Bush's Ultimatum: War Begins on 3/19/03?

Remove all ads!

Sticking with Beelzebub's analogy... Have you ever been in a restaurant where the booth behind you is occupied by a family with at least one child who won't stay seated? This child runs around, kicks your seat, pulls your hair, throws food or other things onton your table, is very noisy, etc. Periodically the parents say, "Oh Honey, stop that. Sit down and eat your dinner," and go back to their meal, ignoring the child until the next time you glare at them. Why should the child obey? The ONLY thing he's learned from this encounter is that his parents are wimps who don't really mean what they say.

Saddam is that child. The UN makes really LOUSY parents. They've spent the last 12 years telling Saddam to do something without anything more that a hint of enforcement. Their threats are meaningless, and Saddam called their bluff on every turn. Why shouldn't he?

Now, Beelzebub, if you've read the rest of this thread you'll know that I'm not in favor of war. But right now, since we can't re-create history, what else could be done? Back to the parenting analogy, it's time for the brat in the restaurant to have his bottom warmed but good. Yes, it would have been better for the parents to establish credibility regarding discipline early on so that such behavior would be prevented - but they didn't.

Trust me, I don't use the UN's coddling of Saddam as a role model for raising my son.

 

Rallymama: I'd like to expand the picture a bit:

What happens now is that one of the guests in the restaurant grabs the child and beats it senseless with a big stick.

Is this how you treat your child? I hope not.

It all has to do with the correct choice of measures...

 

More info is coming out as to the real conditions in Iraq. Freedom really is worth fighting for.

For more read http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030321-023627-5923r

 

Depaara, sorry for the spelling. But I read in the faq, rules concerning grammar and spelling aren't too harsh handled concerning people from not english speaking countries, for example.. me

Anyway, others have stated my point better than I could. There's no link between 9-11 and Iraq.

Has anyone heard from that song that is topping the egyptian charts. It's something like "americans don't care for our blood, they only want our oil. americans go home.

As American I wouldn't expect a "warm" welcome in the Arabian World, nor would I expect that the Iraqis see american troops as "benevolent liberators". If that's the way, they want to be percieved, than they have to do a lot, a whole lot, to prove towards the inhabitants of their new colony, that their intentions really are good and they're not only after the oil.

 

Most people might find it difficult to accept someone as a liberator who's throwing bombs at them.

Take the Shiites: During the shiite uprising against the cruel regime of Saddam, which was left unsupported by the US and brutally quelled and gassed by Saddam, the allied air patrols from "Southern Watch" just watched the slaughter from above. They might well wonder why this time their human rights should be the reason for action.
It must be more than that then Clinton was pesident, that as a reason alone won't satisfy them (me neither).

Whenever the US claim to fight for freedom and liberty in the arab world, they will find it very hard to counter the opinion of the arab masses that the US are just out for the oil. Whenever the US say that, the arab reply will be "What about the human rights of the palestinians in israeli occupied territories?". And the US will have to find a satisfying reply for that to avoid destabilising the pro-US gvt's in the region.

[ March 24, 2003, 18:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa -

Clinton was a good man, but he made the error of trusting and following the wishes of the U.N.

Dubya has weaknesses, but has one important strength: he learned from past mistakes.

 

Hopefully.

 

That would be a topic for another thread ... I think Clinton is an evil, lying scumbag who ruined the economy (but like I said, we shouldn't discuss that here )

Bush does have the strength of character to learn from past mistakes. I'm thanking God he is our leader during these difficult years.

 

I find it funny that people think you supported Clinton just because you think Bush II is a very dangerous man for the world, for the US most of all. I think Clinton was a hypocritic sleazy politician, not a good nice guy at all, and that has nothing with his sexual adventures to do but with his hypocritical politics. But atleast he is not aiming at wrecking justice and law internationally and democracy on his domestic scene. Someone that does not shy away from rigging an election can not be a good man, no matter what you say.

 

ummm joc ... go look and see what Clinton did with the military.

Bosnia
Somolia
... both to cover up domestic scandals.

At least Bush has a more noble goal.

More on Saddam ...

I'd rather go to war to stop someone like that, than because my commander and chief was getting a hummer in the Oval Office.

Oh, and rigging the election ... that is such a false accusation that it doesn't deserve a documented reponse.

 

Somalia was initiated by George Bush Senior.

Clinton had campaigns in

• Haiti - Brought democracy
• Bosnia - Prevented genocide and other very "Saddam-ish" practices

Both of these were just.

When I refered to Dubya learning from past mistakes - I meant, in particular, following the U.N.

[ March 24, 2003, 21:09: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

@Yago. I don't care about most bad spelling -- that's the moderator's job -- but I'd like it if people could at least get my name right -- which you did this time, so thanks!

You have a good pont about the welcome the U.S. is likely to get from the Arabs if the perception is that all they want is the oil. Howevever, another country benefitting from U.S. military aid (S. Korea) recently nearly fell over themselves to be nice to the States when Rummy suggested American troops might pull out of there. The Saudis and Kuwaitis (while I don't know what there present stance is to the U.S.) would probably do likewise if the U.S. considered leaving.

 

Probably. But as for Saudi-Arabia that might very suddenly change when the king dies. Diplomacy, including the request for military support, always reflects the needs and demands of the ruling elite. The people in Sudi-Arabia are much less pro-west than their king.

Mind that iirc 14 of the 15 9/11 bombers were saudi, Bin Laden is a saudi either. The islamic wahabi direction, a very conservative direction in islam originating in Saudi-Arabia, can frequently be found among the mujaheddin volunteers in chechnya, afganistan (among the taliban especially - not really surprising as they were educated in islam in saudi-financed koran schools) and the like.
With that in mind it might be more effective to shoot a couple of saudi billionaires and confiscate their property than to fight iraq to get rid of terror

So what you hear from the countries is sometimes misleading and it doesn't necessarily represent the opinion of the people.

 

Yep, I agree with Ragusa. The US has lost in recent years two strongholds in the Middle-East. Iran and Iraq.

And I guess the time of the family Saud is over. At least if they don't change and do what their people want. Anyway, Saudi-Arabia is about to break away (and poses a big terroristic threat). And I'm pretty sure that in this case I got the same viewpoint as Rumsfield and co.

So they need to get Iraq back, or they would lose control over the region.

 

Given how chaotic things are over in the Middle East, I would hardly say that the U.S. was ever "in control".

I am not a fan of the House of Saud, but do you really think they could be removed? They are pretty ruthless folks, and (going back to the point made by several folks) backed up by the U.S. I don't see much chance of the Saudi govt. going down.

 

Hello again to everybody. First of all i want to remind to everyone that during the first gulf war there was not such a protest by the people that is now. Isn't that a fact; Secondly do you really know what is going on in Middle East or in Asia; Does anyone knows the conditions these people are living in; Do you have the idea that they are leading their lives as we do; Do you know that their religion is so different than ours and in ethics and in restrictions. The Iraq nation was exiled from the rest of the world for 12 years do you know how many people sufferred and died in there during this period; I heard that the general of the US said they have NOT found any biological or chemical weapons and there might not be any. Then where is the threat that Shaddam posed; So far a rather large number of children is dead and more than a thousand will die in the siege (children). Aren't these the same that the president of the USA claimed his nation was trying to save. And i'm sorry but in Afganistan the situation is far more worse than before 9/11. The appointed by the UN; goverment has control only in the capital and in the rest of the country there is chaos on the loose. Read my first reply to see the facts that were given by the UN six months ago give or take. Furthermore you should understand that i don't support in any way Shaddam Husein or his goverment. He should be brought to justice by his people that's my conflict with this war His people the Iraqi people must decide the fate of their nation and its goverment not me not you not anyone and especially not anyone who only cares about the oil and the profit he can make out of this. Peace to everyone

 

How was House Saud established? I don't think that it was western nations supporting a "democratic" vote...

All of the governments in Arab nations are despised by all except themselves (the governments). Just talk to arabs outside the Middle East and they can help you understand that. Westerners love to talk about how cruel such governments are, but who put them there? Prior to these puppet governments what was in the Middle East? (Pre WW2)

Mathetais. I think Saddam is a ****. Does that mean that we now go to war and endanger the lives of millions (such as in Basra with water hygiene problems) in order to get 1 man. I think that the US can (and should have) simply go in and knock him off.

I also like the way that you quote how the Assyrians and other christians were so brutally massacred by him. Do you think that worse than what he did to muslim Kurds, Jews and the muslim Shiites in the south of Iraq and other humans? He has also treated the Turkomans and northern arabs pretty badly. (I know personally Iraqis, arabs and kurds, that would be executed if they ever went back there...)

Saddam is willing to blow away his own flesh and blood family members, so of course he will treat those not so close with a lot less...fondness....

I saw a French documentary about the sales of weapons of mass destruction technlogies to Iraq during the 80's during the war against Iran, the great "evil". It was very intersting to see the French, German, US and Soviet governments all helping Saddam to get to the point where he is now, and now attempt to topple him, causing "minimal" harm to the Iraqi people.

Yes Iraqis want Saddam gone, but no they don't want the US to replace him. They want an independent and individual nation. Not a pawn. They have been that for too long.

A very interesting article in London by Dr Chabali explained well how the average Iraqi does not support Saddam in any way, yet will still fight the US, because their houses are being destroyed, their lives are in shambles, and their loved ones are being injured or killed. I would do the same if I was attacked, and I bet my bottom dollar that US citizens would (and should) if the same happened to them.

Senator Riegle specifically stated that the US supplied anthrax and other bacterial cultures to Saddam in the 80s. That was when Rumsfeld was visitng Iraq, something he did not even admit until 20 years later. People don't do that unless they have something to hide.

Now some US military personal who served in the first Gulf War come up with strange medical symptoms linked to biological weapons. Saddam must have done that. Senator Riegle says that the errors of the US are now coming back to haunt us.

There must surely be a better way to remove tyrants like Saddam than to ruin the lives of millions of people and destroy an entire city or so in the name of a "just war"...which this is not...

 

No, I don't think his persecution of the Christians is worse than that of the Jews, Kurds or Muslims ... it just strikes closer to home for me, so I usually have more information on his anti-Christian actions.

On the assasination idea ... I've long hoped we would send in a Seal team or such to take Saddam out ... but I think there are some good reasons we haven't.

 

The idea was some leftist inspired "When you don't try to kill our president we don't try to kill yours" along with the totally abstruse idea that presidents, rogue or note, democratic or not, represent a soverign country and so.

For some weird and idiotic and coward reason, the President Ford's 1976 Executive Order No. 12333, prohibiting the government from abetting in the assassination of political or terrorist leaders, the US haven't killed other presidents anymore!!!

but here are the good news

Fire at will! That must be the kind of international law that even Darkwolf will like And when even human rights watch ( leftists! ) sees it that way ...

 

Edited because of senseless nonsense.

Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy. (Aristotle)

[ March 26, 2003, 21:57: Message edited by: Yago ]