Iraq - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Iraq

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Iraq

Steel_Dragon posted 11-10-98 08:48 PM ET
I'am am a peace-maker live and let live. Bother me and you die. Atleast that what Civ taught me. Ofcourse ocupation is easier in the game than real life.
Should invade and therefore police Iraq.
Destroy Iraq.
Or let then threaten us?
DHE_X2 posted 11-10-98 10:06 PM ET
live and let live, unless you are threatened by them.
MouthShaft posted 11-10-98 10:36 PM ET
Hussein's a psycho with too much power and bent on hurting the US and the civilized world. Send in some seals and kill him. Or Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid on PSX. Great game, highly addictive.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 11-10-98 11:20 PM ET
I have one phrase on my view of Saddam:
"One shot, one kill."
'nuff said
Tom posted 11-11-98 02:23 AM ET
Ok, America is NOT the world. No, for real!
Saddam is not an American citizen and you can't just go arrest him, read him his rights, and lock him up into a jail. He is the leader of a souvereign country, he doesn't have to care about US laws.
The US has no legal right to police anybody unless they harm an American citizen, and even then, I don't belive Iraq would acutally care about what US lawyers want to do.
Saddam Hussein scares me, Iraq scares me, but sometimes the U.S. scares me even more.
Kurn posted 11-11-98 02:45 AM ET
The whole problem is the major cultural dif between the western world, and the mid east. If we start to encourage more immagration from these countries, unlike frances very racist policies of today, we will beter understand the needs of the mid east people. before we put a bullet in someones head, lets see if we cant do this the civilized way, lets play Iraq a game of Civ2~!
MouthShaft posted 11-11-98 03:37 AM ET
The US may not have any rights to do anything against Hussein but what about the middle eastern countries he threatens. What about their rights? The UN has rights, he doesn't want to obey their sanctions. We've given Saddam many chances to be civilized and settle disputes but he wants to act like a little boy. If he wants to act like that, we should treat him like that. we need to go in there and bully him around. And if we do get into another war with him, I think we shouldn't cease fire until Iraq is ready to surrender unconditionally.
Steel_Dragon posted 11-11-98 04:02 AM ET
Tom your right the US is not the world, and in must issues we freely use our favorite power(That of the purse) to infunace this world a little(Maybe a little too much). But sence the government of Iraq threathens the US it invites our concern.
The reason we ended at 100 hours was becuase Bush did not want to police Iraq( based on history channel programing).
The reason we let him live is becuase we do not like Iran(spelling?) any better. And did not want futher instablity in the region. Mostly I agree with these action, But I think Iraq has step over the line one to many times and it is time for us, or the UN, or us as the UN, to chose one of the following:
Invade and police Iraq
Totality isolate Iraq, including "Humanitian aid" which means letting them starve
shoot Saddam , probaly leading civil war or invasion from Iran
or give him a victory and let him develop his weapons of mass destruction and fluant them in our face
Which is the lesser of evils?
Heckler posted 11-11-98 04:22 AM ET
Shooting the man is unacceptable, in my opinion. Are you actually willing to throw away the lives of a group of SEALs, Rangers, Marines, etc... just to get rid of one madman? Rare indeed is one given good cause to start violence on any scale.
Stopping all shipping into Iraq will not have any effect on getting him out either. If all humanitarian aid is stopped the only ones who suffer will be his people, not Saddam. For the most part Iraquis view him not only as a secular but religious, leader (read a little history regarding sh'ite/sunni disagreements for why.) So this is uneffective.
Lastly allowing him to build and flaunt weapons of mass destruction. This is what he is already doing, he has to date screwed around with the U.N. inspectors so much. Whatever they have found has been for the most part what he wanted them to find. So apparently despite the fact that of all possible choices this is the worst, its whats being done.

Now as the above are unacceptable how about one that is. Satelites are quite capable of telling where he has stashes of arms, chemicals etc... (comparison heat scan over a week or two will show the minute heating and cooling variations even underground deposits of these would cause.) Tell Sadam he has 24 hours to open every instillation to U.N. inspectors or you will start bombing them. If he goes to move the goods blow them away, if he refuses the same. In the end not much will have changed most proabably (I can see his propaganda now "Unwarranted U.S. attacks against hospitals with virtous young women giving birth, resulted in horrendous casualties.")
Heckler
By the way despite what I said on the top he is approaching the "vicious animal" stage where its either shoot or die. One shouldn't enjoy killing but some bastards just deserve it.
Tolls posted 11-11-98 07:44 AM ET
Steel Dragon et al: How exactly does Iraq threaten the US? So what if the Saddam spouts off about the US being Satan or whatever...he's hardly in a position to do anything about it.
