  | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-15, 6:58 am |
| quote:
Stand still, give us your precise location and it will be arranged. Any particular wording on your flowers?
Yes. We messed it up. | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-15, 7:05 am |
| I am usually quite opinionated, but this one has me perplexed. I don't see a good outcome to either answer. The question is really not whether we should attack Iraq, but whether it is neccessary to attack Iraq. If it becomes neccessary, it would be suicidal for us not to do it. I hope it does not become neccessary. How to avoid the neccessity is for me the $64,000 question. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by javed
the US has better things to do, then start another war. lets concentrate on the economy and create jobs for people rather than blow up money on a war and leads to killing of a lot of civilians unintentionally.
have we forgotten worldcom and enron already ??
besides, the image of USA will be further degraded in the eyes of the world....
just my opinion.
That's just the point: There is nothing better for the economy than a good ole war somewhere. I know it sounds horrible, but History will show you that this is a fair assessment... | |
| azimuth40 2002-07-15, 11:31 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
That's just the point: There is nothing better for the economy than a good ole war somewhere. I know it sounds horrible, but History will show you that this is a fair assessment...
I know that you are right but I hate the thought. Lets hear it for good old deficit spending and building more million dollar cruise missles and $100K smart bombs. The next generation can pay the bill.
The military industrial complex was good for the US and allied economy in the 60's and 70's; the flower growing industry also. | |
| freak 2002-07-15, 11:42 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by azimuth40
I know that you are right but I hate the thought.
You echo my sentiments | |
| thecomeons 2002-07-15, 3:48 pm |
| maybe if we pooled our knowledge and designed a superdooper icbm we could sell it to the highest bidder, build superdooper bunkers, sit tight and rule the world. | |
| enforcer 2002-07-15, 4:55 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by thecomeons
maybe if we pooled our knowledge and designed a superdooper icbm we could sell it to the highest bidder, build superdooper bunkers, sit tight and rule the world.
that 'holiday' you went on, were there a lot of people in white coats there? | |
| thecomeons 2002-07-15, 5:09 pm |
| would u believe enforcer. not even raincoats?
the british weather nuts or what? | |
| bearing 2002-07-16, 2:04 am |
| There'll be plenty of superdooper bunkers at "The Open" | |
| enforcer 2002-07-16, 3:27 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by bearing
There'll be plenty of superdooper bunkers at "The Open"
yeah but knowing the british weather, by the time it starts they will all be small ponds. | |
| richardwhit 2002-07-16, 5:51 am |
| quote:
"If Saddam continues to block weapons inspections,he needs to pay price."
Well if this was a reason to go to war then the whole world should invade the US - 'cos its exactly what the US is doing right now.
The simple fact that Saddam is supposed to be making weapons of mass destruction is not reason to invade Iraq - after all if you had the worlds greatest superpower constantly hinting it might invade your country every couple of weeks wouldn't you want to defend yourself?
The question thats more pertinent is do we believe that Saddam will use these weapons "responsibly" (for want of a better word), and the answer to that is of course "no". Therefore something has to be done about it - what? unfortunately I'm not sure - but thats why I work in IT and not in politics. | |
|
| Correct me if I am wrong but did Iraq not agree to weapons inspectors after the end of the Gulf war. The US could be accussed of doing many things but doing exactly the same as Iraq is not one of them.
I think we all agree that Saddam is a threat to stablity .He has proved he has no respect for the lives of anyone who stands in his way.
It would be preferable if any action against him be under the UN flag but I dont expect this to happen.Maybe support to an opponent from that area would be a viable option.I dont have any particular group in mind,just throwing in an idea.
Regards
Foggy. | |
|
| You know what I don't understand? Why do people in America call people they don't like by their first name? I tend to reserve that to people I actually like... just a thought | |
| Crutch 2002-07-16, 9:39 am |
| As a Veteran and having participated in Desert Shield/Storm, I think we need to go back in and finish the job. Although, the Kurds seem to want no part of it. But I think that's because they live "in-country" and don't want/need more reprisals.
