When will Saddam Hussein get the boot?

AvatarofPower · Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2002 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: When?

I'd say that he's going to be out within a month or two of the US first attacking... but I don't know when that will happen.

Voted the third one...

--
Avatar

"The computer is the most extraordinary part of Man's technological clothing: it is an extension
of our central nervous system. Beside it the wheel is a mere hula-hoop." -- Marshall McLuhan

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: I thought...

Wow rielmajr, I should have included that option in the poll.

Chris

rielmajr · Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:32 pm Post subject: Re: I thought...

In which case you might have considered the possiblity that the central question is: "When will Saddam Hussein be outed?"

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: I thought...

If you haven't taken the poll do it!

Chris

Chris OConnor · Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:43 pm Post subject: Re: I thought...

It started before the end of Q1. Lets see when Saddam gets the boot.

Chris

Thurkon17 · Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2003 10:33 am Post subject: Saddam

I think I may have been wrong about this, and Chris may be right. I don't think there's much doubt Saddam will be out of there pre-December 2004.

Without getting too much into a war debate right now, I was wondering whether Chris minded if I also turn this thread into a war discussion. We can move it if he wishes, but it seems pointless to start a new thread for the same subject.

Whenever someone asks me my opinion about the war in Iraq, I offer my unique take: undecided. That's correct. I don't know. I mean...how can I? I don't have all the information or intelligence the upper eschelon of the Bush administration is privy to...so how can I form a rational take on the situation? I don't trust the Bush administration implicitly, nor would I automatically denouce them as liars with alterior motives. I'm just not sure.

I think if the Iraqis are producing chemical or biological weapons we are probably justified in carrying out what the U.N. is supposed to do in the first place. That's a big and ugly if. If they aren't, and if we find little evidence they have since the Gulf War...we made a colossal mistake.

Despite that, let me say that there are a few things about this war that really irritate me. Please feel free to argue these with me:

1.There a faction of the populace who think they have the cornerstone of what "America is" or what "being an American means". For some reason, despite the First Amendment of our friggin' Constitution, this entails denouncing war protestors as "anti-American". Since when does America stand for totalitarianism and the necessity for mindlessly supporting everything the current presidential administration does?

2. There are more than a few individuals in this country who constantly link this war and Saddam Hussein to 9-11. Please explain how these two are related. Despite desperate efforts by the Bush administration, there is no hard evidence linking Hussein to 9-11. Even if he cheered when it happened (I'm sure he did)...this is not the same as conducting, funding or masterminding the event itself.

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2003 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Saddam

I want to believe this war is unnecessary. I vehemently hate the ugly thing that war is, and I believe that in general more harm is caused through war than the harm that inaction would allow. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that there are circumstances when, despite its appallingness, war is necessary. I do not support war, even in such necessary times. That is to say, I oppose it emphatically but at the same time am obligated pass through its dark time.

Now, the question for me is similar to Thurkon's. Does Iraq in fact have a weapons capacity with would necessitate international intervention? And more importantly, is the degree of human rights violations so severe that the international community can no longer turn its back? I would like to hear your comments on these question.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:08 am Post subject: Re: Saddam

Thurkon

I'd love for this thread to turn into a war discussion. The subject needs to be discussed...by all of us. My opinion is that too many people have strong anti-war sentiments without having a clue why. They're jumping on the "world peace" bandwagon and don't know a damn thing about the subject.

I heard a radio interview with an Iraqi man who now lives in the US. This man was asking a telephone call-in this question:

How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power facilitate world peace?

This airhead girl couldn't answer the question. She stuttered and stammered and avoided the question. Fortunately, this Iraqi man was no slouch. He wouldn't let her off the hook and he kept persisting. Her response typically started with, "All I'm saying is..." and then she proceeded to preach about the horrors of war.

I wanted to reach through the radio and shake her to awaken her to reality. If you CANNOT answer the question maybe its time to think about why. To thine ownself be true! Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows Saddam and his sons are brutal murdering bastards. Hundreds and hundreds of witnesses have come forward and described the rape rooms, torture chambers, executions, etc...

Here is my opinion. This airhead girl doesn't give a rats ass about world peace. She simply doesn't want blood on her hands. By joining hands with the "no war" groupies she feels like she is now not responsible for the deaths that are an inevitable part of a war. But this war is needed. Far better for some to die today in an effort to liberate these people, than for us to sit back and allow millions more to be tormented, tortured, and systematically abused and oppressed. I am ashamed of the entire world right now. I can't believe the United Nations didn't join us on this. Have some balls people and do the right thing.

I will gamble money on the following folks. When Iraq is fully liberated from the atrocities of the Saddam regime...those people will love the United States. I could post 100 web sites right now with evidence that Saddam and his henchmen regulary round up men, women and children and dip them in burning oil, slowly lower their bodies into paper shredders, gang rape women in front of their kids and husbands, chop off childrens heads in front of their parents, beat their nations soccer teams feet with canes until every bone is broken and pulverized (for losing an important game), smash apart the face of their leading boxer and then slit his throat, etc... No people should have to endure this!

