How exactly will leaving saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 03:39 AM

I feel sorry for the girl in a way:
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

What would your answer be?

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 21st, 2003, 04:45 AM

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 04:53 AM

I can't listen to that here, but leaving saddam in power is not something that the anti-war people want.

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 05:15 AM

But that is what this war is all about, removing Saddam from power.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 21st, 2003, 05:16 AM

Don't forget the oil.

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Maven
But that is what this war is all about, removing Saddam from power.

I thought it was because you should have a right to pre-emptively stike a country if you feel threatened ?

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
I thought it was because you should have a right to pre-emptively stike a country if you feel threatened ?

So your problem is more or less the legalities of this war?

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:30 AM

My problem, and that of just about ever anti-war person, is of the legalities of war, the futility of war, and that this war is a stupid idea.

Yes Saddam should go, but not this way.
Not by putting civilians at risk.

**Pc_Madness** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
My problem, and that of just about ever anti-war person, is of the legalities of war, the futility of war, and that this war is a stupid idea.

Yes Saddam should go, but not this way.
Not by putting civilians at risk.

Well how would you remove Saddam? Theres no other way.

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:54 AM

Actually I wouldn't get rid of Saddam myself.
I would cause and support a coup within the country, and then send in special forces to help secure and defend the officials opposed to Saddam.

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:02 AM

The last time people rose up agaisnt Saddam, it ended with use of chemcial weapons. I think our troops are better prepared to fight in such a battle as we have protective gear.

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:16 AM

Nobody helped them last time.

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:39 AM

I don’t think the situation would be a whole lot different if at all. I really don’t think the Kurds stood a chance due to chemical weapons alone. They don’t have any kind of protection from them on the ground. Also we would have to use bombs and heavy air support against the Iraqi military. There would also be huge amounts of problems that would occur after the war (if it was successful) because of Turkey. The majority of the population in Turkey is Kurds. They fear that the Kurds in their country would try to overthrow their government.

**Xanith** · Mar 21st, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by plenderj
Nobody helped them last time.

I’m confused. You wanted the people to rise up themselves and topple Saddam without interferance from the outside. Then when they do that and get defeated you say the US or someone should have gone in and helped?

Go in, let their own people topple Saddam, go in, let their own people topple Saddam....which is it you wanted?

We are helping to remove Saddam this time by going in. Sounds to me like what is going on now is what you wanted no?

I guess I am totally confused as to your position on things...on the one hand you want Saddam removed but only through the hands of people within Iraq rising up without US interference. Then when that happens and the people are squashed by Saddam you complain that they were not helped by the US going in?

So you want the US to go in and help defeat Saddam or not? If so then that is what they are doing now and you should be happy.

X

**plenderj** · Mar 21st, 2003, 10:43 AM

You're not helping the Iraqi people.
These are not actions by their doing.
You will end up just killing them.

What I'm saying, is inspire a coup in the country.
If they have mass protests, you send in special forces to watch over the protests and make sure they don't get attacked.

You are the ones taking over the country - not the Iraqi people themselves.

**Futt Bucker** · Mar 21st, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Xanith
I’m confused. You wanted the people to rise up themselves and topple Saddam without interferance from the outside. Then when they do that and get defeated you say the US or someone should have gone in and helped?

Go in, let their own people topple Saddam, go in, let their own people topple Saddam....which is it you wanted?

We are helping to remove Saddam this time by going in. Sounds to me like what is going on now is what you wanted no?

I guess I am totally confused as to your position on things...on the one hand you want Saddam removed but only through the hands of people within Iraq rising up without US interference. Then when that happens and the people are squashed by Saddam you complain that they were not helped by the US going in?

So you want the US to go in and help defeat Saddam or not? If so then that is what they are doing now and you should be happy.

X

Back in 1992/93, America and Britain told the Kurds that if they overthrew Saddam they would help them do it. The Kurds rose up in the North and (Sunni's???) in the South also rose against Saddam. Iraqi defectors have stated that Saddam drew back his forces to Bagdad, until he intercepted a radio communication from the American forces to the Kurds stating that they weren't going to intervene - but would provide the no fly zones (their excuse later was that it would cause a power vaccuum). Once Saddam heard this he sent out his tanks and troops and annihalated the rebels. So now, not only do the Kurds and Sunni's hate Saddam, they also hate Britain and America.

This is one of the fundamental shifts in politics in the area which makes the Allies trying to occupy Iraq such a bad idea (in my view). But even back then Bush Snr. and Schwarkopf decided that trying to occupy Iraq with all these internal factions was a bad idea.