I have a friend that was a Marine sniper during Shield/Storm. His unit was tasked with taking out political targets in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Yeah, I know, we didn't go to Baghdad, but unofficially we did. During Desert Shield, my friend was part of a force recon (sniper) unit that camped outside baghdad and sent two-man teams into deserted buildings near the capital. He told me that on three occasions, he had Saddam in his sights but did not receive authorization to "punch" the target.
So I ask, are we going there to topple the regime, or take Saddam and his cabinet out? I believe that if we take him out first, then his cabinet, then the regime, we will be victorious.
But, are the American/British people ready to accept higher casualties? After all, Saddam's had years to prepare for this and knows we're coming.
And how will we do it? Sure we have a few naval battlegroups in the area and some predeployed units, but we're not seeing the massive buildup yet. Shield lasted five months before we were in position to launch the air war.
I may be wrong, but I think it will be more of a clandestine war (elite forces) with lot's of air support.
Just my $0.02 worth. | |
| Crutch 2002-07-16, 9:43 am |
| Freak:
You know, it's weird. When I was in the Navy, we rarely called each other by our first names. You heard the last name so often that you called people that. Or you'd come up with some nickname based on the last name. When your first name was used, it was very personal. So, to Saddam Hussein, this is very personal. | |
|
| Crutch, I agree with you. I was also in Desert Shield, and I know that area very well from growing up. I also think that it has to be a SpecOp job.
This being said, there is a reason why the shot on Hussein was never taken. That reason is that Hussein is a dictator, and that the only way for those to stay in power is to kill anybody who might have the talent and the drive to replace them. In other words, there is nobody else that can do the job. Taking him out creates a political vacuum, and considering the years they have been at war with their Iranian neighbors, I am not sure I want to see that vacuum attract Iran into the mix.
Sometimes, there is a reason why the job cannot be finished, and I think that this may be one of those times where the alternative is riskier than the devil we know... | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Crutch
Freak:
You know, it's weird. When I was in the Navy, we rarely called each other by our first names. You heard the last name so often that you called people that. Or you'd come up with some nickname based on the last name. When your first name was used, it was very personal. So, to Saddam Hussein, this is very personal.
Interesting point. | |
| enforcer 2002-07-16, 9:49 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
You know what I don't understand? Why do people in America call people they don't like by their first name? I tend to reserve that to people I actually like... just a thought
I disagree, for people I like I tend to call them by a shortened version their real first name or surname, or just a nickname.
when did you know your mum was cross with you. She would say your first name in full.
ie normally she would call you Steve or Stevie, but when she was upset with you it would be STEPHEN!
or happy Nic or Nicky upset/angry NICHOLAS! | |
|
| I was a good boy. My mother was never cross with me 
... or maybe that's because I didn't live with her too often | |
| Crutch 2002-07-16, 10:35 am |
| To everyone that participated in Desert Shield and Storm, what was your NCC, MOS, or specialty?
I was a Data Processing Technician. My forte was Honeywell mainframe support. Mostly we delt with aviation and supply assets. | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-16, 11:13 am |
| quote:
. Taking him out creates a political vacuum
history has shown civil war usualy follows a political vacume. | |
| freak 2002-07-16, 12:24 pm |
| I served as an attache to the COmmander in Chief for the Atlantic Fleet, dispatched over there because of the fact that I speak multiple languages and that this was a multinational coalition... | |
| Mauwakee 2002-07-16, 6:11 pm |
| I was a 92-C. Combat Medic/ Airborne, pathfinder | |
| kappagamma698 2002-07-16, 8:32 pm |
| Most likly the us special force troops are already in the capital and the are getting things ready for a full on war. I think that Pres. Bush will call for the war in about a month, since there is not much progress on the war against terrorism is not to fast and politics demand that he win a war or not get reelected, so pick the battle that he thinks he can win. At least with the battle against Iraq there is a target and goal, with terrorism it is hard to measure success. Just my 2cents worth ( I did vote for Bush, one reason for this was due to political views and also a bumper sticker that sold me that stated so well the relationship between Dick Chaney and Pres. Bush "Dick works for Bush" ) | |
|
| shhhhhhhhhhh | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-16, 9:36 pm |
| What I want to know is why we supported Iraq with weapons and intelegence in the Iran / Iraq war? because they were slightly less of a threat to the US then Iran? | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-16, 9:43 pm |
| That is a major understatement. Remember the hostage crisis? | |
|
| I've got three letters for you: o-i-l | |
| fmusick 2002-07-16, 11:25 pm |
| I never served. I don't think I could hack it. I also don't think we should go back. There will always be dictators. We can't take them all out. I don't think it's our job to decide who goes and who stays. I also feel that any act of aggression on our part will be paid for by the people of Israel as seems to be the man's wont.
