Saddam Hussein Wants A Debate
 

You guys hear about this crap? After all the deadlines he's missed (or ignored) he wants to talk about why we want to kick him out of power. That's like sitting in History class, doing no homework, no classwork, and sitting the idly while a test is given out, then asking, at the end of the marking period, to sit down and talk with your teacher about your grades, discussing just why you should get a failing grade. Any other thoughts?

Lets see that proof Hussein is lying. Lets see Busch debate will Hussein and let Bush bring out the proof. Then I'll be behind this war 120%.

I also think that Hussein will be buring himself by doing this.

Hussein is an ignoramous. Bush an ignoramous. The idea of them debating reminds me of that Monty Pyhton skit with the idiots running that obstecle course race. If it ever happened (which it won't) It would be an interesting car wreck to watch.

i think it would be interesting to see both sides have to reply to the arguments of the other, in real time with less of an ability to spin things off...
The US could bring up all of the stuff that sadame has done bad...
and Sadame can bring up how the US used to help iraq when they were at war with iran and how we still bomb them every day have since 1991, but then again i am a crazy revolutionist who doesn't want war...so i must not love america...
so i'll stop typing now...

neither side would ever agree to this and even if they did it would be like any political debate, noone ever really answers with anything of substance...its all a matter of saying absolutely nothing so that it sounds like everything!

I believe the term is "Talking loud and saying nothing."

Dim-Wit of the Year? Ah yes that one. Gotta love the jumping over the match box obsticale and the final where they must shoot themselves.

I'm sorry, but is it just me, or is every current world leader a giant idiot? The debate would get us nowhere. Hussein is just trying to buy more time. Every deadline is one that he missed. I seriously think tighter visual surveillance should be held on Iraq. The stuff Powell presented at that meeting a while ago was all inconclusive. It was a bunch of trucks moving around at a wierd time...how does that help us? I want to see Iraq disarmed as much as the next guy, and I am sure he has some crap stuffed somewhere that he knows he's not supposed to have, but what proof do we have?

personaly i dont think any country should have chemical or biological weapons or even nuclear weapons...that includes the US and our alies.
i'm not defending sadame by any means...but all countries thumb their noses at the UN. I think this is because many of the big leader countries like the US dont stick with the UN and do things outside of the UN like we are talking about doing now. Most people dont know it but we haven't even paid our dues to the UN since the mid-eighties when Reagan decided that he didn't like some of policies of the UN and the fact that they gave money to Planned Parenthood so we stoped paying and haven't since then. Why should we require any other country to do what the UN says while at the same time say that we are prepaired to act without the UN's approval.

This whole situation is out of hand and its almost to the point of no return where it cant end in a good way.

Why am i ranting about all of this again...i forgot why i started this post.

Bah, if you are going to criticize the intelligence of a world leader, please be able to spell all the words in your sentence correctly

* Obstacle

I'm not even gonna bother posting my opinion on the subject matter because I would prob. get replys like the ones above

gotta love political debates...

there will always be people who think war is good...i mean if the u.s. felt the need to attack canada they would support it.

on the same token there are those who disagree with war no matter the cirucmstances surrounding it.

the situation with iraq currently has gone from a war to get saddam to disarm to a regime change. all in this shiny armor we call democracy. this presidents current policy regarding the "axis of evil" is one that allows no compromise due to the u.s. looking weak if we allow any debate or if we back down.

This policy has the worst reprocussions not with iraq but with N.Korea. Because of the "hardliner" policy bush will not sit down with kim to even discuss the current situation, bush just put it on the back burner hoping that it would magically go away. yesterday n.korea test fired a missile(not ballistic) into the sea of japan yet it was ignored. the game of brinkmanship is being played with the stakes higher than some people realize.

i am not in favor of this war because even though saddam has done horrible things to even his own people(not to mention what we did to the japanese-americans in ww2) are we really the country who decides who is right and who is wrong? Does a terrorist attack just give us all the right to walk into the middle east and change regimes at our lesiure. why risk the lives of so many to eliminate on dictator who really does not pose a threat to the u.s.?

Saddam Hussein DOESN'T DESERVE a debate. He had his chance. No matter what he says it is bound to be a lie. I mean come on IF Saddam Hussein wanted peace then why is he making bio gas and weapons of mass destruction.