The only possible way out of this that I can see now would be to create three seperate states. All autonomous of each other. Turkey will fight that totally - because this will encourage the Kurds in their claim for Southern Turkey. There will likely be massive repercussions against any member of another "state" who happens to live in the wrong state (especially Ba'ath). There will be fighting over who gets to control the Oil and other resources of ex-Iraq, and there will be constant threat of invasion of any of them from Iran....... all in all, even the best solution I can see, is a bloody mess.

I would have liked to have seen a leadership change over time that wouldn't destroy the Iraqi nation. We all agree that Saddam is a total Bar-stad. But we've let very evil people get away with it many times before when it suits our purpose. I don't think that bringing one man to justice can justify destroying a country.

**Maven** · Mar 21st, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Back in 1992/93, America and Britain told the Kurds that if they overthrew Saddam they would help them do it. The Kurds rose up in the North and (Sunni's???) in the South also rose against Saddam. Iraqi defectors have stated that Saddam drew back his forces to Bagdad, until he intercepted a radio communication from the American forces to the Kurds stating that they weren't going to intervene - but would provide the no fly zones (their excuse later was that it would cause a power vaccuum). Once Saddam heard this he sent out his tanks and troops and annihalated the rebels. So now, not only do the Kurds and Sunni's hate Saddam, they also hate Britain and America. This is one of the fundamental shifts in politics in the area which makes the Allies trying to occupy Iraq such a bad idea (in my view). But even back then Bush Snr. and Schwarkopf decided that trying to occupy Iraq with all these internal factions was a bad idea.

The only possible way out of this that I can see now would be to create three seperate states. All autonomous of each other. Turkey will fight that totally - because this will encourage the Kurds in their claim for Southern Turkey. There will likely be massive repercussions against any member of another "state" who happens to live in the wrong state (especially Ba'ath). There will be fighting over who gets to control the Oil and other resources of ex-Iraq, and there will be constant threat of invasion of any of them from Iran....... all in all, even the best solution I can see, is a bloody mess.

I would have liked to have seen a leadership change over time that wouldn't destroy the Iraqi nation. We all agree that Saddam is a total Bar-stad. But we've let very evil people get away with it many times before when it suits our purpose. I don't think that bringing one man to justice can justify destroying a country.

Saddam Hussein killed more than 5,000 of them with mustard gas in 1988, near the end of the Iran-Iraq war in which the Iraqi Kurds backed Iran. The Iraqi Kurds have also been urged to rebel by America before. They heeded Western calls for a revolt against Saddam Hussein, seizing several towns during the closing chapter of the Gulf War. But the US-led coalition failed to intervene when the Iraqi leader crushed the Kurds' uprising with military helicopters he had been allowed to keep. The death toll may have been as high as 100,000. An estimated 1-2 million Iraqi Kurds fled into Iran and Turkey.

The part about destoring the country... I think the Iraqi said it best in the link I provided in my first post.

**Memnoch1207** · Mar 21st, 2003, 02:51 PM

Yes Saddam should go, but not this way.
Not by putting civilians at risk.

And how would you suggest Saddam be removed? By a coup within the country? Please 90% of iraqs weapons are in the hands of his loyal followers. Do you honestly expect a bunch of goat herders, bedouins and the malnourished civilians to be able to raise up against his regime? Let's not so soon forget what he did to the kurds when they tried to do that very thing. And talk about putting civilians at risk! Saddam has killed more iraqi civilians in his 24 years in power, then any off target coalition missle launches ever could.

or maybe if we ask him nicely for another 12 years he will step down? Or better yet maybe we should just wait another 30 years until he dies?

Face it there is no other way to remove saddam, except by force. Why? because it couldn't be done any other way. He will and has killed thousands who have risen up against him and his regime.

You are the ones taking over the country - not the Iraqi people themselves.

First, we are not taking over anything. This is not an invasion. We are trying to free the iraqi people from almost 25 years of living in fear and starvation. And second the iraqi people do not have the means to accomplish this objective themselves.

All you anti-war people keep bringing up the "Protect The Civilians" argument...Do you not think that is one of our objectives? Do you honestly think that if we started offing civilians we would be welcomed by the iraqi people? Get off your soapboxes, open your eyes and realize that saddam has done more damage to his country and killed more of his own people then the coalition would ever dream of doing!