I know it may sound silly but until the man commits an act of aggression, I think we should stay our hand. | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-17, 7:26 am |
| I have no problem with pre-emptive action. It boils down to threat assessment. If we are convinced that not going would be more costly than going, then we have to strike. However, remember that there is a difference between honest threat assessment and exploiting and distorting facts and figures in order to manipulate the minds and hearts of the American people. I don't want to be lied to by people with an itchy trigger finger. All I want to know is whether this is absolutely neccessary, and whether there are any alternatives and whether we have pursued those alternatives. | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-17, 7:32 am |
| quote:
That is a major understatement. Remember the hostage crisis?
Todays ally is tommorows enemy.
quote:
distorting facts and figures in order to manipulate the minds and hearts of the American people.
Depends on where you get your news. But all news is biased. | |
| Mauwakee 2002-07-17, 9:34 am |
| The reason why U.S supported Iraq over Iran is because we gave them military equipment. At that time Iraq was one of allies. However, the change very quickly and became our enemy. Why? Not to make this a 10 page thesis but the short of it is because we supported Israel also. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 12:44 pm |
| No. What has Iraq ever done the United States? And I notice that the U.S. seems to be in no hurry to get rid of their Nuclear or Chemical Weapons anytime soon. And the U.S. is the one country that has actually used nuclear weapons on others. Hussein has always been more of a threat to his own people than to anyone else. Remember who gave Hussein all the money to build all of his weapons plants anyway . . . it was us, America. The best thing we could do is keep from sticking our noses where they don't belong. | |
| bearing 2002-07-17, 12:52 pm |
| Mr. Linux Guy,
Careful what you say mate you'll be deported for such thoughts...
I guess I agree with you there though. It amazes me how Tony Blair can be so Gung-ho about striking countries the West do not tollerate..Christ, Britain is probably the most secretive Country in the World..I'd hate to think what weapons of mass destruction we have, and yet we complain about not having access to other countries arsenal, smells a bit of hypocrisy to me. And I guess it's the same in the US.. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 12:57 pm |
| Yeah, I know. Let me say something else that may get me deported. I actually have friends in Iraq. And no, they aren't terrorists, in fact, they are quite eager to get out. I am not particularly eager to find out that American bombs will be raining down on top of their heads soon. I wonder if any country would regularly conduct bombing missions over America would be as ready for war? America can do anything and get away with it; not all countries are so lucky. | |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-17, 1:39 pm |
| What about September the 11th? Didn't somebody get away with the biggest atrocity in recent history?
Tony Blair should listen to reason. Yes, someone has to be brought to justice for what happened no one on here can deny that but don't just follow blindly the leadership of others.
| |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 1:41 pm |
| And what makes you think the Iraqis had anything to do with that? if there had been any evidence for that, Iraq would have been history already. Hey! What about the Daniel Pearl murder? We could pin that on Iraq as well! Why stop when you're on a roll? It must be good when you can point the finger at whoever you want without any evidence. | |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-17, 1:48 pm |
| At what point in my post did I say Iraq should be bombed? Where in my post did I blame Iraq???????
