What should we do to IRAQ?? Any ideas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter VentedDisc
  • 103 comments
  • 2,110 views
You know, one or 2 people have told me I seem english.

I do so love the sarcasm. the bloody blimey sarcasm
 
i really hope vented disc started this thread as a joke. at first i thought it was started by some 11 or 12 year old, but his profile says he was born in '77.
 
Well, kiddies - George has boosted US oil reserves to 80 days, and I have heard from a couple of sources that the Hummer factory is making a lot of sand coloured HUMVEEs at the moment, that all US Army vehicles are in the process of getting serviced, and that the US Government is making a lot of inquiries about cargo ships with RORO (roll-on roll-off) capability.

Now, anyone want to take a shot at what's coming up pretty soon? I'll put it this way - I'd be keeping your fuel tank pretty close to full at the moment.
 
vat_man. Of course I know what's going to happen. Saudi Arabia is about to drift into the ocean, and the army is getting a new auto fleet! Go them!
 
Yeah, great - last time this crap happened, I couldn't get a job for 4 months after I finished my degree. Fan-friggin'-tastic.

Guess the 'war' in Afghanistan wasn't enough to sate George, huh?
 
I actually think Powell is a moderating influence on the military front. I have a lot of time for him - I think he's a very measured and considered individual, hence the reason he didn't run for President when he could have walked it in.

The thing is I think there's a lot of baying for blood in the White House at the moment, and it's been fairly widely speculating that Powell is on the outer of the cabinet at present.
 
Oh dear......

What should we do to Iraq?.... Absolutely nothing, a few economic sanctions maybe.

You can't go wipe out someone’s government just cos you don't like them.

Ok the guy's (Hussein) an arse but seriously is he worth it? People are going to die.

Possibly I’m being naïve. Can someone post a few links to places where an valid argument for a war can be found?
 
LOL! this just reminded me of this quiz we had in the 3rd grade (so many years ago). It asked us a bunch of questions of wut we would do if we were the president of a country. I asnwered "NUKE THE BASTARDS!!" to every one of them :D
i thought it was quite hillarious, and so did the rest of the class when the teacher made me read it aloud. ;)
 
I have no idea what the best course of action is. And acknowledge that the moral aspect of the lives lost in a war which may be political, about revenge is appropriate to bring up.

But I have some questions?

Most of you agree he is not a good man, right?

So with containment being an idea highly dependent on political will and resolve, with some probably wanting sanctions lightened for humanitarian reasons, or guilt, which brings into doubt their longterm effectiveness, is it the best option? Sort term, yes. But remember that as future generations would have to clean up after a war if we are reckless, my children and yours would have to keep up containment. As is said we do with pollution, pass it off, we will do with Saddam and his successors. Onto each succeeding generation. This bothers me.

And we, most of us I presume, know that diplomacy is the art of lying.
 
what should be do to Iraq......hmmmm..........i think that we should get about 1,000,000,000 tons of NAPALM and torch the ****ers!!!
 
Reasons for considering the removal of Saddam.

If we can provide the funds and forces necessary, the stability issue would be somewhat addressed. So that negative can be partialy addressed.

If it is true that even with the lifting of sanction that the Iraqi people would still suffer under Saddam's rule, than it is selfish to condone that, perhaps less so if the reason is good.

Supposedly France, and maybe other nations have economic ties to Iraq, so reasons for not invading may not be ethical themselves.

Containment and then the possible easing of it could be seen as a sign of weakness as well as the merciful benevolence some want it to.

People in power will always have the best chance at obtaining items and favors. But dethroned rulers have only their assets oustide of power. Saddam may have billions he can use if deposed, but the forces that removed him may also take away many of his assets, and he may not be very good as a political character. If Saddam is removed and proves umpopular he will probably die in obscurity with some loyalists.

Containment can be seen as trying to surpress building pressure, pressure may win.

The immediate loss of life being the more likely, there is a difference as far as an argument based on precedence goes. If we remove him we may have instability, we may have someone worse step up to replace him. All legitimate theories, but if he stays we will the precedence of his past, and the quite likely scenario that he ill choose his successor. And as far as a replacement being worse, well the person may have a bad past, but it should be remembered that it may not be comparable to Saddam and that the person may have never held such a position, so determing his level of threat is much harder than that of Saddam's

When a country percieves a threat to itself it is interference, justified or not, when it is pressured to restrain itself in dealing with the threat.

If you restrain that country you may be partially responsible for its sufferage at the hands of the "threat." Of course if you say nothing than you may not be being true to yourself.
 
Consider that it appears that Saddam is buying friendships, men with no power cannot do this so easily.
 
and it isnt really george bushes place to step in. he should learn to keep his nose out of other peoples business or there will be more innocents killed when there is no need.
 
Rather simplistic assessment. Considering that we are the supposed target of threats by Saddam it's rather interesting that it is none of our "business."

And if you are going to say much of that is anger over sanctions, than we can work toward lifting them, just leave us alone if he builds up his forces because of it.
 
Originally posted by Talentless
Rather simplistic assessment. Considering that we are the supposed target of threats by Saddam it's rather interesting that it is none of our "business."

And if you are going to say much of that is anger over sanctions, than we can work toward lifting them, just leave us alone if he builds up his forces because of it.
 
Actually, I believe we are targets, I said that to be cautious.

Well, we are not likely to be the first to feel the brunt of Saddam if we move forces in, so worry about war is fair.

But in truth, all wars that can have a lasting economic affect on the world stage and among nations key to our own strategies are our business. Does not mean we should have a lot of say, but it is something we should look into.
 
Back