**Futt Bucker** · Mar 21st, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Memnoch1207

All you anti-war people keep bringing up the "Protect The Civilians" argument...Do you not think that is one of our objectives? Do you honestly think that if we started offing civilians we would be welcomed by the iraqi people? Get off your soapboxes, open your eyes and realize that saddam has done more damage to his country and killed more of his own people then the coalition would ever dream of doing!

And your point would be.....???

Once you get rid of Saddam, what happens to the people then when Iran, the Kurds, The Turks etc all start pissing over them?

If you are so noble in your intent to get rid of dictators, then why aren't you persuing all dictators? Why have a good number of them been best buddies with America for so long? It's very convenient for you to point out attrocities when it helps you argue your case..... but as far as convincing arguments go they fall extremely flat.

Tell me. Why is america attacking Iraq?

Is it because he ignores UN policy.... which America and the UK are now doing (no matter how you dress it up, they didn't put it up for a vote knowing it would be defeated).
Is it to free the Iraqi people? (After you supported him for so many years while he was in power, and what about all the other dictators the US governmetn has supported?)
Is it because he is a threat to the US (despite the fact that no such evidence has been shown, and he doesn't seem to be doing a good job of fighting back against the attack)
Is it so that G.W. Bush might stand some chance of re-election, riding on a wave of patriotism, and diverting attention from Americas finiancial woes......

It would appear he's killing a lot of people just so that he can win an election....

**Memnoch1207** · Mar 21st, 2003, 04:09 PM

Tell me. Why is america attacking Iraq?

For violating the following, which by the way is a UN policy, so how are we violating UN policy? when we are in fact enforcing it.

Resolution 687 states:
- Iraq must respect the border with Kuwait agreed in 1963

- Iraq must accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

- Iraq must declare the elements of its WMD programmes

- Iraq must co-operate with inspections by UN weapons inspectors

- Iraq must accept all responsibility for direct damage due to its invasion of Kuwait

- Iraq must co-operate in accounting for missing Kuwaitis and others missing since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

- Iraq must not commit or support international terrorism

Resolution 688 states:

- Iraq must end repression of its civilian population

- Iraq must allow access to international humanitarian organisations

- Iraq must co-operate with UN Secretary General on needs of Iraqi civilians

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 21st, 2003, 05:27 PM

- Iraq must accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

The weapons inspectors haven't found any weapons so far.

**snakeeyes1000** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:55 PM

All you anti-war people keep bringing up the "Protect The Civilians" argument...Do you not think that is one of our objectives?

If that were not one of the objectives, bahgdad would be little more than Bahgdad valley by now. why do you think the soldiers are going in on foot anyway? why use precision guided bombs? they have daisy-cutters and nukes, napalm and chemical/biological weapons out to yin-yang. citizens are being saved by the thousands, uneccesarily if you ask me(bloody arabs, anyway)

**Futt Bucker** · Mar 21st, 2003, 06:57 PM

France originally backed the UN resolutions on the proviso that it wouldn't necessarily mean war.....

By refusing to even put the matter up for a vote before the UN, it means that Britain and the US know that it will be voted against.

So, regardless of how you dance around the previous resolutions, the UN security council does not want Iraq to be attacked. Therefore, Britain and the US are ignoring the UN security council.

You can pretty it up all you want, but attacking a country under the guise of UN violations, when the UN council clearly does not back the attack is hypocrisy.

**Arc** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:16 PM

What's the difference between America removing Saddam by force and his own people removing him by force?

You seem to think it's ok to have a war in Iraq just as long as it's not America doing the War-ing. Odd.

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:22 PM

What's the difference between America removing Saddam by force and his own people removing him by force?

His own people aren't strong or stupid enough to remove him by themselves.

**Xanith** · Mar 21st, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
France originally backed the UN resolutions on the proviso that it wouldn't necessarily mean war.....

The French are not interested in disarming Saddam they are only interested in lining their pockets with cheap Iraqi oil and defense contracts. Pretty low selling out the Iraqi people not to mention the security of the region out for some oil.

By refusing to even put the matter up for a vote before the UN, it means that Britain and the US know that it will be voted against.

I thought the English plan was a nice compromise. Setting a time frame and specific tests the Iraqi's could meet to prove they were disarming. But the French blocked it. I thought that was pretty low and it obviously showed they cared nothing about disarming Saddam only in the oil deals and defense contracts they signed with an evil dictator.

So, regardless of how you dance around the previous resolutions, the UN security council does not want Iraq to be attacked. Therefore, Britain and the US are ignoring the UN security council.