Read what I wrote. Whoever is responsible should be brought to justice. Just to summarise for you.
Those in power should not act emotionally and think before taking action. After all didn't the person responsible admit to doing it anyway?
Get off your soap box and use your head before shouting off with your mouth at me.
| |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 1:59 pm |
| I wasn't on any soapbox. I was just speaking my mind. And if you were not implying that Iraqis had a hand in the 11 September bombings, then why did you bring the subject up? It seems to have no relevance to the discussion. | |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-17, 2:05 pm |
| For the benefit of the universally stupid I shall say it again.
WHERE IN MY POST DID I BLAME IRAQ.
I was stating common sense, something that you lack as I said the guilty should be brought to justice.
You are the one who lacks relevance in this discussion by blaming people for things they haven't done.
I shall say it again.
Those responsible should be brought to justice.
If anyone can see me blaming IRAQ then please point it out to me.
| |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 2:20 pm |
| And I repeat, why did you bring up 11 September in referance to a possible attack on Iraq? The "universally stupid" begs your humble pardon, O Wise One. Please have mercy on us lesser creatures. | |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-17, 2:45 pm |
| You are forgiven.
| |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 2:46 pm |
| Thanks. I really didn't mean to annoy you. | |
| bearing 2002-07-17, 2:48 pm |
| Calm down guys.... Take a breath and take a beer....
I have worked for an Iranian in the past and while at University was taught by an Israeli, an Iraqi, an Iranian, and a guy from Palestine, and guess what they all drunk coffee together in the staff room...
I found all of them good blokes...
Except for the Iranian I worked for..He never payed me enough...Ok I did like him really, I just wish he'd paid me more..We used to have visits from the money men from Iran when the company was a bit short of cash, they'd role up in a black Merc with blacked out Windows, and they always wore long black coats...And they seemed to float across the floor, frightening bunch really... | |
| bearing 2002-07-17, 2:50 pm |
| Hey Sexy Lexy,
Where abouts in Shropshire are you... | |
| Sexy Lexy 2002-07-17, 2:54 pm |
| Nor I you. Whoever was responsible for September the 11th should face justice for what they have done.
I was just using it as an example of a situation where those responsible have done what they want, as you pointed out with your home Country. This is your view and you are entitled.
There is not simple solution to this thread but something has to be done as most have mentioned to avoid another catastrophic disaster, it shouldn't be a world of terror and fear which breeds hysteria. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-17, 3:01 pm |
| I agree that whoever is repsonsible for terror should be held accountable, but I am wary that the media and government could use certain countries as scapegoats. I don't think anyone would greatly miss Hussein, but at the same time unless there is a specific threat, I can't see an invasion being justified. It is important when extracting retribution that the ones who are being ounished for it are actually the guilty party. And thus far, I see no reason to justify the sentiments floating around in Washington with regards to Iraq. So far, it just seems like a "big" country picking on a "little" one just because it has the power to do so. I wish there were more criticism of this and not just a sort of indifference. Tt seems to me that most here don't seem to care one way or the other. | |
| bearing 2002-07-17, 3:09 pm |
| The other thing to bear in mind is that these smaller countries haven't really posed a great threat to the world. I know that many people were killed in the Sept 11th disaster, but it was hardly a Hiroshima or a Nagasaki, it was small fry in comparison. No faction will ever be able to inflict devestation such as that which the Western Powers can inflict. And I think this is the threat that keeps a full scale nuclear or biological attack from one of these factions at bay...
And if The IRA can make a public apology for the atrocities it has caused over the last 30 years or so then there really is hope in the World.... | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-17, 6:32 pm |
| quote:
. I know that many people were killed in the Sept 11th disaster, but it was hardly a Hiroshima or a Nagasaki, it was small fry in comparison.