Calculus posted 11-11-98 08:04 AM ET
I agree that Saddam is not a threat to the US. But he is a threat to all the land surrounding Iraq, and he could really make all America is trying to do in the Middle East fall apart. Plus he could kill a lot of people in the Middle East. Making Iraq starve is better than nothing, but it will take to long. Why sacrifice so many people for a few madmen? I think America should take things in their hands. Who cares about the UN? America is the UN. America has to wait for the right pretext and send Saddam to the moon. Same should be done to a lot of evil dictators.
BoomBoom posted 11-11-98 08:24 AM ET
Assasination is illegal according to some UN codex. Therefore the best option is to capture Saddam and try him for war crimes (of which he has done more than his fair share (genocide, rape, pillage, basic crimes against humanity)). But as seen with the West's success with getting Karadzic and Mladic to the Hague, it is going to tak a while. I say sponsor the opposition and let the problem take care of its self.
Tolls posted 11-11-98 08:28 AM ET
If no one sold him arms then there's little he could do. Iraq is not exactly a major arms manufacturer.
You really don't want to set a precedent wherein you allow the US to go in and remove leaders they don't like. The US hasn't a very good track record at that.
Fluke posted 11-11-98 09:15 AM ET
The way I see it the only reason why Saddam Hussein is such a little fart is to make the world rattle it's sabre at him. Thusly the People of Iraq feel threatened and support their fearless leader.
The only real solution would be to educate the people and in lack of better that means propaganda (sp?). Give the Iraqi enough Baywatch and they will either surrender to stop the nausea or begin to wonder about the rulership of Saddam.
MouthShaft posted 11-11-98 09:07 PM ET
To Tolls:
Iraq is a threat to the US whenever he threatens countries that may have american citizens in them. namely middle eastern countries with Amercians in them. Also, surprise surprise, middle eastern countries have a track record of supporting terrorist acts against the US.
To Heckler:
shooting a man is acceptable. Chances are if the operation was done in accordance with the CIA and competent military advisement, a S.E.A.L. unit could go in and do it with no casualties of our own. In the gulf war, a four man S.E.A.L. element completely took over an off-shore oil rig without out taking any casualties. Their were 28 Iraqi soldiers on the rig.
Fry the S.O.B.
Tom posted 11-12-98 12:02 AM ET
I think Sid should send a copy of SMAC to Bill and Saddam and let them slug it out in multiplayer.
Whoever wins gets to decide about embargos, biological weapons, yada yada yada, and gets to keep Miss Monica L.
PAX!
NotLikeTea posted 11-12-98 07:16 PM ET
Serious Question here:
Is Saddam his given name or his family name?
If it is his given name, and Hussein his family name, shouldn't the madia, being unbiased by showing his the same respect as other leaders, be calling him "Mr. Hussein", instead of "Saddam"?
I'm not interested in politics here, just what the proper name by which to call him would be.
And I can see jokes a commin. Don't bother.
Heckler posted 11-12-98 10:28 PM ET
MouthShaft: Please prove your position on shooting him, though an ass he is still human. While I can see the need for violence at times and enjoy a good fight in good fun, killing somone is wrong in most cases.
Secondly taking down an oil rig with 28 men is one thing, taking down a protected leader when his people are quite willing to die and kill for him is another. To date he is not yet in my opinion either a) worth the lives of the poor SOB who bites it to take him out or b) yet worth shooting, why waste the lead?
He is not currently dangerous, he is highly annoying and would be dangerous if he completed his attempts to perfect his biological or chemical weapons. If he manages to get close to completion on either of those (much less a uranium enricher) then as I said take out the projects. Saddam should be taken out if he again leads his people into war against another soverign state, and not with a bullet either at that point you don't stop the advance into Iraq you keep going to Baghdad and you drag his sorry but before a war crimes tribunal.
Heckler
Aga1 posted 11-12-98 11:36 PM ET
If i were saddam i would go out with a bang since i know i was going to be attacked and killed first i would do a sneak attack at the US ships and then wait till i lose the war
Jay posted 11-13-98 04:16 AM ET
The US should kidnap Saddam and replace him with someone looking like him.
Wouldn't that be fun?
I mean if "Saddam" would suddently order all of Iraq's army to be dismantled.
Geez.....
Hail Sid!
Steel_Dragon posted 11-13-98 12:07 PM ET
Yes Saddam is his given name, I use it becuase I could not think of the spelling of the other.
NotLikeTea posted 11-13-98 06:36 PM ET
Given name, eh?
How odd....
You'd think that the media would try to appear unbiased by treating his name with as much respect as other world leaders...
