Yes but war is the only way to get rid of Saddam on a humane time scale. And getting rid of Saddam is the only way to make people's lives better.
Tough call. Impose a U.N. sanctioned election on the country. That might have helped. Sanctions like this would have probably led to war anyway, but it would have been Saddam who started it, opening the door to a legal regime change via the U.N. rather than the mess we may have caused.
I swear it, i will fight until death any countrie who will try to catch my camenbert and my wine.
AT THIS very moment I am savoring the lingering aftertaste of strong Camembert and Baquette[sp?]!!
If these are chemical factories I feel that they might not want to make positive Identification until after the war . . . (that is, if there will be a 'victory'for the "coalition)
If they announce positively that they discovered these then there would be virtually no reason for Saddam to wait to use them.
You do realize how little sense this makes, right? If these are weapons plants and we have found them then Saddam knows he can no longer hide them, whether we say they're producing weapons or not.
Or maybe they're not weapons plants now... until we finish "preparing" them, that is.
It would serve the coalition much better to justify the war as soon as possible. The fact that they haven't done so with this site should be proof enough that the site is not producing WOMD.
No, if we say that we are uncertain then he can still manipulate world opinion . . . but to do so, he needs to NOT use the weapons that he has . . . . once we say for sure that we were right then what does he have to loose
so we say "no conclusive traces were found" and risk the manipulation of world sentiments by Saddam's tactics on the battle-field rather than risk loosing soldiers to gas
Tough call. Impose a U.N. sanctioned election on the country.
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
Bwa ha ha haha
are you serious?!?
Have to agree with you here! x2
It's like they think they are dealing with friendly Joe Schmoe in downtown America. Never once does it seem they do a reality check of these "ideas" against present-day Iraq. It never sinks in that any plan that starts with "UN sanctioned..." will not be worth more than the paper that Saddam uses to wipe his greezy a$$ with (implying that is what he would do with it as soon as you handed him the paper order).
Seriously, that is quite the riot that he could even offer that suggestion with a straight face.
Actually, if Saddam were to use WOMD, it would be as a threat, and not as a direct weapon against the invasion. He's not stupid. He would kill people outside of his country, preferably Israel (after all, according to the pro-war mob, he has thousands of SCUDs hidden somewhere) to send a message to the US, "retreat, or it'll get worse". That way he keeps a high opinion among his people ...
"high opinion among his people"? That's an interesting thing to say
You do realize how little sense this makes, right? If these are weapons plants and we have found them then Saddam knows he can no longer hide them, whether we say they're producing weapons or not.
Exactly, and so has no reason left to hold back using the weapons. No point in hiding them and holding them back if the cat is out of the bag. So it makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Or maybe they're not weapons plants now... until we finish "preparing" them, that is.
Yes, I am sure the US will have to plant evidence to justify the war.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
It would serve the coalition much better to justify the war as soon as possible. The fact that they haven't done so with this site should be proof enough that the site is not producing WOMD.
Why sooner? Think France will change it's mind just because the US finds evidence? If releasing the info early causes Saddam to forget the ruse and try using chem/bio weapons against the US, do you think the US military sees this as a good thing or a bad thing?
For the record, I thought the US had pretty much said that they didn't think it was a chem weapons facility.
Actually, if Saddam were to use WOMD, it would be as a threat, and not as a direct weapon against the invasion. He's not stupid. He would kill people outside of his country, preferably Israel (after all, according to the pro-war mob, he has thousands of SCUDs hidden somewhere) to send a message to the US, "retreat, or it'll get worse". That way he keeps a high opinion among his people for not harming them directly, and he gains favour among the terrorists who hate Israel anyway (even though most Muslims would still condemn the action). Fighting the US with chemical weapons in his own territory, and affecting his own Muslim people would gain the sympathy of no one.
Cus he hasn't used chem weapons against his on people already? Buddy, if he thought it would help him, he would gas the whole city.
Honestly, please say it again for clarification: Saddam wouldn't use chem weapons on US troops, because he might harm a few of his own people? And that he would concerned they might not like him for it? Please, say it again!