It was my city in my country that was attacked. To me, this is no small fry. I would spare no expense, including my life and the life of my son, to destroy those responsible for this. | |
| RichardJW 2002-07-17, 7:36 pm |
| quote:
It was my city in my country that was attacked. To me, this is no small fry. I would spare no expense, including my life and the life of my son, to destroy those responsible for this.
Patriotism in action. And your son? I think I recall you have a military past. I have lived in many different countries, on returning to the 'fatherland' this is not an issue. I understand the perspective from which you see things - or at least I think I do. However, consider the world at large, stop considering just the USA, see beyond this and look upon the world. | |
| fmusick 2002-07-17, 9:01 pm |
| I don't think we can fairly equate Iraq with a terrorist organization. I know no one has but the two seemed to have become linked in this thread.
What we are talking about here is not a police action hunting for murderers. We are talking about an invasion of a foreign country. An act of war on our part. In my view, unprovoked. I say if the President wants to go to war with Iraq, at the very least it must be declared. That takes an act of Congress. It has also not occurred since 1941. If instead, we would like to act as part of a U.N. enforcement or peacekeeping mission, I would not oppose that either. I cannot foresee either of these things occurring. One must ask why. | |
| bearing 2002-07-18, 2:51 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
It was my city in my country that was attacked. To me, this is no small fry. I would spare no expense, including my life and the life of my son, to destroy those responsible for this.
If you'd actually read the post I never said that Sep 11th WAS small fry, I said in comparison it was small fry...You seem to have a very insular attitude. Don't just think you are the only country in the World that has ever had Terrorist attacks upon it's shores...The English Mainland has lived under thirty years of terrorist attacks form dissidant factions from Ireland... | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-18, 5:15 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by fmusick
What we are talking about here is not a police action hunting for murderers.
THAT is what should be done to find the gang who are responsible for these atrocities. A full scale invasion would destroy mainly those people who are suffering the most under these people anyway, and would in all likelihood, still not remove the people responsible. I think that if someone needs to be gotten rid of, it must be done in a more "police-type" manner. Police just can't shoot into a crowd in the hopes of hitting the badguys. I think that is similar to what an invasion would accomplish.
Tech Ranger: Remember what happened to your city has happened to many other cities as well, often with America as the culprit. We have bombed over a hundred countries in the last 50 years or so, most of the attacks in my view were not justified. Why is your hurt more worthy than that of anyone else? | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-18, 5:38 am |
| quote:
Tech Ranger: Remember what happened to your city has happened to many other cities as well, often with America as the culprit. We have bombed over a hundred countries in the last 50 years or so, most of the attacks in my view were not justified. Why is your hurt more worthy than that of anyone else?
If someone comes into my home and kills members of my family, you sit me down and say "take it easy, other people have had members of their families killed, too."
Is this supposed to make it palatable? If England has suffered from terrorism for many years, it should employ the universally applicable principles of the Bush Doctrine and take all measures available to destroy those responsible for these acts. Of course, I have to point out tha even Bush himself backed off the Bush Doctrine when Israel began to be hit with the current incessant barrage of suicide bombings. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-18, 6:22 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
If someone comes into my home and kills members of my family, you sit me down and say "take it easy, other people have had members of their families killed, too."
Is this supposed to make it palatable? If England has suffered from terrorism for many years, it should employ the universally applicable principles of the Bush Doctrine and take all measures available to destroy those responsible for these acts. Of course, I have to point out tha even Bush himself backed off the Bush Doctrine when Israel began to be hit with the current incessant barrage of suicide bombings.
I said nothing of the kind. If someone kills members of your family, by all means take whatever measures are necessary to exact retribution . . . but ONLY against those who are guilty. My brother was murdered when he was 20 years old by a black man. So does this make it OK for me to go into a black neighborhood and take some other blacks out in retribution? | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-18, 7:05 am |
| quote:
. I would spare no expense, including my life and the life of my son, to destroy those responsible for this.
