Replies

OK..lets go LW fruit loop plinking......

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Where is the mass increase of terrorism after we invaded Afghanistan and removed the most Islamist and extreme of all the arab regimes, the Taliban? Removing a secular piece of shite like Saddam will be viewed as a positive move among arabs, especially his own oppressed citizens. If Arabs are wary, its only because they are understandably worried about collateral damage, but they still want Saddam out NOW. Read here about the Iraqis who want the invasion NOW When the Enemy Is a Liberator-NY Times. How will it be imperialist if we don't stay in Iraq? We did not take the Iraqi, Kuwaiti or Saudi oil fields in 1991 Einstein! If we truly are the evil imperialist nation you see us as, those fields would be ours now, but they aren't are they? Saddam came to power by systematically murdering the opposition and in a famous televised display ordered Baath party members out of the room to be executed while he smiled and smoked a cigar. What does Britain's past colonialism have to do with the price of eggs? The artificial past borders imposed on Iraq by Britain will create some ethnic conflicts, but widespread arab outrage on the street? I don't think so.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

It's public knowledge that Saddam funds terrorism in Israel and pays bounties to the familes of homicide bombers. It's also public knowledge that Iraq tried to assasinate President Bush. Now if one tries to assasinate a foreign leader as powerful as the president of the United States, you have to understand that if you succeed, the US will come after you big time. Did Saddam care about the incredibly severe consequences? No. Think he cares about the consequences of using WMD against us or helping others do the same? No. The links between Al Qaeda and Iraq have been shown and will be further proven. The US and UK have not lied regarding intelligence they have released. The biggest worry is that Saddam will in the future pass his WMD weapons on or use them for terrorist blackmail. After 9/11 this is simply not tolerable. The primary reason saddam is about to be reomved is his continued efforts to develop and conceal WMD programs. That in combination with his nefarious past and his links to terrorist groups is all the reason in the world we need to disarm him and remove him from power. It has been proven Saddam has not disarmed and has continued to conceal his programs while he funds terrorism.

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is far from the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

This is the dumbest and easiest comment to refute. Saddam is a mad man near the level of Jeffrey Dahmer. His mother attempted to abort him. He was abused as a child, tortured animals for fun, shot at a teacher, and killed his first political opponent at the age of 20. He is a cruel sadistic man who has regional and global dreams of domination. He supresses the truth, he tortures his people, he executes those who speak out against him or cuts their tongues out, he has professional rapists on staff to intimidate others, and he uses the oil for food program to build lavish palaces numbering close to 100 now that also likely conceal WMD programs. Meanwhile he claims the UN and the US have starved him although his army is well fed as is he. He has embezzeled billions from his people. He riggs elections so 100% of the vote is for him. He builds sculptures and commisions paintings of himself much like big brother. He exectuted his own son-in-law. His people fear him and want him gone. To suggest Saddam is not so bad is either a sign of complete ignorance , evidence of utter stupidity, or you are a bad liar.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

The threat of WMD attacks is very real and very very dangerous. It is not tiny. And Saddam is not allowed to have ANY WMD programs nor weapons at all. With the exception of North Korea, none of the nations you mentioned have demonstrated irresponsibility nor used those weapons against their own people. To suggest that the US should be disarmed first is a false and stupid argument. Iraq MUST disarm according to the UN.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.

You mean deplorable like winning WWII, stopping Hitler and Japan, winning the Cold War causing the fall of communism, freeing Kuwait, and stoping 'genocide' in Kosovo?. Are you arguing an isolationist policy where we should never defend our oversea interests or protect our own nation?

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism.

The terrorists are going to target us no matter what we do. We could pull back every single American from the Middle East and they would still hate us. It is like strategy, you hit the supply base first. Doesn't kill many troops, but it will stop them in the end.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.

Last I checked it was a war on Terror, Saddam has known links to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolah(sp). And has openly said he will pay money for every suicide bomber that attacks Israel, sounds like he supports terrorism.

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.

This may be true, but Hitler had also done wonders on the German economy and infrastructure, and we all know where that ended up.

(i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

1988, He killed roughly 5000 people in one of his own towns, Habja(sp), most of which were women and children.

Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.

Do you even read anything, or just go blindly with what the Liberals tell you? If he indeed wanted to provide for his "beloved" people than why doesn't he pawn off one of his several royal palaces. Or how about do what the UN asks and disarm, I am certain that the US and UK would gladly send food then. I'm sorry but you do not support your enemies.

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.

Of course VX gas isn't a major problem in the hands of one of the radical groups I named above. Hitler wasn't much of a threat to America, and once again, we know where that ended.

5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years

Lol, liberal rule number 1. When you can't win, just blame America, cause they are evil capitalist pigs... Look, America isn't a saint, but compaired to the records of the other fine countries in the world, we do a lot damn more than we should. Who does the UN turn to when they need to feed people who live under warlords, you can bet it's not France. How many American troops have died trying to bring food and freedom to innocent people. Case in point Somalia.