Even leaders accused of war crimes have last names in the news... But not Saddam, how odd
Spoe posted 11-13-98 06:40 PM ET
I think it came from a combination of George Bush's emphasis on the name(pronoucing it incorrectly as sa-Damn, which is derogatory) and to avoid confusiong with King Hussein of Jordan.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Iraq
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-10-98 08:48 PM ET I'am am a peace-maker live and let live. Bother me and you die. Atleast that what Civ taught me. Ofcourse ocupation is easier in the game than real life. Should invade and therefore police Iraq. Destroy Iraq. Or let then threaten us?
DHE_X2	posted 11-10-98 10:06 PM ET live and let live, unless you are threatened by them.
MouthShaft	posted 11-10-98 10:36 PM ET Hussein's a psycho with too much power and bent on hurting the US and the civilized world. Send in some seals and kill him. Or Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid on PSX. Great game, highly addictive.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 11-10-98 11:20 PM ET I have one phrase on my view of Saddam: "One shot, one kill." 'nuff said
Tom	posted 11-11-98 02:23 AM ET Ok, America is NOT the world. No, for real! Saddam is not an American citizen and you can't just go arrest him, read him his rights, and lock him up into a jail. He is the leader of a souvereign country, he doesn't have to care about US laws. The US has no legal right to police anybody unless they harm an American citizen, and even then, I don't belive Iraq would acutally care about what US lawyers want to do. Saddam Hussein scares me, Iraq scares me, but sometimes the U.S. scares me even more.
Kurn	posted 11-11-98 02:45 AM ET The whole problem is the major cultural dif between the western world, and the mid east. If we start to encourage more immagration from these countries, unlike frances very racist policies of today, we will beter understand the needs of the mid east people. before we put a bullet in someones head, lets see if we cant do this the civilized way, lets play Iraq a game of Civ2~!
MouthShaft	posted 11-11-98 03:37 AM ET The US may not have any rights to do anything against Hussein but what about the middle eastern countries he threatens. What about their rights? The UN has rights, he doesn't want to obey their sanctions. We've given Saddam many chances to be civilized and settle disputes but he wants to act like a little boy. If he wants to act like that, we should treat him like that. we need to go in there and bully him around. And if we do get into another war with him, I think we shouldn't cease fire until Iraq is ready to surrender unconditionally.
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-11-98 04:02 AM ET Tom your right the US is not the world, and in must issues we freely use our favorite power(That of the purse) to infunace this world a little(Maybe a little too much). But sence the government of Iraq threathens the US it invites our concern. The reason we ended at 100 hours was becuase Bush did not want to police Iraq( based on history channel programing). The reason we let him live is becuase we do not like Iran(spelling?) any better. And did not want futher instablity in the region. Mostly I agree with these action, But I think Iraq has step over the line one to many times and it is time for us, or the UN, or us as the UN, to chose one of the following: Invade and police Iraq Totality isolate Iraq, including "Humanitian aid" which means letting them starve shoot Saddam , probaly leading civil war or invasion from Iran or give him a victory and let him develop his weapons of mass destruction and fluant them in our face Which is the lesser of evils?
Heckler	posted 11-11-98 04:22 AM ET Shooting the man is unacceptable, in my opinion. Are you actually willing to throw away the lives of a group of SEALs, Rangers, Marines, etc... just to get rid of one madman? Rare indeed is one given good cause to start violence on any scale. Stopping all shipping into Iraq will not have any effect on getting him out either. If all humanitarian aid is stopped the only ones who suffer will be his people, not Saddam. For the most part Iraquis view him not only as a secular but religious, leader (read a little history regarding sh'ite/sunni disagreements for why.) So this is uneffective. Lastly allowing him to build and flaunt weapons of mass destruction. This is what he is already doing, he has to date screwed around with the U.N. inspectors so much. Whatever they have found has been for the most part what he wanted them to find. So apparently despite the fact that of all possible choices this is the worst, its whats being done. Now as the above are unacceptable how about one that is. Satelites are quite capable of telling where he has stashes of arms, chemicals etc... (comparison heat scan over a week or two will show the minute heating and cooling variations even underground deposits of these would cause.) Tell Sadam he has 24 hours to open every instillation to U.N. inspectors or you will start bombing them. If he goes to move the goods blow them away, if he refuses the same. In the end not much will have changed most proabably (I can see his propaganda now "Unwarranted U.S. attacks against hospitals with virtous young women giving birth, resulted in horrendous casualties.") Heckler By the way despite what I said on the top he is approaching the "vicious animal" stage where its either shoot or die. One shouldn't enjoy killing but some bastards just deserve it.
Tolls	posted 11-11-98 07:44 AM ET Steel Dragon et al: How exactly does Iraq threaten the US? So what if the Saddam spouts off about the US being Satan or whatever...he's hardly in a position to do anything about it.