Easier said then done, you have to find them first. Invading Iraq would only increase resentment towards the US, and would inevitably lead to more attacks on US individuals and more attacks on US soil. the 11th happened because the US supports Israel. There will be more attacks on US soil and on US individuals, and these terrorists see no difference between civilians and militery. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-07-18, 7:07 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by HOOLIGAN
These terrorists see no difference between civilians and militery.
Do we? | |
| bearing 2002-07-18, 7:27 am |
| HOOLIGAN is correct in saying that an attack on Iraq would only fuel the hatred towards the US, and of course Britain who as a strong friend of the US would back them to the hilt...The main problem is the de-satbilising action it would have on the Miidle East, as HOOLIGAN has said the Sept 11th tragedy happened as a result of the US support for Israel..Most countries in Europe would not back us in a strike, as many European countries' links with the Middle East are very strong, and also because of a great jealously towards the US..
The other problem is that if a successful attack is made and Hussain is toppled, who takes over, do we put a puppet in place, leaving Iraq open to invasion from Iran etc. Or would son of Hussain emerge stronger and more evil than Hussain.
Iraq even with sanctions is a stronger power than Afghanistan, where a government sympathetic towards the West was established, I don't think we could possibly manage this in Iraq.
I think a better way to get rid of Hussain would be to lift sanctions, go in to Iraq and help the poor people of Iraq, and show them that the people of the West are a kind, tolerant group of people, unlike the regime they are under that dictates their every move. But would removing sanctions just allow Hussain to claim a moral victory over the West, telling his people that the west have crumbled and given in to the might of Iraq...
I'm afraid I do not know the answers, and never will, that is why I am here and not in government, but then do they have the answers...Maybe we should just bite the bullet, and try to weather any backlashes that may or may not arise...One thing I do know though is that I wouldn't like to be living in Israel if we did enter Iraq by force... | |
| HOOLIGAN 2002-07-18, 8:57 am |
| By Mr Linux guy.
QUOTE]Do we?[/QUOTE]
not to the degree of actually targeting 1000's (WTC).
Bearing has a point, for arguments sake we topple Saddam, then what, just let another dictator take over? Or occupy it like Afganistan until a democratic interim government takes over? of course the US has every right to defend itself from ABC threats, but to meddle in other peoples governments, that would be global, not national dictatorship.
quote:
? If England has suffered from terrorism for many years, it should employ the universally applicable principles of the Bush Doctrine and take all measures available to destroy those responsible for these acts.
It did, my grandmother remembered when the black and tans burnt the city of Cork to the ground, or when members of the police force fired indiscriminately into the crowd at a football match in Dublin, killing 12 people.
The uprising in Ireland realy began when the British army decided to execute all members of the IRA captured at the GPO. Up until then for the most part there was no support what so ever for an uprising
In short, the heavy handed doctrine only made matters a lot,lot worse.
Those who dont know their history are Doomed to Repeat it. | |
| bearing 2002-07-18, 9:26 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by HOOLIGAN
It did, my grandmother remembered when the black and tans burnt the city of Cork to the ground, or when members of the police force fired indiscriminately into the crowd at a football match in Dublin, killing 12 people.
The uprising in Ireland realy began when the British army decided to execute all members of the IRA captured at the GPO. Up until then for the most part there was no support what so ever for an uprising
In short, the heavy handed doctrine only made matters a lot,lot worse.
Those who dont know their history are Doomed to Repeat it.
The British Army even shot one of the IRA that was injured and couldn't stand, so they just tied him to a seat, blinfolded him and then shot him...
And as HOOLIGAN said heavy hande tactics used in Ireland, have resulted in 86 years of retribution, by more than one dissident group...I have many friends who have served in Norther Ireland, they suffered amazing abuse from the locals. But I've visited Belfast many times and received nothing but warmth and welcome from the people there. Just think there are probably people in Iraq just like those nice folk in Northern Ireland... | |
|
| Bearing,your signature has the line "keep Gilbratar British" what does this mean?