Then why did everyone vote 15-0 to impose "serious consequences" on Iraq if they didnt comply? The inspectors who you anti-war people love to quote all the time even said Iraq is not in compliance of 1441. Not in compliance = serious consequences....seems pretty simple to me don't know why you are having trouble understanding that.

You can pretty it up all you want, but attacking a country under the guise of UN violations, when the UN council clearly does not back the attack is hypocrisy.

Signing a resolution that calls for "serious consequences" and then doing nothing to back it up is called irrelevance. Which is what the UN has turned itself into.

X

**Memnoch1207** · Mar 21st, 2003, 10:15 PM

Yes, the UN (or rather France, China, Germany and Russia) would have voted against a resolution calling for force. While the UN just keeps talking and trying to resolve this through prolonging the inspections, Bush and Tony Blair were smart enough to realize that another country could be attacked...and not just america.

We'll just have to wait and see when they finally find the WMD's bearing a big "Made in France" label.

**Suzzi** · Mar 21st, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Arc
What's the difference between America removing Saddam by force and his own people removing him by force? You seem to think it's ok to have a war in Iraq just as long as it's not America doing the War-ing. Odd.

Yay! We should have more sovereign nations attacking each other. That'd spice up the news a bit!

I'm glad you didn't see anything wrong with the Russians attacking Afghanistan 20 years ago (ousting the fundamentalist government, which the US put back into power). Good man. Sticking to your guns!

**Nightwalker83** · Mar 21st, 2003, 10:49 PM

Yes, the UN (or rather France, China, Germany and Russia) would have voted against a resolution calling for force. While the UN just keeps talking and trying to resolve this through prolonging the inspections, Bush and Tony Blair were smart enough to realize that another country could be attacked...and not just america.

Doesn't the Allies have to have full backing from the U.N before invading a country?

We'll just have to wait and see when they finally find the WMD's bearing a big "Made in France" label.

Maybe the label will say: "MADE IN THE U.S.A"

**Memnoch1207** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:11 AM

Doesn't the Allies have to have full backing from the U.N before invading a country?

Gee? I don't know? Did Saddam have UN backing when he invaded Kuwait?

Maybe the label will say: "MADE IN THE U.S.A"

It's a known fact the US has never sold weapons to Iraq. However, Germany, France and Russia have sold them equipment to build weapons. And China built their fiber optic communications.

**Suzzi** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Gee? I don't know? Did Saddam have UN backing when he invaded Kuwait?

So, we are just as legitamate in attacking Iraq as they were in attacking Kuwait. That makes me feel so much better.

**Pc_Madness** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Suzzi
So, we are just as legitamate in attacking Iraq as they were in attacking Kuwait. That makes me feel so much better.

Lucky no-one cares how you feel, ey Suzzi?

**Maven** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Doesn't the Allies have to have full backing from the U.N before invading a country?

Maybe the label will say: "MADE IN THE U.S.A"

You have to be breaking a resolution before its Illegal. For example if they voted for a resolution that didn't support war then our campaign would be illegal.

Every war fought except Korean and Gulf war, was fought without UN backing. That means that just about every country in the world has fought without UN backing before.

Legally it’s an open-and-shut case, relying not just on resolution 1441 though, but resolution 678 and 687 too.

Resolution 678 authorizes "all means necessary" (diplomatic code for war). This then gets suspended (crucially not repealed) by a ceasefire in resolution 687, upon conditions (Iraq's disarmament). A breach of resolution 687 of Iraq not co-operating therefore re-invokes resolution 678s authority. Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in material breach of 687, therefore its authorized, also re-authorized by saying "serious consequences".

That point is that we have went down the road of no UN support. At least thats true for the combat but we will have UN support for after war effects.

No I'm willing to bet it has a label that says "Made in Russia". All Nuclear material will definitely say "Made in Germany". Allthough we did sell them some fiberoptic which was probably used in the nuke programs.

**Pc_Madness** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Doesn't the Allies have to have full backing from the U.N before invading a country?

They do, but that won't stop a country like America. In this situation though, I think everyone is aware the UN Security council process is at fault, not the US's eagerness to blow something up.

**Maven** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 03:01 AM

It’s hypocritical of people to say America is criminal for ignoring the UN when American lead wars have been the only ones ever back by the UN. All other wars fought from around 1945 to present have been done without UN backing. That includes the war with France and Algeria and the many wars Russia has been involved in like the invasion of Afghanistan. This is also not the first time America has gone without UN backing. The Vietnam War was fought without UN backing.