The thing I don't get though is the people that don't want war and say no matter what, we shouldn't go to war. Saddam Hussein in an interview said he will use the weapons on us. Did the anti-war people see this interview? I think not.

you want to know why saddam is making wmd? almost for the same reason n.korea is..the u.s. only recognizes countries that have the destructive force of chemical or nuclear weapons..even if they do not pose a threat to us.

however for those 200,000+ soldiers over there saddam will use chemical or biological weapons as a last resort. remeber when saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds as punishment for trying to overthrow him? what did the u.s. do...we stood by and watched, we did not try to stop him even though we knew when it was going to happen.

the u.s. has a policy of "we can have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons but you cannot"

You mean, like we do?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to war with Iraq--I just think most everyone has the wrong reason. I think war for oil is ludicrous (even though that's half the reason we're going to war--notice we're not that interested in N. Korea). I also think Iraq poses only a trivial threat to the U.S. Silencing voices of dissent only causes actions of dissent.
I try to think of myself as a good person--one who will always help others and stick up for the little guy. Yet for the last fifty years our country has ignored the little guy--the 'Ethnically cleansed' in Serbia, the people under the crushing heel of North Korean and Chinese regimes--the millions of oppressed women of Muslim nations. The dying continent of Africa, of which the world's scientific community should be trying to fix. Countless others. I believe we should remove Saddam, simply for his incredible lack of respect of, and wanted destruction of, human life. That in itself is enough. That in itself, to me, is all that matters. It is true that the world is not black and white, but I think we can tell a VERY dark shade of grey apart from a light one. This war could be a step in the right direction.
Then again, ignoring international law and sending in a hundred Navy Seales (you can't just kill Saddam, you have to take out the entire regime) would fix the problem more efficiently with less loss of human life. That, in my opinion, was the best course of action for everyone. Saddam has had his chance over and over. We've even offered him lack of prosecution for his crimes if he were to step into exile. There's just no reasoning with some crazy people.
To sum it up, I think we, as the largest military force in the workd, in a position to help oppressed peoples, should. It's called being a decent human being, people.

Wow i dont even think i should respond to this statement....
War is bad for small children and other living things...
ISn't there a poster like that or something?

WAR = BAD! PEOPLE DIE! Thats bad!

just my opinion

If we all played with lego's everyone would be happy!:]

Well, if it's the only way to fix the problem (I don't exactly think we can talk Hussein into not being a malevolent despot)...

Do NOT underestimate Saddam Hussein. Other than this offer of talks, can you think of one recent instance where he has not played his cards right? When it comes to securing his position, he is quite gifted.


To Oneangrydwarf: Note that John Bono qualified his statement. He did not say that war is good. He said that war with Iraq is the best course of action at the moment. Really, there is no other choice. Hussein is not going to step down, and will not give up his control over his country. Thus, force WILL be necessary. It doesn't matter when we do it, as long as we don't allow him enough time to set up disastrous contingency plans. Of course, it's way too late for that . . .

He is doing it because he believes it will be an oppurtunity for him to publicly humiliate Bush. Hussein is a very smart man, just a little misguided.

why should he have to step down? We have no right to tell him to step down.

Democracy is will of the people being ruled...not the will of some other democratic country...

If we want them to be truely democratic they must do it themselves, and not be simply a puppet government that we put into place and use for our own reasons.

I still dont think war is the only answer.

Hissein has so much bloody power over there that the people are afraid to speak against him. The trouble with letting them form their own democratic government, in my view, is that since he has just about every election rigged (HELLO! 100% approval rating!), someone (US) has to step in and straighten everything out. A democracy cannot be started if the current leader doesn't let it happen, and do you really think Hussein is going to say, "Oh, you know what? You're right, I am being unfair.", and step off? Think about what all the people of Iraq will do. They've been stuck under this tyrant for YEARS and have been too scared to do anything about it...what will happen when they realize he has lost all his power, especially if of his own will? I think he's mostly scared to step down, seeing as he's dug such a HUGE hole for himself. He's standing in his grave as it is...maybe he's provoking war so that he can go out with a bang.

rofl.
Rigged elections..

Did you know that 3 different countries sent observers to our country during the last round of elections because they wanted to make sure a repeate of the 2000 election didn't happen.

We cant even elect a president so we have no room to talk about fair elections...
and its common knowlege that the us government has been rigging elections from vietnam, laos, the middle east, south america, europe all over for the last 50 years.

But i am done on this thread cuz this argument is getting no where fast and its a waste of time we are all entitled to our opinions but its dumb to argue about them.

