Opinion on war?

[na_th_an]

On the other side, these suicide bomb men are there 'cause Israel stole their land.

And of course I am aware of those historical mistakes. But mistakes that happened only 20 years ago are not historical for me. Spain ruled the world as a totalitary super-power country in the 16th Century that owned almost the whole world, was imperialist and did exactly the same things that the USA does right now.

I better stop posting under this thread, 'cause I see that my position is completely different from yours. You will never convince me and I will never convince you. To me, war is an excuse. You gave me the point in your prev. post: why Sadam and Iraq, and not Zimbabwe?

The saddest thing is that 90% of spanish people are now in the streets in big strikes and shouting against spanish government for supporting the war and having sent effectives. 90% of Spanish people are shouting STOP WAR. And we are supposed to be one of the supporting countries.

I only want to say 1 thing: SPANISH DOES NOT SUPPORT WAR, OUR GOVERNMENT DOES. No a la guerra.

[wildcard]

When I said Spanish I meant its government and past. You can't hold the past against someone all of the time. Most governments change often so giving historical examples is mute. There have been 2 different governments since the Gulf War in USA, but Saddam is still in power.

I agree that this thread is a bit pointless in that its not going to change anything really, thats why its best to stick to QB ;-) , well for me atleast.

My last question to those totally anti-war. How can the situation in Iraq/with Saddam be resolved peacefully? Nevermind whether he weapons of mass destruction or not, he has a proven track record of human rights abuse. Not comlpex human rights just the simple ones chartered by the UN. So how do you see stopping him peacefully?

[_Bill_]

Ok I haven't posted in a while but when I say this thread I had to put my 2 cents in. BTW I agree with wildcard and wizardlife. I saw Bush's speach and thought is was good. As DoD secretary Donald Rumsfeld would say: It was a Rumsfeldian speach. Any-hoo I think that sometimes war is the only option and although it is the worst thing that can happen it has to be done(ie when an evil, stupid, or a combination of the two cause a big problem) And about oil this war is not about oil! There is loads of oil here in the States only problem is the enviomentelist wackos don't like us drilling any oil(You know capitolism is bad-live in a hole in the ground sort of thing)

BTW Lachie check this out! http://www.fileplanet.com/files/120000/121074.shtml

It is at fileplanet!

[Zack]

The only time Iraq came close to building an actual nuclear (not nucular) bomb was in 1985 and israel bombed the living bejesus out of it, so far into oblivion (in israel's ever so subtle style) they've never come close or tried since. All they have are some vats of anthrax which isnt exactly hard to find and less effective than other poisenous substances which can be put in a water supply.

You realize, toonski, that all Israel got back for bombing that nuclear plant was dissing.
Then, 15 years later, everbody realized that if Israel hadn't bombed that nuclear reactor, Iraq really WOULD have a nuclear bomb.
And another thing:
na_th_an, you realize, that Saddam has killed and tortured more people than will probably be killed in this war.

So, in this case, war works.

[Jocke The Beast]

Interesting to hear that opinion from Sweden. Is that a general consensus there?

Well, the latest "polls" in Sweden says something like 30-35 % of the people of Sweden support a war against Iraq. There are some demonstrations in our country (against the war) and our goverment are not supporting USA (and their coaltion) but they're also not supporting France (and Germany) and there acts in UN.

I agree that this thread is a bit pointless in that its not going to change anything really, thats why its best to stick to QB , well for me atleast.

Sure, we won't change anything. But I still think it's interesting to be able to discuss a issue (as important as this one) on a place I love to visit.

[red_Marvin]

So how do you see stopping him peacefully?

Single bullet for single person

I say that Saddam maybe must be killed in order to stop him
but war? Cant USA hire the man who shot JFK? j/k, maybe not
right place to joke on but USA should have more than one sniper
in the CIA or some even more secret organization...

[Jocke The Beast]

Seriously I think that if that could be done, it would have been done already. Quite hard to kill a "target" that is aware of the fact that a big part of the world would like to see him dead. Why didn't someone "sniped out" A.Hitler ? Same sort of question, same answer.

No, I think it will be hard to kill Saddam, even if USA and their coalition will invade Iraq. It just seems like Saddam is the sort of person who has thaught about this "problem" and I'm guessing it will take a huge effort to catch him.

[toonski84]

he's already got his escape route. just like bin laden. in either case, it will take another 200,000 innocent people dead to catch him and it's just not worth it. bush's rhetoric is one of the most propagandist in the country. biological weapons are now "weapons of mass destruction", and military bases are now "terror camps". he stated and repeated a few facts several times and offered no support to the things he stated, no reason they were true. i didnt like his speech at all, and it's almost as bad if not worse than saddam's own speeches attacking america.

[Jocke The Beast]

it will take another 200,000 innocent people dead to catch him and it's just not worth it

Either he escapes Iraq or he doesn't.
If he escapes from Iraq he will sooner or later be "catched". Right now I think there's only one country who claimed that they will provide Saddam with a "safe-hosting".
If he stays, and hides out in a well hidden place, he'll get "catched" sooner or later but I don't see how this will affect the number of "innocent deaths" ? America (and their coalition) will invade Iraq and remove their goverment and they'll do that in any ways, no matter if Saddam gets killed or "runs away".
But I agree that the a future invading of Bagdad will be "hard-work" and I think that's the most difficult part of this war.
If Saddams lifeguard-company (don't know the name but it's commanded by one of his son's and hosts about 20.000 soliders) doesn't surrender to the coaltion when they reach Bagdad and they fight to the "bitter end of the battle of Bagdag" it can be a horrible battle... Americans military are way superior then the Iraq's military but as for "street-to-street-battles", no battles are won easily and I fear that it might could take a long time and alot "blood" will be caused...

[_Bill_]

I agree bio weapons aren't weapons of mass destruction they are weapons of mass murder.