I don't know how many have been following this, but the situation is getting pretty tense. I was just wondering what people thought about this. Should the US invade Iraq without UN support?

I had to do a current event on this. I think we should just send in a couple snipers and assasint Sadam.

T/-/alali
do you have any idea how many doubles he has of himself?
If we were to send in snipers it would be considered an act of war. A cowardly one at that. I'm one of the few teenagers in the US that still believes honor has value.

I'm not too keen on political topics, but without a doubt the US could take out Iraq with very few losses. The problem is of course if we do this without UN support we could be seen as violating international laws of conflict (or whatever they are called.).

Husssein has got to go before he acquires weapons of mass destruction, Have tiy thought about what he might do if he got a nuke? He's just going to say, "Mess with me, and I'll take out Tel Aviv." Nope, with or without help, he's gotta go.

Well..I for one find this development kinda scary..
I believe this could well lead to a 3rd WW and that frightens me a lot.
And what I don't understand is why?
Is it for oil? Is it for weapons? Is it for power?

If that is the case i don't think it's worth it and frankly I don't see the big threat..So Iraq has nucleair weapons..So do many other countries and they aren't gonna be attacked for it are they?

I do think something must be done about Sadam Hussein but I think that's something the people of Iraq should solve by themselves..Don't ask me how but that's the way I feel

Iraq is going to do something sooner or later. Do we need another event like 9/11 before doing something. Americans have already smashed the Taliban, why don't they do the same to Hussein. The UN tried to disarm and destroy his weapons and such and they failed. The only thing Sammy Insane understands is violence. Evil like him needs to be destroyed. Think of it as a mosquito on you arm: Do you swat it away or wait and get approval from someone?

Bush signed the document to OK the assassination of Hussein over a year ago and he is still lingering around, he's a crafty one.

Also part of the deal that ended the Gulf war was that Sadam allow inspectors in to make sure of his disarmament, and to not allow his to develop more new biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. That lasted about a year or two, then he just stopped letting UN weapons inspectors in. Now we have reports that he is near to developing a nuclear device. We saw how he invaded Kuwait ohh so long ago, just imagine what he would do with a few nuclear bombs and some chemical weapons.

<font color=orange>IF they could take him out with a bullet, then I'm all for it. Especially if it keeps other people alive. There is nothing honorable about war. I was in the Guilf in '91. We kicked their butt. It wasn't very nice either. Unfortuately I don't think that simply shooting him will help the situation a whole lot. All the Iraqi faculities have to be taken out as well, so the next Saddom doesn't have any way to build more. If at all possible, Iraq should have a democratic government afterwards too. That's where I'd like the UN to come in. To help set up a new Government.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>Unlike the other nuclear nations, were Hussein to acquire a nuclear device he would be much more likely to use it. As his device would have limited range, the most likely targets would be Jerusalem or Tel Aviv; this, of course, would lead to an Israeli counter-strike. Just like old Cold War philosophy, I think Hussein would consider "mutually assured destruction" an acceptable outcome. This outcome must be averted at any cost.

To those who might say "don't remove Hussein, because the next leader might be worse" I say this: should you not stop the guy from robbing you, because the next guy might be a murderer? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] If I find myself in office because my predecessor got assassinated, I would tend to be much more cautious with my actions.

Firestormalpha, yes honor has virtue, but if you don't have or make use of snipers then you really limit yourself from a military point of view. One sniper can change an army's position, possibly preventing multiple deaths. What if a sniper had been able to take out Hitler in 1941?

Fayree, I agree that the Iraqi people should be given the chance to solve things for themsleves, but either they can't or don't want to. Hussein was recently elected to another term in office; however, no one ran against him. Besides, Hussein is perceived by many to be a strong leader, capable of helping Iraq take a stand against the West. Regardless of what we may think, we are seen by many over there as a threat to their way of life, much like the pro-Vietman, pro-Johnson/Nixon, "status quo" people in America felt about the "hippies" and those marching for civil rights back in the 1960s. Change can be scary, especially when you haven't had the opportunity to learn about the other side's point of view and decide for yourself what is right. Many Iraqi people simply don't know what life over here can be like--that is the fault, the crime, of people like Hussein.</font>

[ 09-12-2002, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

With or without the UN, Saddam has got to go, and there is only one way, cause he won't step down himself.