I am fucking proud of our country right now. People can pick on Bush for not being the most articulate president, but the man has character...and character is how a man should be judged. People claim this is about oil. Why the hell didn't we take Kuwaits oil from them? Think about this...don't just "move past it" because the question throws a monkeywrench in your theory that the US is after their oil or, better yet, world domination.

Colin Powel answered a reporter recently who asked about the US and its intentions of dominating the world. I forget the exact words, but his response was somewhere along the lines of...

Quote:
The United States regularly sends our people around the world to help other people, and the only land we ask in return is enough to bury those of us that didn't make it home.

I'm aware that we are all subjected to propaganda. But do you really think that Al Ja-zeera is even remotely realistic about their news to the Arab world? No wonder they hate us! No wonder planes are crashing into our buildings. Yes, our foreign policy MUST be addressed. But damn folks...visit some Arab media sites and see for yourself how they LIE about world events. That shit doesn't fly in the US. I don't think there is a bigger skeptic on this planet than myself, but don't confuse being a conspiracy theorist with being a skeptic. If you think the US government is "tricking" the peoples of this country you aren't a "skeptic," but a highly naive individual. Our government IS us. By the people....for the people. We are the government guys. We have term limits and checks and balances. No system is perfect, but the system in this country is the closest to perfection ever developed. Perhaps this is why we are the worlds only superpower.

This war is justified without weapons of mass destruction. EVERY single dictator that abuses his authority, oppresses his people, steals the nations wealth and lives like a King while they starve....should be ousted. The entire world should have united and been backing this war. Saddam is as evil as they get.

Be happy you can sleep at night and not worry about Bush sending his guys to your house to get you. Be happy you have the freedom to burn the US flag and stomp on it in front of the White House. What would happen if you did that in Iraq? Iran? Syria? North Korea?

I started out being somewhat neutral. The more I learn about Saddam Hussein the more I want the man dead. His doesn't deserve to take another breath of our planets precious air.

Jordan Times
Bahrain Tribune
Gulf Daily News
Tehran Times
Note in this paper the complete LIEs being spread...

Quote:
450 U.S., 4,000 Iraqi Troops Killed

By Our Staff Writer

TEHRAN -- The Iraqi Army has shot down 11 aircraft and 14 helicopters and destroyed 165 tanks and armored vehicles of the invading forces, killing 450 and wounding 730, said a high-ranking Iranian military spokesman on Sunday, quoting sources in Iraq.

Lying to their own people and to the world? Ahh...or is the US lying? Have we "really" had 165 tanks destroyed? Or was it more like 1? The Iraqi military is being destroyed and instead of surrending the evil bastards at the top are lying to these poor people and tricking them into a false sense of security. So "world peace" is being fostered by leaving them in power? I don't think so.

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 4/7/03 12:19:33 am

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2003 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Saddam

Chris

It's been too long since the spirit of bb has scorched the pixels of my screen. I'm glad to see it.

You asked:

Quote:
How does leaving Saddam Hussein in power facilitate world peace?

Before I answer this question, I want to say that I think being reluctant to commit to war in the absense of a good reason is much better than being eager to commit to war in the absense of a good reason. Neither situation is altogether desirable, but if forced to choose, I'd trust my conscience to the peaceniks over the warmongers anyday. I really feel that our nation is becoming more and more polarized regarding the meritability of US foreign policy in general and the recent invasion of Iraq specifically. I feel that this has a very detrimental effect on those who wish to participate in dialogue and drives either side to more blindly advocate their ideals. As an individual who is skeptical of the Bush administration and the nature of many of our foreign dealings, I find myself an outcast within my community--my opinions and even my questions are not tolerated. Just yesterday I commented to my girlfriend about how frustrated I am that I am unable to vocalize my misgivings about this war without being label ignorant, anti-american, or unrealistic, and consequently becoming the recipient of contempt and scorn. In many places, the first victim of this war has been an open dialogue, and that is a very grave thing.

Before approximately September 2002, Iraq was not considered a significant threat to US national security. It is a fact that Israel, Kuwait, Iran, and Europe are not afraid of Iraq militarily. Sure they hate Saddam. Sure he's a bastard. Sure, he may even have the blackest heart of any human in the history of the world, but he wasn't considered the "imminent threat to our existence" that he suddenly became around September 2002. So why the big change in policy when, as Thurkon pointed out, it has yet to be shown that Iraq had anything to do with the events of 9/11?

Let's be honest. Prior to the war, who would deny that the US is often motivated by self-interest rather than concern for humanitarian reasons. America is and has been aggressive for a long time. We research, design, produce, and distribute, more weaponry than the rest of the world in aggregate. Saudi Arabia and/or the United Emirates are the US's #1 arms buyer.

And it's not just about who owns the oil resources; it's about control.

Quote:
I don't know if you've looked at the records, but in 1958 when Iraq broke the Anglo-American condominium on oil production, Britain went totally crazy. The British at that time were still very reliant on Kuwaiti profits. Britain needed the petrodollars for supporting the British economy and it looked as if what happened in Iraq might spread to Kuwait. So at that point Britain and the US decided to grant Kuwait nominal autonomy, up to then it was just a colony. They said you can run your own post office, pretend you have a flag, that sort of thing. The British said that if anything goes wrong with this we will ruthlessly intervene to ensure maintaining control and the US agreed to the same thing in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.

