rain
Experienced Knight
RPG Race: Archer
Posts: 397
|
Post by rain on Nov 23, 2002 22:20:17 GMT -5
Bush was granted support to send inspectors into Iraq and search for any traces of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as reported, the previous inspection came back positive...Iraq is trying to keep their weapon manufactory clandestine
another inspection was granted but Bush decided to take it to another level
Bush has decided, as many of you probably already heard via news or wut have you..that if the UN doesn't grant permission, or doesn't support the United States decision to take military actions towards Iraq, we will march in anyway
what is your view point on this? do you agree with the United States government's actions and decisions? or do you go against it? i shall voice my opinion at a later time
Rain...
|
|
|
Post by DragoonWraith on Nov 23, 2002 22:26:20 GMT -5
I don't think we should just ignore the entire world... But I also think that Saddam Hussein deserves it... So I don't think we're right, but there are worse alternatives...
|
|
|
Post by siddiddie on Nov 23, 2002 22:32:30 GMT -5
I think we're just acting like a big gorilla. First we DEMAND that countries MUST take a stand in the "War on Terrorism" and that if they choose not to aid us they are an enemy, and now they are completely ignoring the UN, which I believe could be this country's downfall.
|
|
|
Post by Sokar468 on Nov 23, 2002 22:34:14 GMT -5
Not that the UN has any power to do anything, but it is the Courtroom of World Opinon. The United States, however powerful we are, should respect the opinions of fellow nations.
|
|
|
Post by DragoonWraith on Nov 23, 2002 22:34:17 GMT -5
And the downfall of the UN, which could be potentially worse, because then we'll be that much farther from unifying the human race, which would be the downfall of the human race...
|
|
|
Post by D-Guy on Nov 23, 2002 23:32:33 GMT -5
we gave saddam one chance to get his act together before this and he has spit in our faces by continuing to make weapons. I say kick his ass.
|
|
|
Post by Knight of Lodis on Nov 23, 2002 23:40:21 GMT -5
In all honest the UN is the the US. The UN's power is about half of the US's power. Think about it. Oh darn Switzerland is against our decision, what are they going to do?
Point is whatever we do countries will support use on way or another. They may not totally agree with the Iraq inspection but they do know that Iraq is also a treat to them.
|
|
|
Post by SwordMaster on Nov 24, 2002 0:27:41 GMT -5
I dont know that much about what is going on but what my history teacher said makes a lot of sense to me:
OK, we put Saddam Hussian in power. We told him to attack a big country(Saudia Arabia, I believe). We even gave him some weapons! Then, he goes and attacks a little small country, Kuwait. The US is angered by this, and Gulf War and now whats going on today. Doesnt make much sense does it? Im not saying the it is all the US's fault for what Saddam has done, nor am I saying that he isnt an evil man that needs to be stopped. I just think that what is going on is a little odd...
|
|
rain
Experienced Knight
RPG Race: Archer
Posts: 397
|
Post by rain on Nov 24, 2002 0:45:40 GMT -5
indeed
but is military action really necessary?
looking back at the Gulf War, Iraq didn't stand out as a strong nation at all...barely any nuclear technology back then...did 10 years really change Iraq, prospered Iraq that much?
one would naturally assume that since they hadn't the power to take much action back then in response to the US attacks, they wouldn't have much power now either
my viewpoint is that the United States really should think carefully about what we are doing. By attacking a whole nation with the single purpose of ridding its leader is a bit overkill...not only will this corrupt the image of United States in they eyes of many other fellow nations, it will also serve as a buttress to breeding hate within the hearts of Iraqi youth...
some may say that it matters not in the end...since the United States has far greater power than Iraq...those youth will never amount to anything...then those same people would flip open their calendar...and memorialize those lives lost during last year's September 11th tragedy...isn't that a bit of a paradox?
Rain...
|
|
|
Post by SNK! on Nov 24, 2002 1:08:47 GMT -5
I agree with FinalBoss, heres a quote from The Onion that sums up my views on it "I'm glad the United states "piss off the world" stratedgy is finally working"
|
|
|
Post by Gustave on Nov 24, 2002 8:11:51 GMT -5
I love The Onion. Bush on Economy: Our stock markets are crashing. We are on the verge of a downfall. That's why i'm pledging this to you today: Saddam will be stopped!
This world is not just 2 countries, Iraq and the US. If it was, we could kick their asses. However, there are many more than that. You all really underestimate the power of the U.N, and the ability of many small countries to stand up to a big powerhouse nation. Not even England wants us to march into Iraq. Our closest allies want us to turn the other cheek. While this is definitely not the best action, we cannot ignpre the wishes of the world. History repeats itself. However, if this is another World war, i'm dissapointed to say that we would be the Axis, and we would be alone.
|
|
|
Post by Zynx on Nov 24, 2002 8:55:58 GMT -5
One interesting thing that I think people should know about the Gulf War before I comment on the issue at hand. Tensions between Iraq and Kuwait had been building for well over a year. Kuwait was doing what is known as "slant drilling" on Iraqi oil fields. That is that they had drills that went on a slant down into the Iraqi oil fields and extracted Iraqi oil. Also, Kuwait was seen by nearly every Arab country as artificially keeping oil prices lower to please the US and the west in general to gain favor. The Iraqis essentially asked our ambassador(We were on pretty good terms with Saddam at the time) if an attack on Kuwait would bother us. Our ambassador essentially said "go ahead". So in summary, our foreign policy f@&k up has caused this whole 11 year long mess.