Calculus	posted 11-11-98 08:04 AM ET I agree that Saddam is not a threat to the US. But he is a threat to all the land surrounding Iraq, and he could really make all America is trying to do in the Middle East fall apart. Plus he could kill a lot of people in the Middle East. Making Iraq starve is better than nothing, but it will take to long. Why sacrifice so many people for a few madmen? I think America should take things in their hands. Who cares about the UN? America is the UN. America has to wait for the right pretext and send Saddam to the moon. Same should be done to a lot of evil dictators.
BoomBoom	posted 11-11-98 08:24 AM ET Assasination is illegal according to some UN codex. Therefore the best option is to capture Saddam and try him for war crimes (of which he has done more than his fair share (genocide, rape, pillage, basic crimes against humanity)). But as seen with the West's success with getting Karadzic and Mladic to the Hague, it is going to tak a while. I say sponsor the opposition and let the problem take care of its self.
Tolls	posted 11-11-98 08:28 AM ET If no one sold him arms then there's little he could do. Iraq is not exactly a major arms manufacturer. You really don't want to set a precedent wherein you allow the US to go in and remove leaders they don't like. The US hasn't a very good track record at that.
Fluke	posted 11-11-98 09:15 AM ET The way I see it the only reason why Saddam Hussein is such a little fart is to make the world rattle it's sabre at him. Thusly the People of Iraq feel threatened and support their fearless leader. The only real solution would be to educate the people and in lack of better that means propaganda (sp?). Give the Iraqi enough Baywatch and they will either surrender to stop the nausea or begin to wonder about the rulership of Saddam.
MouthShaft	posted 11-11-98 09:07 PM ET To Tolls: Iraq is a threat to the US whenever he threatens countries that may have american citizens in them. namely middle eastern countries with Amercians in them. Also, surprise surprise, middle eastern countries have a track record of supporting terrorist acts against the US. To Heckler: shooting a man is acceptable. Chances are if the operation was done in accordance with the CIA and competent military advisement, a S.E.A.L. unit could go in and do it with no casualties of our own. In the gulf war, a four man S.E.A.L. element completely took over an off-shore oil rig without out taking any casualties. Their were 28 Iraqi soldiers on the rig. Fry the S.O.B.
Tom	posted 11-12-98 12:02 AM ET I think Sid should send a copy of SMAC to Bill and Saddam and let them slug it out in multiplayer. Whoever wins gets to decide about embargos, biological weapons, yada yada yada, and gets to keep Miss Monica L. PAX!
NotLikeTea	posted 11-12-98 07:16 PM ET Serious Question here: Is Saddam his given name or his family name? If it is his given name, and Hussein his family name, shouldn't the madia, being unbiased by showing his the same respect as other leaders, be calling him "Mr. Hussein", instead of "Saddam"? I'm not interested in politics here, just what the proper name by which to call him would be. And I can see jokes a commin. Don't bother.
Heckler	posted 11-12-98 10:28 PM ET MouthShaft: Please prove your position on shooting him, though an ass he is still human. While I can see the need for violence at times and enjoy a good fight in good fun, killing somone is wrong in most cases. Secondly taking down an oil rig with 28 men is one thing, taking down a protected leader when his people are quite willing to die and kill for him is another. To date he is not yet in my opinion either a) worth the lives of the poor SOB who bites it to take him out or b) yet worth shooting, why waste the lead? He is not currently dangerous, he is highly annoying and would be dangerous if he completed his attempts to perfect his biological or chemical weapons. If he manages to get close to completion on either of those (much less a uranium enricher) then as I said take out the projects. Saddam should be taken out if he again leads his people into war against another soverign state, and not with a bullet either at that point you don't stop the advance into Iraq you keep going to Baghdad and you drag his sorry but before a war crimes tribunal. Heckler
Aga1	posted 11-12-98 11:36 PM ET If i were saddam i would go out with a bang since i know i was going to be attacked and killed first i would do a sneak attack at the US ships and then wait till i lose the war
Jay	posted 11-13-98 04:16 AM ET The US should kidnap Saddam and replace him with someone looking like him. Wouldn't that be fun? I mean if "Saddam" would suddently order all of Iraq's army to be dismantled. Geez..... Hail Sid!
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-13-98 12:07 PM ET Yes Saddam is his given name, I use it becuase I could not think of the spelling of the other.
NotLikeTea	posted 11-13-98 06:36 PM ET Given name, eh? How odd.... You'd think that the media would try to appear unbiased by treating his name with as much respect as other world leaders... Even leaders accused of war crimes have last names in the news... But not Saddam, how odd
Spoe	posted 11-13-98 06:40 PM ET I think it came from a combination of George Bush's emphasis on the name(pronoucing it incorrectly as sa-Damn, which is derogatory) and to avoid confusiong with King Hussein of Jordan.