I would rather keep you satisfied........
*thrust.....*
Public opinion on the issue of Iraq???
by Celtic 55 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
siegswife
The way I see it, Saudi Arabia has been proven to be more of a threat to the world than Iraq. They have been bankrolling the terrorists. While I think that Sadaam is a dispicable person, (he's a fascist) he's also a capitalist. From what I've seen, the economy in Iraq isn't doing all that bad, and he's not an extremist muslim.
The invasion of Kuwait was wrong, but we all know that Kuwait is actually a creation of the West, and some people might think that Iraq has a legitimate claim to the land. I don't, but some people might.
I also tend to remember that there are people living in Iraq that want nothing more than to be able to earn a living and support their families. The lives of those people would be at risk and I won't blame them one bit if they take up arms to defend themselves from invaders. I don't think we have any right to go to war with Iraq and agree with the sentiment that this is a UN issue, and if the rest of the world (UN) thinks that Iraq needs to be spanked, then and only then should we get involved with military action against them.
To do otherwise is courting disaster.
-
Crazy151drinker
But the flaw here is the assumption that the Iraqi people like Hussien and Want him. Saddam oppresses his people, murders all opposition, and occasionally gases some kurds. Also, Saddam is a Sunni Muslim while the vast majority of the people are not. Not only do we not want him there, neither do the Iraqies. Lets not forget that Hussien has a history of war. Remember the Iran-Iraq war??? Saddam will continue his goal to be the 'man' and nuclear technology will only make him worse. Does anyone remember the Super-Gun he was trying to build so he could shell Isreal? (foiled when the Mossad assasinated the guns designer). Saddam has some creepy Hitler similarities.
Take Saddam out. Divy up the land. Give some to Jordon, Some to Iran, some to Saudi Arabia, and some to the Iragies and everyone will be happy.
-
LB
Interesting how it always seems to come down to the finger pointing argument about oil.
But today I read that Russia and the USA are negotiating means for Russia to ship it's oil to the US. Wouldn't that change the complexion of world events?
-
ISP
Hey 151.......why didn't the allies get Saddam last time round? When he invaded Kuwait? Or when we saw the sickening pictures gassed Kurds?
ISP
-
Crazy151drinker
Before the Gulf War, U.S. intelligence estimated that Iraq was five to 10 years away from building a nuclear bomb. When the International Atomic Energy Agency team went in after the war, it discovered Saddam was just six months from a crude device. Iraqi scientists had devised a workable weapon design, cobbled together tools and parts and had come very close to refining all of the 44 lbs. of highly enriched uranium necessary to fuel one bomb.
Spooky!
ISP,
The COALITION didnt get rid of Saddam becuase its mission was to remove IRAQ from Kuwait, not to take out Saddam. Also, the Russians dont want to get of Saddam because he owes them BILLIONS and the Russians need the cash. They want the sanctions to be lifted. The Chinese probably want to sell him some toys.....
As far as why didnt we get him when he gassed the Kurds- We didnt really care enough and Neither did ANYONE ELSE. Now we care because it backs up our position that he is EVIL, but like all things, we (and everyone else) only care when it suits us.
-
Francois
I know, I know, I know: The United Nations Mandate did not allow the Allies to go into Bagdhad to get Saddam. The UN is a buncha mote-loving, third-world, democracy-hating assholes that I dearly wish would go away with thier gimmie, gimmie, gimme comeing outta their mouths whilst at the same time they've got re-conditioned AK-47s pointed at our punkin' haids.
So the mandate didn't allow it; Colin Powell wouldn't go for it, Bush lost his nerve and they all reigned in Schwartzkopf (sp) who would have eaten Saddam's lunch in about ten seconds and should have been allowed to.
Going to war over there in '91 should have been handled like going to the bathroom: finish the job, or things are gonna get messy. We didn't finish the job.
I say "COPULATE" the UN!
francois
Edited by - francois on 10 September 2002 16:56:1
-
seawolf
On a MSNBC special they were interviewing the elder George Bush and he said the reason that they didn't go there is because they would be a foreign force occupying the country.
-
hillary_step
Can we not reach a consensus of opinion that a criticism of American Foreign policy is not a criticism of the American people?
I happen to think that having lived there, the US in a wonderful place with some of the most generous and good-natured people that I have ever met. It has certainly been kind to me, but I also think that American Foreign Policy is repeatedly flawed by a lack of understanding of the way that people think outside the US Boundaries.
Churchill sent tens of thousands of Cossacks to their imminent death at the end of WWII. I repudiate his actions, but certainly do not blame the British people, then or now for that action.
Best - HS
Edited by - hillary_step on 10 September 2002 17:23:37
-
bigboi
Saddam may have togo eventually. However to just attack him with no provocation or no legitimate reason is just.....well...unAmerican.
Really though, has this country ever done sucha thing?
ONE....
bigboi