"High opinion" indeed.... try "fear". You should really follow these links and at least try to read some of them before posting again. I don't even think Bunge is gonna back you up after those comments.
After the endless reports over the last few days of the US "underestimating" the resistance, are you still denying that Saddam has the support of at least some of his people?
You still haven't recognized propaganda for what it is?
And you haven't recoqnised how a repressive regime enforces 'loyalty'. Yes, resistence is stronger than first thought. This could be for a number of reasons.
1)They truly love Saddam and want to keep him in power.
2)Those most loyal to him have the most to gain. If you were known in the country as a loyal henchman to a dictator, it would be in your best interest to support him vigorously. Mob hangings if you lose might be on your mind.
3)Go ahead and disobey. The US will look after you. But your family in Baghdad might have some issues, since it is still fully controlled by the regime.
But given the well documented history of terror against his own people, the loyalty must be from their high opinion of him right?
dviant, your point would be made if Iraq had a free press. Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. Only those who witness it could possibly be intimidated by it. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know. Pro-Saddam propoganda does, though.
For another example, look at N. Korea. You're not going to tell me that they too don't worship their "great leader", now are you?
Do me a favor and actually read those links.... k? thx.
What are you getting at? I read the frickin' links, buddy. Are you telling me that the common Iraqi has access to any of that information?
And the taxi-driver in Baghdad? Do you suppose that's the common Iraqi?
You, sir, live a sheltered life indeed.
You think that information of Saddams atrocities can't spread through Iraq by word of mouth? That's beyond sheltered, that's just outright stupid. Do you think these people who have left Iraq are making the stories up? What, you think they all need internet access to have heard stories of what Saddam does? Even without a free press, information can spread through a country about their brutal dictator. How does one even respond to a person that thinks that without a free press the Iraqi people can't possibly pass information aboutthe regime?
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know.
Truly one of the most incredibly ignorant things I have read on these boards.
I read those and they still don't mean that everybody in Iraq wants him dead.
The gas attacks=Kurds want him dead
the rape story= a peace activist's family wants him dead
the human shield = some Iraqis want him dead . . . probably alot of Iraqis
But you don't get it: Stalin was feared and he tortured and murdered . . . it was known but not talked about openly
and yet the Soviets fought with all of their heart during WW2 . . . . and the Purges had allready been at their peak for 4 years . . .
There is a chance that to many of these people they are thinking that they are fighting for Iraq and its people against an aggressor that wants to occupy, divide and plunder its resources . . .
some of them have taken oaths and oaths mean alot in tribal societies
anyway, perhaps they are more afraid of Saddam then the "most advanced army on Earth" that is currently killing them or perhaps they just don't get it... that they are supposed to hate Saddam more than us and that we are just invading in order to 'Liberate' them.
now, wit the Chemical weapons factory and the theory as to why Saddam would wait:
it is very clear strategically if you can think like a dictatr in a pinch with an ambivalent world watching
If you use the weapons to kill a few American soldiers then you, prove to the world that you have them and thus lose possible support and make enemies
By merely Not using them and prolonging a bloody war with visible casalties and cries of injustice you mobilize teh sentiments against the US which, as it sees itself as being ethical, is likely to get pale and not bite the bullet for long with the entire world calling us thugs.
Therefor, I could imagine that the American commanders may have found weapons or facilities and, wanting to allow Saddam to play his mobilizing-public-opinion-strategy, they woud rather loose some short term opinion/support then subject troops to gas.
Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know.
Tonton you most certainly did NOT read those links you troll. Public executions, torture of family members, amputations, mass killings, 15% leaving country. How you can rationalize that no one knows about these things is ridiculous. You're self-imposed ignorance is disturbing.
we were told about a week ago that Saddam had salted the regular units with memebers of his elite guard. they are most likely there to keep people from surrendering, or to pull stunts like the fake surrendering the other day.
there have also been reports of these same guards taking up residence in civilian housing to avoid detection and getting killed by U.S. forces.
if there were a well armed marine in your home, with your family, would you be more or less likely to go against his wishes, and the wishes of their commanding officers?