Noam Chomski

So what I'm trying to say is, even though Saddam is a brutal madman, he didn't present much of a threat to global security. Seriously think about that. What is he going to do? He's had the US breathing down his back for over 10 years, lobbing bombs into his country at anyone who crawls out of a hole and throws a rock. His army is using pick-up trucks, jimmied with machine guns to defend against TANKS! Is that an imminent threat? So ask yourself, how can a state maintain its sovereignty when America the Collosus decides it disagrees with you. There are only two ways.

1.) Weapons of Mass Destruction
2.) Terrorism

Now I will be the first to condemn the above, but America has been called the leading terrorist state of the world and there is no doubt of our nuclear capacity. I think we really have to ask ourselves some hard questions. 1) Are the two items above becoming more prevalent because some governments are 'evil' or because there is no other resort in the face of such aggressive and overwhelming power. And, 2) do our foreign policies, in reality, encourage the massive arms buildup that is evident on a global scale.

Yes, Saddam's regime is repugnant, but we must not sanction greater atrocities by justifying poor means for a good end or perpetuate a dangerous approach to matters of international concern.

I doubt that, once all the dust clears, the people of Iraq will pay much homage to their blessed American liberators. There is just too many years of ingrained hatred for the west in their culture, and I believe it is not altogether without reason. Add to that poverty, slaughter, little to no education, and propaganda and you have the perfect recipe for regional instability and chaos. Why would you love the west when it freed you from a not so great government by killing your brother. Gee thanks! In Iraq, you serve in the army or die. Then the Americans come in and artillery your units fox holes from miles away or punch explosive rounds into your truck from a tank. Those who live, will know many who have died. You think they are going to be happy about that, especially when they've been told for all their lives how the US is evil and wants to steal their oil? What are they going to do when their is no military to send them a paycheck? Maybe they'll sell the oil in their backyard? Maybe they'll grow some potatoes in the sand. The fact of the matter is, instability is almost always the source of more bloodshed than tyranny. Look at what happened to Afghanistan. It's "back where it was, run by warlords and gangsters." But then again, it doesn't have oil.

All this to say, for all practical matters, there is NOTHING in politics that is cut and dry or black and white. Please feel free to comment on anything I have presented. I would be glad to here alternative and also opposing points of view.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2003 10:43 am Post subject: Re: Saddam

Tim

Quote:
I doubt that, once all the dust clears, the people of Iraq will pay much homage to their blessed American liberators. There is just too many years of ingrained hatred for the west in their culture, and I believe it is not altogether without reason.

If you came across a puppy with his leg caught between two rocks out in the woods what would you do? Assume the puppy was stuck there by an evil man who didn't want to take care of the dog his young son brought home one day. So he headed out into the woods and trapped the puppy between the rocks so it would eventually starve to death.

If you walk away the puppy will surely die, but if you release the puppy and don't take care of it there is a strong probability it will still perish. No matter what....that puppy will be very afraid as you approach and liberate it from those rocks. It doesn't trust humans and will attempt to either bite you or run away the very moment you have freed it.

So what do you do?

I liken the Iraqi people to that helpless puppy. They were trapped between a rock and a hard place by an oppressive and abbusive dictator. Their Puppy Chow(TM) was stolen too. They hate and fear the United States because of lies and deception by their government and the Arab media.

If we liberate the Iraqi people they may never appreciate what we did for them. They may try to bite us and then run away. We may never get the credit or kudos for our good deed. So what should we do?

Chris

Timothy Schoonover · Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2003 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Saddam

I was hoping someone else would have a solution. I agree with you Chris; it seems like a catch 22.

Historically, democracies have failed time and time again without the support of a strong free market. Machiavelli realized that one of the best ways to exert control is through generosity. Rather than placing heavy economic sanctions on Iraq or bombing them, I think we would have been better to offer them conditional economic packages thereby boosting their ability to participate in global trade and to privatize their internal economy. The economy and political power are intrinsically linked. The more dependent the economy is on global trade, the less it is in their self interest to behave beligerantly. There used to be a saying, "No two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war." It's not true anymore, but the principal is still applicable.

It's kinda too late for Iraq now, but I really feel America needs to take a hard look at the consequences of our foreign policy. We are on the wide road to empiricism. The 'war on terror' is doublespeak. Intelligence reports predict that our actions will result in an increase of terrorism rather a decrease. In other words, it's totally ineffective according to the rubric of its purported goals. But then again, maybe its not that ineffective after all, depending on how you look at it...hmm?

Bush is only a pawn. He's too lost in the shelter of his morality and believes, uncritically, the rightness of the illusions he's been fed. Look at his eyes, and tell me you don't see it too? He look's like a boy lost and scared in the world of grown-ups, desperately trying to fill the role.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 4/8/03 2:45:11 pm


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT