but i think this is a coool idea.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021003/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_17
Thanks for the cool link.
The problem is, if Bush wins, Iraq gets Uday, Saddam’s eldest son. Reportedly, this kid is so crazy, he frightens his father. If Saddam wins, the US gets Cheney, who is as duplicitous as Bush but more dangerous because he is smarter.
As Paul Simon said:
“Laugh about it, shout about it,
But when it’s time to choose,
Any way you look at it, you lose.”
Fun to think about, though.
I may just be naive, but haven’t we learned anything from thousands of years of wisdom of mystics, philosophers, religious folk, etc? None of the purists in these aspects ever wanted to kill anyone. What happened to “thou shall not kill”? Not for the sake of a religion or because sanctions will be taken against you, but because you believe it to be right. There is always a better way than to go dropping bombs, shooting, stabbing, fighting, swearing, and demeaning. It only shows our ignorance when we can’t find another way of resolving a problem but instead punch each other out, shoot each other, or bomb each other.
Furthermore, America has a strong hold on the world and it’s economy, it hasn’t been exhibiting behaviours of helping countries to rise from the third world status, if anything it has been helping barry them in it. So if America gets a grip on Kuwait and Iraq (and all their oil), I’m not too sure what impact this will have on the rest of the world but I am willing to be it won’t be good. America would love to have the worlds countries all as democracies, for it would only speed up Americas economy. I am not advocating Communism, Tyranny, or any such principle of thoughts. But I am dismissing the kind of democracy America has been presenting for the last handful of decades.
I don’t believe there is a threat by Hussein based on articles I read about intelligence connection right to Husseins highest officials who themselves claim that after the Gulf War, Iraq doesn’t have the capability to create even a single bomb. But I have said all this in another thread.
My basic point is that very seldom is there a need for war. I would be inclined to say that World War II was a good examle of a need for war - but I can’t even be certain of that, for I have done much research into the topic, and evidence tends to sway from book to book, article to article, and sometimes it seems that even WWII could have been prevented as well as the atrocities Hitler committed to the Jews.
Lastly, many lives will be lost - no one wants that, atleast from a personal perspective (you know, if it was you).
What’s your take?
Why the sudden need for a war? Why now? Why not four years ago when inspectors were expelled? War is not inevitable. Iraq isn’t a threat to anyone at the moment. Presuming that they have weapons considered illegal by the Un, any movement of them would be spotted dtraight away and cause the Un to support an American war. For one Hussein doesn’t want to be bombed out of it as he would lose everything, and two, and probably even more significantly, it would prove that America was right all along. This is the last thing iraq wants. Remember that Iraq is trying to run a propaganda war against the Us, proving it to be trigger happy, and to fuel hatred for the US. Why can’t the World (more notably the US) wait, keep up discussion as the main means of trying to solve the dispute. Don’t forget that even getting inspectors in there is a miracle in itself. Iraq only let them in to avoid a war so they may go so far as to give up some weapons of mass destruction. As long as there’s a chance it’s worth trying.
This is another case of hear it enough times and you stop questioning. The inspectors were NOT kicked out by Iraq- they were withdrawn following an espionage scandal.
Don’t believe that asshole Tony Blair.
My law teacher posed a very interesting situation regarding the war on Iraq. Assuming Bush wants is to get rid of the weapons in Iraq (because no really knows what Bush wants), his main goal is to get rid of Sadaam Hussein. It is the fact that the weapons are in posession of such a irrational dictator that makes Bush target Iraq. Therfore, what he really wants, as he emphasized a couple of months ago is a regime change; he wants Sadaam Hussein out, and to install some sort of democratic system. Well, if he really just wanted to get rid of Sadaam Hussein, and him being out of the picture will avert a total war (probably killing the lives of many people, including innocent civilians, and children), why doesn’t he just put a ridiculous bounty on his head? For 500 million, or even 1 billion dollars? My law teacher joked saying, even his sons might kill him. The war itself is estimated to cost around 22 billion, so you save money, you save lives, and the only loss is the one guy Bush was targeting all along. Though it may be unethical, and will most likely cause the world to severly look down upon Bush, and the American government, I am sure they will be willing to turn a blind eye, knowing millions of innocent lives were saved, a war was averted, and the man assassinated was an internationally renowed terrorist, and a risk to the security of the whole world.