But you don't get it: Stalin was feared and he tortured and murdered . . . it was known but not talked about openly
and yet the Soviets fought with all of their heart during WW2 . . . . and the Purges had allready been at their peak for 4 years . . .
There is a chance that to many of these people they are thinking that they are fighting for Iraq and its people against an aggressor that wants to occupy, divide and plunder its resources . . .
some of them have taken oaths and oaths mean alot in tribal societies
anyway, perhaps they are more afraid of Saddam then the "most advanced army on Earth" that is currently killing them or perhaps they just don't get it... that they are supposed to hate Saddam more than us and that we are just invading in order to 'Liberate' them.
Absolutely. The Russians fought for their homeland against a force that was known to simply want to impose another oppresive regime on them. The fought for Russia, not for Stalin, though the knew it meant continuing to suffer under him. Better the enemy you know....
Many of the Iraqis may be fighting so hard simply because the feel it is their duty to resist an invading army. It's their homeland and those feelings are understandable.
But to think that they are fighting back because of the "high opinion" they hold for him, is lunacy. Some few may indeed hold him in high regard, cult of personality and all, but most have other reasons I think.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
now, wit the Chemical weapons factory and the theory as to why Saddam would wait:
it is very clear strategically if you can think like a dictatr in a pinch with an ambivalent world watching
If you use the weapons to kill a few American soldiers then you, prove to the world that you have them and thus lose possible support and make enemies
By merely Not using them and prolonging a bloody war with visible casalties and cries of injustice you mobilize teh sentiments against the US which, as it sees itself as being ethical, is likely to get pale and not bite the bullet for long with the entire world calling us thugs.
Therefor, I could imagine that the American commanders may have found weapons or facilities and, wanting to allow Saddam to play his mobilizing-public-opinion-strategy, they woud rather loose some short term opinion/support then subject troops to gas.
I hate to say it, but that's because you guys are blinded by dogma. You don't have the ability to figure something like this out. Maybe it's ignorance, or lack of intelligence, I don't know. But it's not that difficult.
Work it out on paper and see what results you come up with. Then, where the process breaks down, think of a way to avoid it the first time around, impliment it in your paper plan, and rerun it. Keep working on it until you see where it ends up.
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
i guess what i'm trying to say is that as long as he's around and has power, there will be no free elections.
then you say "well then how do we get him out of there?"
again, nothing has worked. 12 years of sanctions didn't bother him one bit. half his country was a no-fly zone, he didn't bat an eye.
solution? remove him by force.
are you saying that there's another option that's likely to work other than removing him by force?
are you saying that there's another option that's likely to work other than removing him by force?
Sort of. I'm saying that as a worst case scenario you could force him to make the first move.
It's disingenuous to say 12 years of sanctions & inspections didn't work. They were working (ever so slowly), so he kicked out the inspectors. Once we got them back in they were working again. Saddam agreed to virtually everything the U.N. required him to do in the past six months to help facilitate the inspections. We had him at a point where he had to agree to everything the U.N. asked for because he knew the only other option was war. So, yes, I think at that point inspections would start to become more fruitful than ever.
The point being that the U.N. could have even imposed U.N. sanctioned elections at this point and Saddam would have no option but to accept. Accept them or start a war to rid his land of the U.N. Even if he accepted the elections and was voted out, I'd still expect him to start a war. But no matter what, even if we ended up with a war, the situation would be much better than the one we're currently faced with.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Yes but war is the only way to get rid of Saddam on a humane time scale. And getting rid of Saddam is the only way to make people's lives better.
Tough call. Impose a U.N. sanctioned election on the country. That might have helped. Sanctions like this would have probably led to war anyway, but it would have been Saddam who started it, opening the door to a legal regime change via the U.N. rather than the mess we may have caused.
Tough call. Impose a U.N. sanctioned election on the country.