Make Bush and Saddam duel....what's what they're gonna do anyway.

I agree. The world of lego is a better place...until you stage a town riot!

I live in Florida but I'm a New Yawker at heart! :D

I'm an Islander!

He's not provoking war. He's not trying to provoke us. Rather, he's trying to stall our war efforts. He's not dumb, he knows he's not going to win. He wants to remain in power. If he were trying to incite us to attack, would he be playing the UN dissent like he is? Would he ever have allowed inspectors back in? No, he's trying to take away our ability to justify a war.

I have a proposal: how about we take care of him the way we did (and are doing) with Fidel Castro? We continue the embargo, and wait for public resentment to build up, and when the outcry is greater than the despot's health, interesting stuff happens. Best of all, we can't be called bullies. All we are doing is voicing our opinions on the leadership of the country, and the rest is up to the citizens, whatever god you wish to pray to, and the immune systems of the annoying guys. Yes, it takes a little longer, but I think it's better in the long run. Again, look at Cuba. It's already getting a little better, and Castro is still in power.

What he said ^

i wont even get started on the embargo with cuba....

Mark, don't talk about things you don't know about. I don't know where to start. First, as a side note... The election wasn't rigged, Saddam was just the only person to run :) not that that matters at all. You're absolutely right, Saddam is a militaristic dictator, and has been for some 30 years. Saddam has also kept his people alive through 10 years of UN imposed sanctions that have reduced a once first world country to third world poverty. Saddam has instituted a food subsidization program that 60% of Iraq depends on to live. for 25 cents, they get enough food to feed their family for a month, the 25 cents is only to pay the expenses incurred in delivering the food.
What? What about the overthrow of the USSR? That was a completely internal revolution. And, lets just say that a democracy is instituted. For some reason we think that democracy will transform the country. Consider this: who will run? more fundementalists. Who will get elected? A Islamic fundementalist. Will this leave the country in a better state than it was? no!

Is it a war for oil... perhaps partially. It does beg the question, why aren't we going after the larger threat of North Korea. Is it a war to lift American Spirits? maybe. All I know is that it's a war that doesn't need to be waged. Containment worked for the USSR, containment worked in an almost identical situation in Egypt. Containment will work in Iraq.

The overthrow of the USSR happed because of the Communist party itself. They tried to lean a little, the people became smart, then there was the coup and then the overthrow. I agree, there cannot be deomcracy when the leader kills all efforts by the people. But also, this is a war for oil. Mabey not 100% oil, but a good portion.

Why is everything I say on this forum wrong? *mood just took a huge turn for the worst*

To all those people that say we are hipocrits because we make weapons and wont let Iraq build weapons---- We can make weapons more one major reason...WE PRETTY MUCH CONTROL THE U.N.... We are the primary seat in the U.N. Countries in the U.N. can make weapons... We do make weapons like everyone else but you forgot one thing... We don't make weapons of mass destruction... We make weapons that are legal unlike Iraq and North Korea...

You guys should watch the history channel. You would then learn what he does to people.

I don't want to describe them here.

The issue at hand here is not whether Saddam Hussein deserves to die. Few people actually like him. What we're debating is whether the United States has the right to forcibly depose the leader of a country, when said leader has not attacked us. I don't think we do.

Remember the old saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me?" There's a big difference between saying that you hate America and taking chemical/biological/nuclear weapons across the ocean and actually setting them off. We're not at war, and they haven't made any noticeable moves towards preparation for an attack upon the US, so we have no justification for a preemptive strike.

FAKrogoth- Look at what I said about the U.N., obviously you didn't read it...

My point was mainly through the quoted poem. Freedom comes with responsibility, and part of that is to help others to gain it.

Quote:

To all those people that say we are hipocrits because we make weapons and wont let Iraq build weapons---- We can make weapons more one major reason...WE PRETTY MUCH CONTROL THE U.N.... We are the primary seat in the U.N. Countries in the U.N. can make weapons... We do make weapons like everyone else but you forgot one thing... We don't make weapons of mass destruction... We make weapons that are legal unlike Iraq and North Korea...

on the contrary, we have not only resumed our nuclear weapons program, we also have stated that they could be used in retaliation against a chemical or biological strike against our troops. As I type "the US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention." -(http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=383006)

Even if Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, who are we to tell them they can't have them. Quite frankly, they have good reason to. At least two if not three of Iraq's neighbors have nuclear capability. Isreal, Saudi Arabia, and most likely Iran have nuclear programs.