That’s my law teacher humble opinion, which I share, but what do you guys think?
roygabv 
Because you’d get some oter nutter step up and take his place. Think Caesar’s assination, tried to get the republic back on it’s feet, got Augustus instead. Not that he was insane, but the only candidates left to take over from Saddam are nutters too. Like his son. Cutting off the head of system won’t change the systemin this case, it needs to be a wholesale change of regime, take the power out of the cult of Saddam, not reinforce it.
The US has hardly addressed the issue of what is meant to happen when Saddam Hussein is deposed.
Everyone keeps on talking about the US’s desire to implement a “democracy” thus “liberating” the Iraqi people, but this is highly unlikely. Iraq has a 60% Shiite population (the Sunni population - of which Hussein is a member - accounts for just 20%) and the US are incredibly weary of allowing a Shiite party in for fears of a potential alliance with the Iranians (who have a Shiite government). Given that there are three main religious groups in Iraq (Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish) and the fact that the majority of Iraqis are Shiites, the possibility of an election resulting in a Shiite government is quite high - and a situation that the US are eager to avoid. What kind of government are they likely to implement then? According to Scott Burchill (lecturer in international relations at the School of Social & International Studies, Deakin University Melbourne):
“It’s more likely that a dissident former General, possibly involved in war crimes against Iraq’s Kurdish or Shi’ite communities, will be returned from exile and presented as the “democratic opposition” to Saddam Hussein. The US is interested in compliance and obedience rather than democracy. It has rarely, if ever, expressed an interest in democracy in the Middle East where all but one of its friends and interlocutors are authoritarian states. Ideally, a pro-Western, anti-Iranian, secular “iron fist” would do. The recently rehabilitated Iraqi opposition in exile (with whom until recently the US refused to deal) has no democratic credibility and is largely unknown inside Iraq (or in the US for that matter).”
I think it is fair to say that democratisation of the Iraqi state is fairly low on the list of reasons the US hold privately to go to war with Iraq (afterall, they stood by idly for decades while actively funding Hussein’s genocidal exploits, why would they suddenly decide to care about the Iraqi people now?). But nonetheless, the silence offered by the US and UK on what will happen to Iraq once the final bombs have been dropped is disconcerting to say the least and - for me at least - represents one of the main reasons to oppose the war. One thing is clear though: that it will be years before the Iraqi state returns to anything resembling normality.
Doug Feith and Marc Grossman - the two Americans responsible for the US’s post-war plan - say that US troops will be required to stay in Iraq for at least two years after the war, most likely even more. Tommy Franks - a US general - will lead the “occupation government” and this government will, conveniently, assume control over Iraqi oilfields, as well as all other remaining Iraqi infrastructure, for this time. The occupation will be funded almost entirely by revenue made from the sale of Iraqi oil. If, however, Saddam Hussein were to blow up these oil fields in the face of a likely defeat (some sources report that explosives are already in place) the cost of restoring them would be $US 20 billion (on top of the overall cost of rebuilding Iraq placed at $US 30-100 billion, towards which the US has committed an all-too-generous $18.3 million “with $40 million on the way”). But, for the time being, occupation of the Iraqi state depends on revenue from the Iraqi oilfields. But what’s going to happen to the oil - and the Iraqi people - once the US leave? Who’ll be in charge? What happens to the oil? To quote Mr Grossman is his address to the Senate:
“…at the end of the day, the United States will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.”
It may also be worth noting that US companies are queueing up for a slice of the pie. 1,418 US contracts - totalling $3.97 Billion - went in front of the Sanctions Committee just days after George Bush’s pro-war speech to the UN in September.
I leave it to you to decide what the real motivations behind Iraqi occupation may be. 