VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:18:51 03/19/03 Wed
Author: WarCore
Subject: would've answered earlier but Voy was down
In reply to: Goktimus Prime 's message, "Saddam Hussein" on 22:41:44 03/14/03 Fri

Terrorism is always wrong - but I'm merely saying that blindly blanketing all terrorists as malicious is also looking at issues too simplistically. As you pointed out yourself, many terrorists are warped youths.

I think you can say that all forms of true terrorism are malicious. “I have a problem with the body that is oppressing me…I’ll kill the children of the people around me.” Malicious. Misdirected. Warped. Frankly, evil. Comparing it to the example of a person stealing bread to feed their hungry children, this is more like the person breaking into someone else's house, killing the kids and then saying "feed me and my family".

Actually he has started dismantling some of his missiles, which I think is a positive sign.

Yes, a positive sign that he’s willing to dismantle those missiles and not admit to any others.

(1) Iraq has *never* attacked anyone outside its borders since the Persian Gulf War. Its military was devastated in that war. Hell, Saddam can't even control the Kurds in his own country, which shows how disempowered his military capacity is

Iraq’s military was not devastated in the Persian Gulf War. They were repelled out of Kuwait and the UN prohibited going after him and the military. Iraq’s military is alive and well.

(2) Saddam has said that if Iraq is attacked, that he will use destructive weapons. Of course he would. If someone landed troops on US soil, wouldn't you expect the US military/govt to use destructive weapons on the enemy?

The US would likely use weapons, but not against themselves as Iraq has proven it would do. The US wouldn’t use civilians as shields either, or set our resources on fire.

Seriously.. what would a war accomplish? Would it take out Saddam's supply of weapons of mass destruction? Nobody even knows where they are, if he has them.

The UN knows he had them in the past and via the weapons declaration he was supposed to prove he got rid of them. The declarations pages that were supplied where inaccurate (the recent discovery of illegal missiles proves that) and old (some pages were 12 years old.

Where's the proof that he's got nuclear arms? Alright, for the sake of argument, let's presume that he has. How would attacking Iraq solve this?

Never said he had them, said if he’s building them that can be a huge problem. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia lay open to him if he has them, and nuclear arsenal has enough clout that governments will fear resorting to military actions. India and Pakistan were waving their nuclear sabers recently and everyone on the world stage shuddered.

And where is this "will to use it"? He hasn't even touched Kuwait or any other foreign nation for the last 12 years. If Saddam really wanted to use a nuke, I don't think obliterating Baghdad's going to stop him... if anything, it would probably encourage him.

History. Launching missiles at Israel in the past is proof enough that he was willing to use them. Launching missiles at his own people is also proof enough that he is willing to use them.

As for the Saddam - Hitler comparison... again, he's not going out and invading other countries.

He tried that…Kuwait, remember? My earlier statements explain why he’s still a problem.

Internal oppression? Iraq's a pretty bad place to live in if you want to vote or openly speak against the government. Yes, his dictatorship is a regime. But other than a lack of political activism, it's not THAT bad of a regime. They have reasonably well maintained infrastructure. Saddam provides his people with FREE health care!

“Free” health care provided by moneys made from Oil. And he charges insane prices to the hospitals for the medicines they need. Iraq in general is a depressed area yet the riches poured into his palace are extremely in excess.

I'd like to see the US provide the American people with free health care.

Me too =)


Even Australia's Medicare system is really free, since it's paid through our taxes (although it's a helluva lot better than the US's health system which seems to only work for the rich).

What percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes?

Saddam Hussein may be an oppressive control monkey, but he's not stupid. He hasn't remained a dictator for this long without giving something back to the people.

Yes, the loaded gun and the iron fist.

Saddam is obsessed with staying in power. Democratically speaking, it totally sucks. Even his oppression against the Kurds isn't working well. Hitler kept the Jews in check (by inventing things like Visas for your passports) and he was displacing and slaughtering them by the droves. Saddam is NOT doing this to the Kurds. Okay, he's not exactly treating them as proper citizens either, but he's not outrightly persecuting them on the same level as Hitler.

Um actually, Saddam enacted a relocation campaign where Kurds where he forcibily uprooted Kurds and moved them around different areas of the country while placing arabs in the former Kurdish homes. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the north slaughtering them by the droves. He’s outrightly persecuting them and on the same level as Hitler but without an Aushwitz…yet…

There are FAR worst dictators than Saddam. Look at Mogavi. Shit, what's the US doing about him? North Korea... Iraqi people get free health care whilst North Korean people don't even have food!

Iraq in many areas has similar problem with food…let’s not kid ourselves. As for North Korea, back in 98 they pulled the same thing and the US provided them with 6.4 billion dollars in revenue to be used for food and medicines. Unfortunately (I think it was a bad move, it set precedence for the North) North Korea spends most of its money on its huge behemoth of an army.

And China is MUCH worse when it comes to violations against human rights than Iraq, but the US won't touch them because right now, China is the only country in the world that has the capacity to sustain a long-term drawn out war with the US with the outcome favourable to neither side.

Don’t think they’re much worse but that’s debatable.

If the US attacks Iraq, they will annihilate Baghdad off the face of the Earth. Saddam will lose within a matter of weeks if not months, no doubt's there.

Baghdad will not be wiped off the face of the Earth. US forces would occupy Baghdad in an urban fight in the hopes to maintain order in whatever temporary government is set there. The Taliban attacked the United States and Afghanistan wasn’t “wiped away”.

No matter what Saddam has, we KNOW that he does NOT have the might to take on the United States. Like I said, he can't even control the bloody Kurds within his own borders let alone sustain a drawn out campaign with the US. The US would win a war with Iraq, no worries. (PS: Saddam knows this)

After the Persian Gulf war Saddam went back to his country and publicly announced the great victory of Iraq. With the loss of Turkey being a launching point for a dual pronged attack, the US may have more difficulties than previously thought. I already mentioned the Kurds and how he deals with them.


Oh, as for the notion that Iraq is in cahoots with terrorists, where is the evidence for this?

I personally never said this, I think. If I gave that impression, I’m sorry. He maybe and he may not be. I think I just said “maybe”. There is no evidence and even the message from Bin Laden saying that he stands with his Iraqi Brethren was not that much of evidence.

How much support would Al Qaeda be receiving from Iraq, if any. Remember, as far as Al Qaeda is concerned, the Iraqis are infidels. They are shi-ait (sp?) Muslims

Islam stands with Islam when it comes to a choice of Islam or the Infidel. This is in the Qur’an.

and as far as the Iraqi govt is concerned, the vice-president is a Christian! In fact, a significant proportion of the Iraqi people are Orthodox Christian.

Huh-what? When did this happen?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.