I agree with FAKrogoth, and quite frankly I don't think Saddam is a good guy. but, you must keep in mind America's track record of depicting enemies as barbarians to justify war http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/todays_e...759272,00.html
But, even if Saddam is a horrible man it's not our responsibility to barge our way into a country and try to change thousands of years of tradition because we think it's the better way. Remember, The fetters of Plato's Cave are easy to break, but the will of it's occupants to remained fettered is one of the strongest forces

I can see valid points in most everyones arguments however to the people that think the u.s. is a "good" country within all of this needs to understand that what the main goal of this whole thing is not to get rid of saddam but bring democracy to the middle east. plus you cant forget the oil complex, obviously its not a major part of bushs decision but im sure he will take advantage of all the oil.

I think that bush actually believes that if he gets rid of saddam and puts in a democratic government that other countries surrounding iraq will follow suit.

Whoever thinks that the u.s. does not make weapons of mass destruction needs to open their minds..this country is portrayed as a shining beacon of light within all of these "evil" countries. The president really needs to learn some ways to deal with problems other than calling leaders "evil".

as a side note the people of south korea are more afraid of bush than of kim...but then again the comment was made that kim was a "midget in the land of not so tall people".

To all of you who are you saying that Saddam has broken every single wish of the UN deadline wise, he's evil because he just wants to stir up trouble, yada yada yada... that's the same exact thing the U.S. is doing.

I believe the US forced already one possible resoultion to the UN. That got shot down. Now we're pushing for a second one, and we still have stiff opposition. France is strictly against us, Germany is strictly against us, Russia is on the borderline - our only really powerful ally is England.

Almost nobody wants this war (except for us trigger-happy Americans, of course). Turkey has just denied us from using their country as a launching base. Many prominent celebrities are voicing their opinions against the war (just to name a few: Bono, George Michael, Sheryl Crow) - so much that the directors of the Grammy's threatened to kill the mics on any celebrities who began giving anti-war speeches.

Yeah, Saddam isn't cooperating with the UN, but as I see it, neither is the US. One of our resolutions got shot down in the UN. So what do we do? We use our raw brute strength as the last remaining superpower to push another one through.

Anyways, my point is this: to all of who said Saddam has defied the UN by missing every single deadline, take a look around. We're using out position to BULLY the UN.

We may be the last superpower, but guess what! Even WITH our obviously endless powers, a decade ago it took a coalition of THIRTY some-odd nations to beat an area about the size of Texas. Time are changing - you can't continue looking at this from the old imperialistic point of view. We're no longer powerful enough to take the world on by ourselves, and I think some people have to realize that.


To finish up, check out these links:
Gulf War 2 (aka World War 2.5)
US Spying on UN Security Council Delegates
Last (locked) CD Thread About Saddam

[edit]Forgot to add this quote... this floated around the interweb a few weeks back:

CAN PEOPLE READ?! We can make these type of weapons because we are in the U.N.... They are in regualtion too... Saddam is just playing a game... The reason why we should go to war now is because if we don't they will have more bigger and stronger weapons... Open your eyes guys... If we don't strike first, they will... This is not a game... This is as real as it gets... He as been playing this game since like 1991...

We make these weapons because nobody can stop us from making them. Saddam wants 'em because once he gets 'em, people can start listening to him.

Having The Bomb is just like having an ace in your sleeve - nobody's going to attack you. India and Pakistan have 'em, so we can't boss them around anymore. Iran is working on their nuke program so we won't be able to boss them around. North Korea has The Bomb, so we can't do anything to them.

Speaking of which, N. Korea Warns of [Nuclear] Disaster if Attacked

This goes back to my entire imperialism comment - back in the days, we COULD go around bossing country's around cause there was nothing they could do about it. Now we can only boss around people who don't have The Bomb, or whose allies don't have The Bomb. I think that's not realized yet.

To finish, I want to link you to this cartoon again: Gulf War 2 (aka World War 2.5)

Seriously I don't think you know what you are talking about cause I sure as heck don't... No country bosses another country around... Bomb or no bomb... It's all about sercurity and being in the U.N.... If you are in the U.N.(which we pretty much run), then you are allowed to have certain weapons that are within regulation...

every thread that has to do with war always gets out of hand, much like this one has...