Why does it matter?

[Iron_Ranger]

This may seem a bit simplisitic and problaby pretty flawed..But..What does it matter if Saddam commited a horrible act a month ago, 10 years ago or 20 years ago?

Its still the same guy, and he still did it. Its not neccarily the same thing with the US and other counties, heres why.

Every 4 (or somtimes less then that) or 8 years leadership in the US changes. Diffrent cabinet, and in some cases a diffrent senate. It was 2 diffrent people that are in the White House now and when we used Agent Orange.

But Saddam Hussien is still Saddam Hussien. The same guy that no matter how long ago, has commited horrendus crimes against Humannity.

Alot of people go off on Kissenger, but you know, Kissenger doesnt hold hardly any power anymore.

I am not saying the US is perfect, we have most certaintly have had our screw ups, and no one is proud of them. But I think not going after Saddam is a huge screw up on the entire worlds part.

I cant see why anyone would want someone like him to remain in office. Why? Why do you want a mad man to retain power? Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office?

Its comes down too there oil contracts right? At least thats what I get out of it. So why arent those two ever harrassed about being money hungry oil mongers like the US is.

Just some thoughts.

Just incase anyone has any ideas, this isnt a 'retalation' or 'the other side' of Mojos thread, they just happen to have similar titles.

[ 03-07-2003, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I cant see why anyone would want someone like him to remain in office. Why? Why do you want a mad man to retain power? Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office?

But how many times do people have to say they're not pro-Saddam or that they don't want Saddam to stay in power? Nobody (at least I) ever said Saddam was a great guy and humanitarian, but we have said war is not the way. There is that difference...

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I cant see why anyone would want someone like him to remain in office. Why? Why do you want a mad man to retain power? Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office?

But how many times do people have to say they're not pro-Saddam or that they don't want Saddam to stay in power? Nobody (at least I) ever said Saddam was a great guy and humanitarian, but we have said war is not the way. There is that difference...[/QUOTE] Read the post again Spelca. I never said you did. I, a matter of fact, specificly said CHIRAC and SCHROEDER. I am aware there is a diffrence and hey, I share that with you, I wish theyre was another way beside war, but its up to Saddam really.

Dis Arm or War, pretty simple. We have tried Diplomacy for 12 years, in this case it doesnt work, and it doesnt work with most tyrany.Because they are irrational thinkers. Anyway, please not to try and derail this thread. I would like to see some dierect answers to my questions. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Spelca]

But when have they said Saddam was a good guy? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit --- "I cant see why anyone would want someone like him to remain in office. Why? Why do you want a mad man to retain power?" I thought this was directed at everyone. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 03-07-2003, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Iron_Ranger]

They havent said Saddam was a 'good' guy. But lets look at the facts.

They have vetoed every resoulution to remove him. They have billion dollar oil contracts with him. They are very vocal about there anti war stance. Witch is fine, but it all adds up. They obviously want him to stay in power.

Maybe I should have reworded my post as I can see why someone could take it as a genralization.

But I could in turn do the same to you. In Mojos "Why?" thread you said 'it doesnt make us any better then him'. Whos us? Your Slovenia living in sweeden right? Last I heard neither of those countrys supported the war.

Ok so its not an exact same thing, but its the same logic.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: They havent said Saddam was a 'good' guy. But lets look at the facts. They have vetoed every resoulution to remove him. They have billion dollar oil contracts with him. They are very vocal about there anti war stance. Witch is fine, but it all adds up. They obviously want him to stay in power. Maybe I should have reworded my post as I can see why someone could take it as a genralization. But I could in turn do the same to you. In Mojos "Why?" thread you said 'it doesnt make us any better then him'. Whos us? Your Slovenia living in sweeden right? Last I heard neither of those countrys supported the war. Ok so its not an exact same thing, but its the same logic.

As far as I know they don't want him to be removed with war. Or maybe I'm wrong. I'll look up on that.

I say us, because I don't want to say US because then everyone attacks that person for saying it. You can't deny that. [img]tongue.gif[/img] And I say us, because it's mostly the Western world that want the war, and I like to imagine myself as one of it even though I don't support the decision. And because there is always a part of the world that thinks we're better than 'them' and sometimes it's the part of the world where I live. And I think, that whatever some country does and civilians die (when it maybe could've been prevented), and it's supported by the country I'm from, I think that my hands are as bloody as the politicians. I don't think of myself as innocent, since I could do something about it but I either can't or don't try hard enough.
And yes, Slovenia (the government, not the people) does support the war. We're one of those that signed something (one of the 'Vilnius 10') and were, because of that, thought of a bit badly by Chirac. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Though the person who signed it is getting in a bit of trouble now because of it, because lots of people don't support it. [img]tongue.gif[/img] But you're right, Sweden doesn't support it.

PS: I can start saying 'they' or 'you' if you want me to.

[johnny]

You already said it, it's all about money. Mayby Schroeder doesn't have any other options. When there were elections in Germany, i think that was last year, one of the points in his agenda was: not to go to war in Iraq. If that wouldn't have been in his agenda, he wouldn't have been reelected. In Germany you gotta look very hard to find someone who is pro invading Iraq. Germans still have a hard time dealing with matters such as militairy actions. It could be a feeling of guilt, i dunno.

So Schroeder kinda moved himself into this position. Maybe he wants to help with this, but he used "no" to get elected.

[Davros]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: But I think not going after Saddam is a huge screw up on the entire worlds part. Bit of a generalisation don't you think? Are you judging the world, the rest of the world outside the US, the parts of the world outside the "coalition of the willing", or the people of the world that disagree that war is the correct strategy? Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office? Nope - falsity here. I have seen two television interviews with Chirac. Both recognised that the probability was that Sadman had WOMD and that the world would definitely be a better place without him. Neither interview (of course) agreed that war was the only means through which this could be achieved. Its comes down too there oil contracts right? At least thats what I get out of it. So why arent those two ever harrassed about being money hungry oil mongers like the US is. I seem to defend regularly against the short sighted yokels who write to my local paper complaining that the US is just going to war to be grabbing for oil. When I reply to those people, I suggest in polite manner that they are refusing to exercise their brains on the bigger picture of Saddam and instead grasping an easy emotive excuse to be irrational over. So that is how I defend the US over oil claims. Now let me think - how would I defend claims of similarly poor validity against the French and Germans? [img]smile.gif[/img] - maybe a different tactic is required - I'll get back to you there when I have time to consider the options .

[Iron_Ranger]

Thanks for replying Davros, you have some good points.

I say 'the world' because, well, thats who we are, we all live in this world. Removing him will be better for the world, not revmoving him would be a mistake.

Unfourtenly I believe war is the only option left. We have tried diplomacy, for 12 years, did it work? Not at all. Exlile? Perhaps, I dont know really. It would still be possible for him to run the country while in exile. Note I said possible, it would difficult yes. In order for him not to run the country we would have to remove every single connection with Iraq he has, that would be pretty hard wouldnt? And we would have to contine to watch him wouldnt we? Maybe not, I dont know I am asking. Maybe exile would be more trouble then its worth.

Nice to see your not the type that believes the war is about oil. That agument has been immensley debunked. I ask you this, can you show me one little bit of evidiance, beside interviews, because thats just all talk, that proves Shroeder or Chirac have tried anything to remove Saddam?

[Davros]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: I ask you this, can you show me one little bit of evidiance, beside interviews, because thats just all talk, that proves Shroeder or Chirac have tried anything to remove Saddam?

Not participating in a war (or not being visually active in removing him) does not constitute proof of your original question (ie Why does Chirac and Schroder want him to stay in office?). I believe whichever way you look at it, this statement remains false.