On the news there have been stories about discussion between the USA president and congress, disagreements, about the difficulties in replacing Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq. As I understand it, Bushy wants to install a new government, and congress is saying it would be too difficult right now without a very well developed plan.

Not one mention from either party, as far as I've heard, as to whether it is their right to do so.

What do you think?

as the years go by, we constantly need somebody to be at war with.

its actually alot like that 1984 book when they were constantly switching. tough the book was quite boring, it did have alot of good points.


i remember back when Gorbi used to be our enemy during the cold war.

then when the gulf war came Gorbi became our friend, and Sadam became the new national enemy.
i had classmates who hates Sadams guts.

nowadays everybody hates Osamy.

in a few years, itll be somebody else. i wonder who our next national arch enemy will be.

i really hope its tiger woods.

y dont we leave Osamy and his band of bearded wonders alone and focus on real enemy nut cases like tiger woods.

"Not one mention from either party, as far as I've heard, as to whether it is their right to do so"

I hear a lot of political-wannabes discussing whether or not the U.S. has the right to put a new government in place. Well here's a couple points you should learn.

1) There is no authority above the U.S. therefore what is their 'right' is decided by them.
2) Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if according to some college idiot in Boston it's their right. Here's an idea - you say America doesn't have the right and Sadam stays in power therefore leaving a dictator who loves killing his own and others in power. You say the right doens't matter and a democratic government goes in place with elections every 4 years.
3) There is only one group both interested and capable of being a government in Iraq, and it is the democratic group.

And about the first part of your message - the U.S. cannot launch an attack until they have a set plan on what to do afterwards in relation to people, weapons, government...

heyya all :)

well adam...
the thing is that the U$A is doing the same thing that
saddam hussein is said to be doing but just use other people to do the dirty work then get the "good guys" to come in and kill them before they can talk about it!

and you know how the U$A cannot handle losing at anything...
so they have to win at all costs!

saddam is preaching a theory that the U$A does not like!
so the only option of the U$A is to eliminate the country as a cultural identity in the view of all others!

for all we know the U$A might have started the invasion of kuwait just to give them some reason to bomb the citys (like hitler did) and blame the bombs on the government of the moment.

note how saddam did not start bombing the citys in kuwait...
yet...
the U$A deliberately bombed citys and civilian buildings to try and sway the opinion of the population...
JUST LIKE IN AFGHANISTAN!!!
he wants to crush the spirit of the population!
JUST LIKE IN PALISTINE!!!

do you realy think that israel would risk all that gold money to do something that the U$A did not want done???

its the spirit of freedom that the U$A is at war with!
they want to destroy all last pockets of it!

sad sad sad :(

peace light
truth love
the path to that which we hold above

its the spirit of freedom that the U$A is at war with! they want to destroy all last pockets of it!

Quite the reverse, actually.

Originally posted by Deepuz

Quite the reverse, actually.
Why?

Adam,

Do you think Iraq practises the "spirit of freedom"?

Replace Saddam with...ME! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA DIE infidels, you'll thank me later, when someone blows up a school bus in your childs school parking lot, oh but wait, that could never happen right.

o.k, the US is the worlds superpower, they call the shots and there is'nt really anyone who can do anything about it.
Another couple of points Tyler did'nt mention that i think are relevant;

1. The Iraqi people are 100% behind saddamn, he has brainwashed them for decades.
2. The gulf war united the Iraqi people.

If Americas big excuse this time is that they are starting this war to help the Iraqi people and install a 'Democratic' government, does this not mean we will see them start wars with other un-democratic nations in the future for example North Korea, Cuba, etc etc ? (its just coincedence that the countries i picked are socialist cause i cant think of any other examples)

I think invasion by America is'nt the way to do it, the iraqi people already hate uncle sam and are unlikely to believe anything they say. I think they should set up a resistance group inside Iraq or approach it in some other way.

We all know why Bush wants to attack Iraq. Lets face it, ITS OIL. So what, you think the western world is going to walk to work, think not! I ain't, so attack those bastards and see who complains when they fill their car up with gas. I bet it's more than half of that complains about attacking that scum bag.

america has plenty oil reserves of its own and its Kuwait that has the oil not iraq this is why they invaded Kuwait and started the gulf war.

america has plenty oil reserves of its own and its Kuwait that has the oil not iraq
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings. In the 1980s, financial problems caused by massive expenditures in the eight-year war with Iran and damage to oil export facilities by Iran led the government to implement austerity measures, borrow heavily, and later reschedule foreign debt payments; Iraq suffered economic losses of at least $100 billion from the war. After the end of hostilities in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities.

america has oil reserves. o.k, iraq may have its own oil, but for the sake of this argument they dont have any. lol ;)

but for the sake of this argument they dont have any. lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK :D

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28695
:(

Viet Nam, Milosovich, and even Saddam- all the product of installed dictators. This is what happens when we meddle. It will take some time before Afghanistan is affected, but to be sure we are best to let the region resolve itself. I don't think anyone wants to replace Saddam. We would have done it years ago. We are really better off letting his own people get him or letting him die of natural causes eventually.

Attack him now and he will let loose all his missiles at Israel.

Viet Nam
its vietnam and there wasnt a dictator playing any part there, it was the vietnamese struggle to become 'communist' o.k, they turned out to be socialist but dont they all? America meddled, nobody else, when will they learn that stupid crusades always backfire into their face?

Actually yes there was a dictator problem with "vietnam." The US organized an election and when the candidate they backed lost, we tried to declare him winner anyways. The US divided the land into the Viet cong of the north and the new dictator led south. They tried to place a dictator and caused a war.

i dont know enough about what happened in vietnam to respond to that.

You should read/watch more about this conflict. It is a lesson against neo-imperial tendencies of late. It was a failure of containment to be sure, but more than that it was ahuman failure.