- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
First, is Suddam Hussein a threat to anyone? If not, there really is no need to do anything. If he is, then what do you suggest to do about it?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What to do about Saddam Hussein
- Thread starter TheBear
- Start date
The bear, the dictators in Panama, Haiti, Philippines, Chile (just to name a few) were no less cruel or less oppressive, than Hussein. The only difference, they were backed by the USA. As was the Schah of Persia and Hussein. Hussein proved long before, that he poses a threat to other nations, This was even encouraged by the US and the US didn´t mind.
So, since Hussein posed a threat to others a long time ago, why did the US back him? Why wasn´t done anything long before? Hm I forgot, the Schah of Persia was dethroned and the US wanted a get back and backed Hussein in his war declaration and efforts....
So, since Hussein posed a threat to others a long time ago, why did the US back him? Why wasn´t done anything long before? Hm I forgot, the Schah of Persia was dethroned and the US wanted a get back and backed Hussein in his war declaration and efforts....
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Nothing should be done about Hussein. Let him run his country. America should provide humanitarian aid to Iraq instead of going to war.
Upvote
0
Saddam Hussein is a threat to his people--they aren't faring too well. I also think that he is a threat to the stability of the region (how much of that is because of Western intervention, I don't know--probably some) which threatens industrial countries who are attached to their oil-driven economies.
Who should do something to change the leadership of Iraq? The Iraqi people should be able to make their own decision about their leader. People should rule themselves, I believe.
But once you've got a dictator, then what do you do? History teaches us that you should stab him to death on the Senate floor. Wait, I'm not sure that worked before. . . Hmm.
I think that our goal should be to promote democracy around the world--but how do you do that? This is something that interests me a lot, especially in regards to our own democratic republic and its attendent apathetic citizenry. (Not to imply that we are ruled by a tyrant! I am simply concerned with the lack of interest that many people have in the shaping of the rules by which they live and their lack of participation in a governmental system that relies on educated participation.) I don't know how you move from tyrant to freedom--but it's been done before, and success seems to come from the people themselves.
So then the question becomes, how can we support the Iraqi people and empower them to choose their own leader? Do we need to be more active in the exchange of ideas and culture between oppressed and free societies? Do we need to increase scholarships to those Iraqi students who wish to learn how to set up democratic governments and learn about political theory? Do we need to increase humanitarian aid, and ensure that those who need aid are receiving it?
I don't think I've answered the question really, but that's because I don't know it all--gasp!
--tibac
Who should do something to change the leadership of Iraq? The Iraqi people should be able to make their own decision about their leader. People should rule themselves, I believe.
But once you've got a dictator, then what do you do? History teaches us that you should stab him to death on the Senate floor. Wait, I'm not sure that worked before. . . Hmm.
I think that our goal should be to promote democracy around the world--but how do you do that? This is something that interests me a lot, especially in regards to our own democratic republic and its attendent apathetic citizenry. (Not to imply that we are ruled by a tyrant! I am simply concerned with the lack of interest that many people have in the shaping of the rules by which they live and their lack of participation in a governmental system that relies on educated participation.) I don't know how you move from tyrant to freedom--but it's been done before, and success seems to come from the people themselves.
So then the question becomes, how can we support the Iraqi people and empower them to choose their own leader? Do we need to be more active in the exchange of ideas and culture between oppressed and free societies? Do we need to increase scholarships to those Iraqi students who wish to learn how to set up democratic governments and learn about political theory? Do we need to increase humanitarian aid, and ensure that those who need aid are receiving it?
I don't think I've answered the question really, but that's because I don't know it all--gasp!
--tibac
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
- Jan 2, 2002
- 20,653
- 1,812
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I really don't think the issue is about how a country runs it's own affairs. The world is full of dictatorships and other non-democratic nations. My questions go directly and specifically to the threat and stability factor of peoples outside of Iraq.
Upvote
0
tamtam92
Veteran
I agree with you ocean.
If Saddam doesn't care for his people, then I think it would be possible to back the opposition.
I'm studying Kant at school, and I really think this philosopher was bright (that's a non-christian point of view, as a christian, I can't believe in what he saays, i just say that's intelligent). As soon as a country has a strong army, there's a kind of threat to other nations.
For instance, US is a threat to Iraq.
I think it would be better if the country solved the problem by itself.
I don't think he is a threat for anyone currently. I don't have proof of anything suspicious. I can't believe the media.
Upvote
0
Worst case scenario, let the guy go off into exile and avoid war crimes charges.
Best case, send in Spec Ops to find him and end him for good. Just try and work out which Saddam to kill. He has 3 or 4 doubles who pose often for him.
I'd rather they tried to take him out.
Best case, send in Spec Ops to find him and end him for good. Just try and work out which Saddam to kill. He has 3 or 4 doubles who pose often for him.
I'd rather they tried to take him out.
Upvote
0
Let's hogtie him and place him in the middle of the marketplace in some Kurdish village. Could be good for a laugh or two.