Bwa ha ha haha
are you serious?!?
ok, first, who the hell would run against him? you run, you die, your family dies.
if someone else did run, what are the odds it wouldn't just be some puppet of the army's, or saddam's?
how would you do the ballots? who would count them?
would anyone feel free to vote for another canidate?
after all, saddam did just win 99.999% of the vote.
sorry, but as long as he's around and alive i can't believe any kind of election would work.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Do you want to invade France ?
I swear it, i will fight until death any countrie who will try to catch my camenbert and my wine.
AT THIS very moment I am savoring the lingering aftertaste of strong Camembert and Baquette[sp?]!!
If these are chemical factories I feel that they might not want to make positive Identification until after the war . . . (that is, if there will be a 'victory'for the "coalition)
If they announce positively that they discovered these then there would be virtually no reason for Saddam to wait to use them.
Originally posted by tonton
You do realize how little sense this makes, right? If these are weapons plants and we have found them then Saddam knows he can no longer hide them, whether we say they're producing weapons or not.
Or maybe they're not weapons plants now... until we finish "preparing" them, that is.
It would serve the coalition much better to justify the war as soon as possible. The fact that they haven't done so with this site should be proof enough that the site is not producing WOMD.
No, if we say that we are uncertain then he can still manipulate world opinion . . . but to do so, he needs to NOT use the weapons that he has . . . . once we say for sure that we were right then what does he have to loose
so we say "no conclusive traces were found" and risk the manipulation of world sentiments by Saddam's tactics on the battle-field rather than risk loosing soldiers to gas
Tough call. Impose a U.N. sanctioned election on the country.
Originally posted by alcimedes
Bwa ha ha haha
are you serious?!?
Have to agree with you here!
It's like they think they are dealing with friendly Joe Schmoe in downtown America. Never once does it seem they do a reality check of these "ideas" against present-day Iraq. It never sinks in that any plan that starts with "UN sanctioned..." will not be worth more than the paper that Saddam uses to wipe his greezy a$$ with (implying that is what he would do with it as soon as you handed him the paper order).
Seriously, that is quite the riot that he could even offer that suggestion with a straight face.
Originally posted by tonton
Actually, if Saddam were to use WOMD, it would be as a threat, and not as a direct weapon against the invasion. He's not stupid. He would kill people outside of his country, preferably Israel (after all, according to the pro-war mob, he has thousands of SCUDs hidden somewhere) to send a message to the US, "retreat, or it'll get worse". That way he keeps a high opinion among his people ...
"high opinion among his people"? That's an interesting thing to say
Originally posted by tonton
You do realize how little sense this makes, right? If these are weapons plants and we have found them then Saddam knows he can no longer hide them, whether we say they're producing weapons or not.
Exactly, and so has no reason left to hold back using the weapons. No point in hiding them and holding them back if the cat is out of the bag. So it makes perfect sense.
Originally posted by tonton
Or maybe they're not weapons plants now... until we finish "preparing" them, that is.
Yes, I am sure the US will have to plant evidence to justify the war.
Originally posted by tonton
It would serve the coalition much better to justify the war as soon as possible. The fact that they haven't done so with this site should be proof enough that the site is not producing WOMD.
Why sooner? Think France will change it's mind just because the US finds evidence? If releasing the info early causes Saddam to forget the ruse and try using chem/bio weapons against the US, do you think the US military sees this as a good thing or a bad thing?
For the record, I thought the US had pretty much said that they didn't think it was a chem weapons facility.
Originally posted by tonton
Actually, if Saddam were to use WOMD, it would be as a threat, and not as a direct weapon against the invasion. He's not stupid. He would kill people outside of his country, preferably Israel (after all, according to the pro-war mob, he has thousands of SCUDs hidden somewhere) to send a message to the US, "retreat, or it'll get worse". That way he keeps a high opinion among his people for not harming them directly, and he gains favour among the terrorists who hate Israel anyway (even though most Muslims would still condemn the action). Fighting the US with chemical weapons in his own territory, and affecting his own Muslim people would gain the sympathy of no one.
