[Xenon]

Bush is expected to give Saddam 72 hours to leave Iraq. If he doesnt, it will be time to "Unleash hell." (Gladiator)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/...main/index.html

Bush to Saddam -

 

[traumatic]

damn war

 

[Judazzz]

Congratulations, the US finally got it's war :sad:

Well, I hope it won't drag on for many months or even years: it would be a waste of lives (for the record: on both sides, because I wholeheartedly believe that the Iraqi's civilians will be the greatest victims...)

 

[Innes]

Bush -

 

[Xenon]

You will all thank us in due time.

 

[Judazzz]

Bush -

Why don't we resolve it this way:
Bush ~~~>

<~~~Saddam

Both got big mouths, but they're too chicken to fight themselves.....

 

[Poseidon X]

Has anyone gone to a Pro-War rally yet. There is one in charleston next week. Now that all the hippies have protested, its time for us to have a good old war time pep rally!

 

[Innes]

Soon the world may look like this

 

[Poseidon X]

yeah that says it all

 

[red devils red]

this war is another vietnam,but this time we will win it! just be happy bush is our president and not gore.just my opinion so if theres any gore fans respect my opinion thanks

 

[Grosse Gurke]

I think Blair is the only person in the UK with a backbone. He committed political suicide to stand up for what he believes in and what he feels is for the best for his country and the world, all the brits with their heads in the sand sit back and bash him. Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, and the people of Iraq have had more than that to stand up and do something about Saddam. I dont think it is in the best interest of the world or the people of Iraq to give him 12 more.

 

[Neoplasia]

this war is another vietnam,but this time we will win it! just be happy bush is our president and not gore.just my opinion so if theres any gore fans respect my opinion thanks

Another Vietnam? No way. This will be pretty quick with far less casualties.

 

[Judazzz]

I dont think it is in the best interest of the world or the people of Iraq to give him 12 more.

I agree with you on that one: the only thing I don't like about it one bit, is that Bush says the same ("we need to rescue the poor Iraqi people, blablabla....."), but in actuality he (nor anyone else in his administration) gives a damn about their fate. It's all just a nice marketing trick, to sell the war, to win public support.
The Iraqi people will suffer most from a war (even though that would be the part that the media will mostly blank out: it could negatively influence on the public opinion back home, and that's not what Bush and his posse are waiting for...).
And I do realise civilian casualties are inevitable (so be it...), I wished the US government wasn't so frickin' hypocritical about it...

Even more because the US will pull out as soon as its interests are secured, and then, all of a sudden, the UN is regarded as a valuable and useful organization again *barf!!!*

 

[Neoplasia]

Well like it or not that is a large part of what the UN is for. Regardless of whether or not they are for the war they do have a responsibility to the Iraqi people in a post-Saddam Iraq. How many other countries have pulled out after they secured their interests? How is the US any worse than them? There's a huge double standard or a prejudice that seems to make the US be held to different rules than other countries.

So what if the US does humanitarian aide for the Iraqi people to satisfy international opinion of them? I doubt if you were living there that you'd put up much of a fuss about aide and who it came from. Iraq will be much better off once Saddam Hussein is ousted, and the Iraqi people will benefit from his removal quickly. There will no longer be money pilfered from the people to support the Iraqi war machine which in itself is one major reason to boot him out.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

I think Blair is the only person in the UK with a backbone. He committed political suicide to stand up for what he believes in and what he feels is for the best for his country and the world, all the brits with their heads in the sand sit back and bash him. Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, and the people of Iraq have had more than that to stand up and do something about Saddam. I dont think it is in the best interest of the world or the people of Iraq to give him 12 more.

i agree with gurke on this point.....i hope you brits fine someone as good as Blair to fill that PM void

 

[ProdigalMarine]

The Iraqi people will suffer most from a war (even though that would be the part that the media will mostly blank out: it could negatively influence on the public opinion back home, and that's not what Bush and his posse are waiting for...).

i disagree, i actually strongly believe that the iraqi people WILL not suffer after the war is done and over with...post-war iraq will be a mirrored image of post-gulf war kuwait......the country itself will flourish and the people will have either a temp US/UN government or a kurd/shiite government

and then, all of a sudden, the UN is regarded as a valuable and useful organization again *barf!!!*

on who's terms?