Seriously, the best case scenario I can think of, assuming we go to war, would be for him to be apprehended and tried for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. He'll probably be killed in some bunker, but not after inflicting even more misery on the Iraqi populace.
Come what may, if we are serious about regime change in Iraq, I believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to help set up a constitutional republic that will guarantee basic human rights for these poor people. They've suffered enough already and will suffer even more when the bombs start falling again. Otherwise, we will only add grist to the mill of those who accuse us of being anti-Muslim. I think we have to be prepared to go the extra mile to demonstrate that this isn't just a cynical grab for oil.
Assuming, of course, that this isn't just a cynical grab for oil.
Seriously, the best case scenario I can think of, assuming we go to war, would be for him to be apprehended and tried for crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely. He'll probably be killed in some bunker, but not after inflicting even more misery on the Iraqi populace.
Come what may, if we are serious about regime change in Iraq, I believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to help set up a constitutional republic that will guarantee basic human rights for these poor people. They've suffered enough already and will suffer even more when the bombs start falling again. Otherwise, we will only add grist to the mill of those who accuse us of being anti-Muslim. I think we have to be prepared to go the extra mile to demonstrate that this isn't just a cynical grab for oil.
Assuming, of course, that this isn't just a cynical grab for oil.
Upvote
0
just a small point, but that's illegal under international law...
some people here have cited Saddam's attempt to kill Bush Sr as a terrorist act...would that make the US/UK a terrorist nation in that case, if they did what you suggested?
Upvote
0
Yes, it's illegal, but do you think it hasn't been tried?
About your second point. I couldn't tell you. What I can say is that both countries + Israel have tried and failed to assassinate him already.
One thing's for sure, Iraq will never be released from sanctions until there's a new government in place.
Upvote
0
Datan, thus your suggesting that Saddam Hussein and George Bush Sr are one in the same. And thas just disgusting of you. I dont care if its illegal or not by international law, the man should die for everything hes doen and I dont care how we do it.
Upvote
0
Saddam Hussein and George Bush and George W. Bush are the same in that they are recognized heads of state, and the international community has outlawed attacks on heads of state and other dignitaries and official residences, etc.
I'm sorry if that disgusts you, but it's correct. Other than disgust with his policies, what makes SH less protected than any other head of state? Why would it be wrong to take GWB out, but ok for SH?
--tibac
I'm sorry if that disgusts you, but it's correct. Other than disgust with his policies, what makes SH less protected than any other head of state? Why would it be wrong to take GWB out, but ok for SH?
--tibac
Upvote
0
Um, because President Bush doesn't use chemical weapons on his own people? I don't know...just a thought
Back to the OP there Bear. What to do about him. Here's a question regarding the question. If he's offered exile in one of those lovely vacation spots like Somalia, Saudi Arabia (oops..forget that one..they don't want him either), couldn't he actually partner up with those involved in terrorism (like those in Somalia) and actually help them? What would be the point of exile then?
Back to the OP there Bear. What to do about him. Here's a question regarding the question. If he's offered exile in one of those lovely vacation spots like Somalia, Saudi Arabia (oops..forget that one..they don't want him either), couldn't he actually partner up with those involved in terrorism (like those in Somalia) and actually help them? What would be the point of exile then?
Upvote
0
Right, blindfaith. I think that there are very valid reasons why SH and GWB are in different boats--but we need to be able to say, "these things 1,2,3" are why SH is different from any other head of state and not just "I don't like him"!!
Otherwise, we don't have reasons to go to war/interfere with any one.
--tibac
Otherwise, we don't have reasons to go to war/interfere with any one.
--tibac
Upvote
0
=
I didn't know terrorist now included being an impoverished iraqi in its defintion, thanks for clearing that up Greg.
I think the least that we should do is lift economic sanctions on Iraq, because it clearly isn't working as it was intended (to oust Sadam) - all its doing is causing suffering to the iraqi people
Upvote
0
Michael0701
Harley Ridin' Believer!!
- Nov 13, 2002
- 719
- 6
- 65
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Assasination would be the worst thing. Instant martyrdom and I can only imagine how that would play out.
Assisting in a subversive movement. Well I don't know what makes me think that will work, it seems that "they" end up being worse than the devils we already have.
Hmmmm..... how about making deals with the devils we know (arab nations "friendly" to us now) and having them do the dirty work.
Or how about going full speed ahead with some well thought out psychops to win the Iraqi peoples hearts and minds. I mean kill them with kindness (and I don't mean dropping mre's on their villages), I mean a propaganda war to end all propaganda wars.
The problem with any solution other than war is time. They all take time which I don't believe we have.
Assisting in a subversive movement. Well I don't know what makes me think that will work, it seems that "they" end up being worse than the devils we already have.
Hmmmm..... how about making deals with the devils we know (arab nations "friendly" to us now) and having them do the dirty work.
Or how about going full speed ahead with some well thought out psychops to win the Iraqi peoples hearts and minds. I mean kill them with kindness (and I don't mean dropping mre's on their villages), I mean a propaganda war to end all propaganda wars.
The problem with any solution other than war is time. They all take time which I don't believe we have.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