Honestly, please say it again for clarification: Saddam wouldn't use chem weapons on US troops, because he might harm a few of his own people? And that he would concerned they might not like him for it? Please, say it again!
/me hands Tonton a clue and another and another and another...
Originally posted by tonton
After the endless reports over the last few days of the US "underestimating" the resistance, are you still denying that Saddam has the support of at least some of his people?
You still haven't recognized propaganda for what it is?
And you haven't recoqnised how a repressive regime enforces 'loyalty'. Yes, resistence is stronger than first thought. This could be for a number of reasons.
1)They truly love Saddam and want to keep him in power.
2)Those most loyal to him have the most to gain. If you were known in the country as a loyal henchman to a dictator, it would be in your best interest to support him vigorously. Mob hangings if you lose might be on your mind.
3)Go ahead and disobey. The US will look after you. But your family in Baghdad might have some issues, since it is still fully controlled by the regime.
But given the well documented history of terror against his own people, the loyalty must be from their high opinion of him right?
Originally posted by tonton
dviant, your point would be made if Iraq had a free press. Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. Only those who witness it could possibly be intimidated by it. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know. Pro-Saddam propoganda does, though.
For another example, look at N. Korea. You're not going to tell me that they too don't worship their "great leader", now are you?
Do me a favor and actually read those links.... k? thx.
Originally posted by tonton
What are you getting at? I read the frickin' links, buddy. Are you telling me that the common Iraqi has access to any of that information?
And the taxi-driver in Baghdad? Do you suppose that's the common Iraqi?
You, sir, live a sheltered life indeed.
You think that information of Saddams atrocities can't spread through Iraq by word of mouth? That's beyond sheltered, that's just outright stupid. Do you think these people who have left Iraq are making the stories up? What, you think they all need internet access to have heard stories of what Saddam does? Even without a free press, information can spread through a country about their brutal dictator. How does one even respond to a person that thinks that without a free press the Iraqi people can't possibly pass information aboutthe regime?
Originally posted by tonton
Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know.
Truly one of the most incredibly ignorant things I have read on these boards.
The gas attacks=Kurds want him dead
the rape story= a peace activist's family wants him dead
the human shield = some Iraqis want him dead . . . probably alot of Iraqis
But you don't get it: Stalin was feared and he tortured and murdered . . . it was known but not talked about openly
and yet the Soviets fought with all of their heart during WW2 . . . . and the Purges had allready been at their peak for 4 years . . .
There is a chance that to many of these people they are thinking that they are fighting for Iraq and its people against an aggressor that wants to occupy, divide and plunder its resources . . .
some of them have taken oaths and oaths mean alot in tribal societies
anyway, perhaps they are more afraid of Saddam then the "most advanced army on Earth" that is currently killing them or perhaps they just don't get it... that they are supposed to hate Saddam more than us and that we are just invading in order to 'Liberate' them.
now, wit the Chemical weapons factory and the theory as to why Saddam would wait:
it is very clear strategically if you can think like a dictatr in a pinch with an ambivalent world watching
If you use the weapons to kill a few American soldiers then you, prove to the world that you have them and thus lose possible support and make enemies
By merely Not using them and prolonging a bloody war with visible casalties and cries of injustice you mobilize teh sentiments against the US which, as it sees itself as being ethical, is likely to get pale and not bite the bullet for long with the entire world calling us thugs.
Therefor, I could imagine that the American commanders may have found weapons or facilities and, wanting to allow Saddam to play his mobilizing-public-opinion-strategy, they woud rather loose some short term opinion/support then subject troops to gas.
its strad-je-dee, see?!?
Originally posted by tonton
Most of them don't have a clue that Saddam kills thousands of people. These things don't spread by word of mouth, you know.
Tonton you most certainly did NOT read those links you troll. Public executions, torture of family members, amputations, mass killings, 15% leaving country. How you can rationalize that no one knows about these things is ridiculous. You're self-imposed ignorance is disturbing.