 

[Judazzz]

Maybe humanitarian aid is one of the main pillars nowadays, it's not the reason why was created in the first place, shortly after WW2... It was created to act like a global checks and balances system in world affairs, so every country, no matter how small or ingignificant, had (a little) influence on world affairs, and not being buried under the force of over-ambitious and powerhungry world powers.

Well, unfortunately, it failed miserably, partly due to countries acting on their own - for example: why was there no new voting on a resolution the follow up 1441? Partly because the French would block it anyway, and also partly because it would only be held when the US secured a majority. Isn't that a bit odd: when the world says no, the US has to accept that, it's not almighty (well, on paper, I mean)... It's almost the same as keeping presidential elections as long as the desired outcome is achieved.....

And I agree there are double standards in politics anywhere: all I would like to see is that the US stopped it righteous act of being the great rescuer of the Iraqi people and would just admit why it so desperately wants its war (the whole world knows anyways, so why dodge the truth...?)

 

[ProdigalMarine]

all I would like to see is that the US stopped it righteous act of being the great rescuer of the Iraqi people and would just admit why it so desperately wants its war (the whole world knows anyways, so why dodge the truth...?)

hm, well it's been 12 years since our last one, cuz bosnia wasn't considered a war, that was a ethical crisis

.....but i don't think the US intentionally wanted war, i think we were pissed off at the fact that we got attacked by rogue states of government, so the US has to go out and right that situation and tell the world "terrorist attacks on the US as well as the world will not be forgiven and will be a punishable offense"

 

[Judazzz]

I think Blair is the only person in the UK with a backbone. He committed political suicide to stand up for what he believes in and what he feels is for the best for his country and the world, all the brits with their heads in the sand sit back and bash him. Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, and the people of Iraq have had more than that to stand up and do something about Saddam. I dont think it is in the best interest of the world or the people of Iraq to give him 12 more.

i agree with gurke on this point.....i hope you brits fine someone as good as Blair to fill that PM void

If Blair would speak out against a war, he'd be considered as much an asshole as Chirac is... So he's only a hero because he's with you? Not quite my definition of a hero

i disagree, i actually strongly believe that the iraqi people WILL not suffer after the war is done and over with...post-war iraq will be a mirrored image of post-gulf war kuwait......the country itself will flourish and the people will have either a temp US/UN government or a kurd/shiite government

C'mon Spikey , you know better than that...... A huge amount of civilians will probably die (not that the US media will cover that, but leave that aside), and I realise that's inevitable. But don't come up with crap that it will prosper and flower as soon as Saddam is gone: look at Afghanistan (very idyllic indeed

). Iraq is much larger than Afghanistan, and the "freedom" forces seem seem have a hard time keeping Afghanistan under control, even after more than a year...... Why would Iraq be anything different?
A kurd/shi'ite government will not happen: it never happened in the past (shia and sunni [ie. Kurdish] islam are too much at each other's throat to accomplish that, and that's a fact). The Kurds may start claiming an independent Kurdish state in the Iraqi-Turkish border area, and the shia majority may take the radical route, following Iran (the shia Iraqi's were always oppressed by Saddam, so they could either go for power themselves or orient towards Iran).

 

[Judazzz]

hm, well it's been 12 years since our last one, cuz bosnia wasn't considered a war, that was a ethical crisis

Yeah, you must avoid getting a little rusty around the edges, eh

The Americans were against NATO intervention in the Balkan (I wonder why?!? A hint: the Balkan lacks something, and it rhymes with boil :

: ). The Europeans were a lot more in favor of an intervention, because it was in their very backyard... Only after a bloody granade attack on the market of Sarajevo, resulting in many dozens of civilian casualties (and countless previous avoidable massacres), and continuous pressure from Europe, the US approved... In a way, it was the same as the present-day situation, but with the roles of the major player reversed.

Isn't history ironic