Saddam Hussein...

[CoruscantCosta]

Im not touching or reading this subject. Im way too split about it and whenever I get into it I start blabbing on about bush and blahblahblahblah.

Like I said, I dont wanna touch it.

I dont personally see why people are celebrating his capture actually.

It was no different from when he was put out of power a very long time ago. I guess its just a relief of fear.

In fact....im not gonna go further........

 

[Zepp]

Borsk, you have some good points. Now, I let the weak points pass until I got here...

Originally posted by Borsk
Try this one out: If you were the U.S. president, what would you have done following the World Trade Center attack? What do you think Gore would have done? Would it have been any better?

now here you go a bit out on a limb. There has been evidence of political ties, however there has been no proof that even comes close to justifying the assumption that there was either an alliance with AQ or that Saddam supported AQ. There is strong enough evidence to suggest a non-aggression pact, but beyond that is pure, and dangerous, speculation. Therefore you either have to accept that this war is seperate from the war on terror, and thus fall back on a weak argument about WMDs that might or might not exist, unfortunately dubya kicked out the inspectors before they could find anything, or say that the civil wars were one-sided slaughter.

I agreed with the war in Afghanistan, it was long overdue in fact, but to go against Iraq, and the manner in which they went after him (bombing his mansion in the middle of a residential area which is terrorism since it was not a military target among other things), was stepping over the line in the sand.

UN sanctions are another can of worms entirely and I won't even start on those.

 

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by Borsk

Try this one out: If you were the U.S. president, what would you have done following the World Trade Center attack? What do you think Gore would have done? Would it have been any better?

ok, I know I said wouldn't post any more, but...I do think that Gore wouldn't have handled it any better. In the elections you were stuck with a lose-lose. IMO, the best person seemed to be McCain.

This is gonna sound really cruel, but if it were not for what happened on 9/11, would the president be what he is today? Would he still be the person who was mocked endlessly by the papers, comics, tv and everyday people? My asnwer would be yes.

And to show that it is not just the American goverment that pisses me off(freedom fries?! Seeing as people are unableto forget history, and that WWII will always come up, let it be remembered that America would not have won the American Revolution without the help of the French. Where did the Statue of Liberty come from? France- so give that back to France if you are gonna boycott all things French), I can't stand the UK's goverment anymore than yours.

 

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by AmShak

Since this WAS A WAR,

a war is when two sides engage

so, the states should get rid of all of their weapons and let people like saddam do what ever they likes? get real maybe if they hadn't spent so much on the arms budget, and put more money towards health and education.

My main beef about Bush and the war, is they had no afterplan, as is signifiantly obvious now. More people have died after Bush declared the 'war' over than during the actual war.

There is no control

 

[AmShak]

Originally posted by Nightwing
a war is when two sides engage

war
(1): a state of usu. open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.
(2): a period of such armed conflict
(3): a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.
(4): a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious
(5): the waging of armed conflict against an enemy
(6): an active struggle between competing entities
(7): a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply

 

[Borsk]

People still make fun of Bush all the time (just like they always have). I have no problem with that.

As far as I can tell, the justification for the Iraq war was to prevent future terrorist actions against the U.S. regardless of whether the Iraqi government had anything to do with the WTC attack. If you take the approach that Iraq had to be implicitly involved with the WTC attack in order for the war to be justified, then it's fairly clear that you will never be satisfied with the reasoning. On the other hand, if you take the approach that Saddam and company had the intent to initiate future attacks against the U.S., then a case can be made for that. I don't agree with the way we "sold" the war to the rest of the world. However, that doesn't mean that it was totally unjustified.

The "War on Terror" isn't about just "getting even" with the people that were involved in the WTC attack. It's about making sure that sort of thing doesn't happen again. I certainly don't have all the facts, so I'm not arguing specifics. And this issue is most definately not black and white, so it is hard to be totally supportative of the U.S./Bush, but at the same time not every event that happens or decision that's made is bad. My philosophy is a bit different than some of you guys I guess.

"Freedom Fries" and all the rest of that was stupid. I thought so at the time and still think so. I'm not a big fan of France, but some things get a bit to "out there" for me. Since you brought up WWII - didn't the U.S. get harrassed for not doing anything in that war initially. I'm sure the French didn't appreciate that, just like we didn't appreciate their recent actions. Anyway, I don't personally know anyone that went around calling French Fries "Freedom Fries" - the whole thing was blown out of porportion, IMO.

Don't get the wrong idea when I post this stuff. I'm just having a calm discussion. I don't think there's a clear-cut correct answer to any of it and Costa saying that he has a split opinion about it illustrates the point.

I dont personally see why people are celebrating his capture actually.

The threat of Saddam coming back and resuming his "activities" would've always existed if he was not captured or confimed dead. It seems like the Iraqi people were nervous about doing anything that would displease Saddam because the threat still remained. They're happy because they don't have to worry about that any longer. Some Americans are happy for 3 reason: 1) because it make life better for the Iraqis 2) potentially makes life easier/safer for our troops 3) and for the people that think Saddam had something to do with the WTC attack, it's the next best thing to getting Bin Laden.

 

[Nightwing]

4: great publicity for Bush's re-election campaign!

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by Nightwing
4: great publicity for Bush's re-election campaign!

Is that something to be happy about?

The main reason people are happy is because it is a relief, it seems more over than it did before...

 

[Nightwing]

that was sarcasm

I think that it is good that Saddam has been caught, but he is not the main prize as I have said before.

 

[Borsk]

He's not the "main prize" when talking specifically about the WTC attack. No.

 

[Barada]

Well, I'm glad the last couple of posts seem to have taken a more calm approach. It was starting to look like it was about to overheat there.

Arguing politics is like arguing religion. No one will convince the other side they are right, or why the other is wrong. For everyone who thinks the war was justified, there's someone to say it was a senseless act of aggression.

Let me get something clear that EVERYONE should be able to agree on. Saddam Hussein is not only out of power, but is now incapable of regaining it. This is a good thing for anyone that wasn't a close ally of his.

One of my friends at work immigrated here from Iraq, and still has plenty of family there. I have been asking for his viewpoint on this since the beginning. He has been totally supportive of the American actions, and while he has his concerns for his family's safety, he said it was better to get him than to let him escape again. Apparently, his family, living just outside Baghdad, agrees with this train of thought. There was constant fear that Saddam may have found his way back into power, and people were terrified of speaking out against him until now, for fear of reprisal should he become their leader again.

Sometimes war is simply a necessary evil.

Barada

 

[Zepp]

The way the war came about was a problem. I am@glad Saddam has been removed from power, although keeping him in Baghdad is not a good idea and could result in his return to power... but I digress.
I have changed peoples minds and occasionally had my mind changed through political discussion. If you try to convert someone who is obstinate and does not allow any openness of mind the discussion usually doesn't move, but if the person actually thinks then there is a chance at agreement. The problem in America is career politicians, but that is a discussion for another day... Anyway, the fact of the matter is no matter how you bake the cookies the attack was unjustified. You need evidence enough for a warant to make an arrest, dubya tried to get the death penalty without enough evidence even for a warant...