Read the damn links already. k? thx.
there have also been reports of these same guards taking up residence in civilian housing to avoid detection and getting killed by U.S. forces.
if there were a well armed marine in your home, with your family, would you be more or less likely to go against his wishes, and the wishes of their commanding officers?
Originally posted by pfflam
But you don't get it: Stalin was feared and he tortured and murdered . . . it was known but not talked about openly
and yet the Soviets fought with all of their heart during WW2 . . . . and the Purges had allready been at their peak for 4 years . . .
There is a chance that to many of these people they are thinking that they are fighting for Iraq and its people against an aggressor that wants to occupy, divide and plunder its resources . . .
some of them have taken oaths and oaths mean alot in tribal societies
anyway, perhaps they are more afraid of Saddam then the "most advanced army on Earth" that is currently killing them or perhaps they just don't get it... that they are supposed to hate Saddam more than us and that we are just invading in order to 'Liberate' them.
Absolutely. The Russians fought for their homeland against a force that was known to simply want to impose another oppresive regime on them. The fought for Russia, not for Stalin, though the knew it meant continuing to suffer under him. Better the enemy you know....
Many of the Iraqis may be fighting so hard simply because the feel it is their duty to resist an invading army. It's their homeland and those feelings are understandable.
But to think that they are fighting back because of the "high opinion" they hold for him, is lunacy. Some few may indeed hold him in high regard, cult of personality and all, but most have other reasons I think.
Originally posted by pfflam
now, wit the Chemical weapons factory and the theory as to why Saddam would wait:
it is very clear strategically if you can think like a dictatr in a pinch with an ambivalent world watching
If you use the weapons to kill a few American soldiers then you, prove to the world that you have them and thus lose possible support and make enemies
By merely Not using them and prolonging a bloody war with visible casalties and cries of injustice you mobilize teh sentiments against the US which, as it sees itself as being ethical, is likely to get pale and not bite the bullet for long with the entire world calling us thugs.
Therefor, I could imagine that the American commanders may have found weapons or facilities and, wanting to allow Saddam to play his mobilizing-public-opinion-strategy, they woud rather loose some short term opinion/support then subject troops to gas.
its strad-je-dee, see?!?
dead on again.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Have to agree with you here!
[/B]
I hate to say it, but that's because you guys are blinded by dogma. You don't have the ability to figure something like this out. Maybe it's ignorance, or lack of intelligence, I don't know. But it's not that difficult.
Work it out on paper and see what results you come up with. Then, where the process breaks down, think of a way to avoid it the first time around, impliment it in your paper plan, and rerun it. Keep working on it until you see where it ends up.
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
You're like children. Do you think you just say to Saddam "Saddam, have free elections" and then he says "No" so you give up? No offense, but you can't be that simple minded, can you?
i guess what i'm trying to say is that as long as he's around and has power, there will be no free elections.
then you say "well then how do we get him out of there?"
again, nothing has worked. 12 years of sanctions didn't bother him one bit. half his country was a no-fly zone, he didn't bat an eye.
solution? remove him by force.
are you saying that there's another option that's likely to work other than removing him by force?
Originally posted by alcimedes
are you saying that there's another option that's likely to work other than removing him by force?
Sort of. I'm saying that as a worst case scenario you could force him to make the first move.
It's disingenuous to say 12 years of sanctions & inspections didn't work. They were working (ever so slowly), so he kicked out the inspectors. Once we got them back in they were working again. Saddam agreed to virtually everything the U.N. required him to do in the past six months to help facilitate the inspections. We had him at a point where he had to agree to everything the U.N. asked for because he knew the only other option was war. So, yes, I think at that point inspections would start to become more fruitful than ever.
The point being that the U.N. could have even imposed U.N. sanctioned elections at this point and Saddam would have no option but to accept. Accept them or start a war to rid his land of the U.N. Even if he accepted the elections and was voted out, I'd still expect him to start a war. But no matter what, even if we ended up with a war, the situation would be much better than the one we're currently faced with.