In regards to the current situation, I think that the way Bush has been throwing around the concept of war is very immature and those who think this will be a cake walk are so full of it that I am amazed they can still talk with all of the sh!t coming out of their mouth. War is an absolutley horrible concept and I don't think the cavalier attitude is good for the nation in the long run. Also, this will not be a cake walk. Unless his whole army deserts(very unlikely) he will be fighting in Baghdad which is a city of roughly 7 million people. City fighting usually results in losses of at the lowest 5% killed to as high as 60% killed in the attacking force assuming a large force is used. Let's go with the low number there multiplied by our force of 200,000(the number most throw around) and we get 10,000 killed. Also, when cornered Saddam will either launch his chemical weapons at our troops, which might not work because of our chemical suits, launch them at Israel in which case hundreds of thousands will die and it will be our responsibility, or even worse than those two is that he gives the weapons to Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah to attack Israel and the U.S. with. Saddam will never use these weapons unless he is attacked first the reason is that if he tries to gas us or an ally of us he will be nuked into the stone age. There are many other countries that are as if not more dangerous than he is. Look at North Korea for a prime example. Recently they said that they have nukes and that defied two treaties and are a much bigger threat militarily than Iraq with an army of 2 million. However, our response was "okay that's nice that you have nukes". My question is, what happened to the "Axis of Evil" George?
I think Bush has been an absolutley horrible leader in all of this. He sets forth the doctrine "If you aid the terrorists in anyway you are a terrorist" and he also said that groups that don't even target the U.S., but target its allies will be targeted. However, we seem to be straying from that quite a lot. There is not a heck of a lot of evidence that Iraq has ever supported Al-Qaeda, but there is plenty of evidence Saudi Arabia has. However, first we claim the Saudis are our friends and also we don't want to take the economic hit. Also, we will not do anything about Iran, Syria, Jordan, or Lebannon(forgive my spelling) even though they have sponsored hundreds of terrorist acts against Israel through Hezbollah and others and now there is evidence Hezbollah is plotting against us. Bush set a tough doctrine, but it is clear he has thrown it out.
|
|
|
Post by synthetic on Nov 24, 2002 9:27:33 GMT -5
If the US doesn't listen to all the other countries...
US not listening = UN/Other countries/Whoever gets pissed at the US = bad stuff happens...
US assuming that if you're not on our side you're on theirs = Anyone neutral-sided gets pissed.
The US is a powerful nation, but we can't do whatever we want. If everyone else thinks one way, and the US agrees on another, well, it's not smart to do something so drastic.
Okay, Saddam Hussein isn't a nice guy (this guy has killed his own people, plus the Gulf War was his fault kinda...) but if everyone else thinks we should not march into Iraq...we shouldn't. It's that simple I think...but politics confuse me. I just think that general rule/opinion is the overiding factor here.
Personally, I think we should just take out Hussein because he's a tyrant that has killed his own people, shed so much blood to gain power, as well as a vain man...but it's never that simple. I don't understand everything, nor do I know the whole story, so I guess I can't really say...still, I think whenever the US sticks their nose into something, it gets worse. But bleh.
Let's think about Bush. This man was almost defeated by a piece of baked bread. Now think about it...
Edit: Well, Bush isn't doing all that bad from what my (limited) knowledge of politics can tell, but, I mean, that's just not a good idea to go against the rest of the world. (which is basically what the UN is, isn't it? Like 60 other somewhat prominent countries?) And I think Bush may be taking too many chances...
|
|
|
Post by Lans Tartare on Nov 24, 2002 9:46:55 GMT -5
There is a 100% possibility of world war 3, if America attacks Sadaam. But, America wants Sadaam, NOT Iraq. In the same way, America wanted Bin laden, NOT Afghanistan, but the military strikes affect people, not the politicians and the leaders. Osama wanted Bush in panic, but attacks THE people. All in all, my point is that the people will suffer all the different kinds of consequences, NOT the politicians and leaders. So any strike would only result the loss of people....not the politicians. Sadaam will hide somewhere, but the Iraq-ians will get attacked. Sadaam will do his part, but bush won't be the one being attacked, it will be us.
|
|
|
Post by SNK! on Nov 24, 2002 11:29:02 GMT -5
Ugh God I want out of this country, hey Lans Tartare, mind if I move in with you? ;D
|
|