Regards
Foggy. | |
| fmusick 2002-07-18, 8:52 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
...it should employ the universally applicable principles of the Bush Doctrine and take all measures available to destroy those responsible for these acts...
Ah, the heavy handed approach. I have yet to see history indicate the validity of such a reprisal. Teheniman (sp?) Square, Cuba, Nagasaki, the Warsaw ghetto, Afghanistan, the West Bank. Violence only leads to violence and hatred. Admitted, very few revolutions have been bloodless but I cannot find a reference to an uprising quenched by reprisal, dispersed yes, forgotten no. I'll be glad to re-analyze my position if someone has an example.
No one will gain anythimg from invading Iraq. Blood spilled for no reason. I really can't comprehend why my country seems to be supporting it (let's leave the oil thing out of it, please :-) ). | |
| bearing 2002-07-19, 1:49 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by foggy
Bearing,your signature has the line "keep Gilbratar British" what does this mean?
Regards
Foggy.
The British hold sovereignty over Gibraltar, which as you know is geographically attached to Spain. Spain has always wanted Sovereignty of the rock back, so in it's ultimate wisdom the British Government are talking about joint sovereignty, something which the Gibraltan's do not want. In a recent reforrendum on th rock asking whether they wanted to stay British or become Spanish, around 99% voted for staying part of Britain..
So that is why I have the signature..
If you'd seen on many news programmes over the last week, the Spanish have also been defending a part of Morrocco that they hold sovereignty over, so I guess what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander in my opinion and we should defend the sovereignty of Gibraltar much like the Spanish have defended their rights.. | |
| MistyRing 2002-07-19, 3:29 am |
| Couldn't agree more. Tony walking all over democracy as usual to keep our "European partners" happy. Would never have happened under Mrs T, she'd have just invaded Spain. | |
| enforcer 2002-07-19, 5:10 am |
| why o why do nations want to hold on the little islands off the coast of other countries?
Gibralter
Falkand Islands
that Morroccan one.
they should be come nations in their own right, then if anyone invaded that would be war and the UN can step in.
the people in situ are the important ones and they should be able to say who can do what. | |
| bearing 2002-07-19, 10:10 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by enforcer
why o why do nations want to hold on the little islands off the cost of other countries?
Gibralter
Falkand Islands
that Morroccan one.
they should be come nations in their own right, then if anyone invaded that would be war and the UN can step in.
the people in situ are the important ones and they should be able to say who can do what.
Both the Gibraltans and the Falklanders want to stay British.
Gibraltar is a very strategic Naval base, used by both the British and the US..
The Falklands are very rich in minerals and oil so are well worth keeping.. | |
| Mauwakee 2002-07-19, 1:03 pm |
| quote:
"It was my city in my country that was attacked. To me, this is no small fry. I would spare no expense, including my life and the life of my son, to destroy those responsible for this."
You may have past military experience and so have I but I’m glad that you did not lead my troops. Remember what General Patton said, “Spill their blood, shot them in the belly. Let that dumb bastard die for his country.” | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-19, 5:46 pm |
| quote:
You may have past military experience and so have I but I’m glad that you did not lead my troops. Remember what General Patton said, “Spill their blood, shot them in the belly. Let that dumb bastard die for his country.”
I am sure you are making a point. Perhaps you can let me in on it. | |
| Mauwakee 2002-07-20, 9:56 am |
| The point Tech is that most people that have been in combat before would never want his or her child be put in that position. NO body that has been in combat would willing let his or her child die. I have been in combat and pray to God that my child never will ever have to fine out the hard way. As the quotes form Patton, it is an old saying we had when I was in the Army right before we jump. Patton was saying do not die for your country. Live and kill more enemies. Let the other side die for his country and what does it get? One less person to worry about. I do not think myself as weak but I still have dreams about what happen on that runway in Grenade.(SP) | |
| Tech Ranger 2002-07-20, 7:16 pm |
| I can't help you with your pain, but I thank you from the bottom of my heart for fighting for our country. |
|
|
|