Point is that most people have a double standard. Its ok for everyone else to ignore the UN but we are a terrorist naiton if we do it.

**nishantp** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 10:07 AM

This whole argument is screwed. There are excellent arguments against a war, as there are for a war. But I get the distinct impression that your average peace protester has no knowledge of either side. The girl in the audio file is an example. The number of bandwagon opinions in this argument is atrocious. Inside the US at least there are two sides. In Canada where I am, if one guy says "They're doing it all for the oil" Then you get a bunch of stupid nods and "yeah"s from the other people. Its pathetic really.

Also, The Kurds who were abandoned hate the US and the allies for it, but they were also happy when the US invaded some of their towns. They were more cautious, but they didnt oppose US forces. The 91 campaign was a screw up because Bush Sr. was bent over backwards trying to please everyone (the mandate ended with the liberation of Kuwait). At least they've abandoned that doctrine and will get it done this time.

We all feel sad that civilians are going to die in the war. But I find it interesting that Iraqis who have gotten out of Iraq and who can tell their stories are the first to support the war. They pray for their families, but they largely support it. While before the war, we heard few cries for war from Iraq, towns taken by coalition forces have been celebrating. This tells me a lot.

The people who died in collateral damage may have disagreed, but the people who saddam has killed (and would have killed) would also have had something to say about it.

**Maven** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by nishantp
This whole argument is screwed. There are excellent arguments against a war, as there are for a war. But I get the distinct impression that your average peace protester has no knowledge of either side. The girl in the audio file is an example. The number of bandwagon opinions in this argument is atrocious. Inside the US at least there are two sides. In Canada where I am, if one guy says "They're doing it all for the oil" Then you get a bunch of stupid nods and "yeah"s from the other people. Its pathetic really.

Also, The Kurds who were abandoned hate the US and the allies for it, but they were also happy when the US invaded some of their towns. They were more cautious, but they didnt oppose US forces. The 91 campaign was a screw up because Bush Sr. was bent over backwards trying to please everyone (the mandate ended with the liberation of Kuwait). At least they've abandoned that doctrine and will get it done this time.

We all feel sad that civilians are going to die in the war. But I find it interesting that Iraqis who have gotten out of Iraq and who can tell their stories are the first to support the war. They pray for their families, but they largely support it. While before the war, we heard few cries for war from Iraq, towns taken by coalition forces have been celebrating. This tells me a lot.

The people who died in collateral damage may have disagreed, but the people who saddam has killed (and would have killed) would also have had something to say about it.

Even if this war was fought only for oil, I would still support it because it will do good for people in Iraq as well as other nations throughout the world in terms of safety and peace.

Which this isn't a very creditable argument because unlike any other nation, ours does not ever keep what we take. We have always gave it back to the people who inhibit the land.

**Maven** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 10:50 AM

99.8% of the protestors are doing what they are in the name of peace. My point is that they are full of it.

**Futt Bucker** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Maven
99.8% of the protestors are doing what they are in the name of peace. My point is that they are full of it.

Another one of your fabulous statistics???

Where do you get this stuff from? Every one I've seen on here who against the war is against it for very solid reasons (such as unstabilising the reason and causing civil war, increased terrorist recruitment etc.)

Do yuo actually read anyone elses pojnt of view? Or do you just post away in the "knowledge" that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

There are times you know (like this) when neither answer may be right, and it's a question of picking the lesser of two evils.

**Memnoch1207** · Mar 22nd, 2003, 12:56 PM

So, we are just as legitamate in attacking Iraq as they were in attacking Kuwait. That makes me feel so much better.

Once again ignorance prevails...Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991 because his economy was failing he was invaded Kuwait to steal it's riches (Look it up).

1. We are not attacking Iraq. We are attacking the Saddam regime.

2. If you would watch the news you would see that the civilian population in safwan and Um Qsar are welcoming the coalition as liberators. The iraqi people want saddam out of power. And all you anti-war idiots worry about the killing of innocent civilians, and say that the war is wrong....With out this war Saddam would continue to kill his people (But that must be okay with the anti-war establishment, as long as, it isn't the coalition doing it.)

You protest that this campaign will kill innocent civilians, meanwhile saddam has been doing it for 24 years...gee, I don't remember seeing any protests then?

Thread: How exactly will leaving saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

Thread Tools

Display

How exactly will leaving saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

Posting Permissions