Think about Iraq like this...

[bumcheekcity]

Think of it as a man shooting another man. There's the Killer, The Gun and The Victim. The gun (thing which actually caused the physical damage) is Saddam. The Killer is the American Politicialns who put him in power and gave him arms, money and political support (especially for the Iran/Iraq war) the victims are the people of Iraq.

Tell me one thing... when a man shoots another man, do you arrest the killer or the gun?

[Spike-J-Wolfwood]

No. The difference is that a gun has no will of it’s own. A person does. If you want to put blame Elsewhere look at it this way. The power that he wields may have been given to him but it is the same as if one were to sell him the gun. Sure, there should have been a “background check” that would have stopped him from gaining the power but I ask you. Do you arrest the person committing the crime or the guy who sold him the gun and has no real power over what he does with it?

[DarknessIncarnate]

At 2/22/03 05:46 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Tell me one thing... when a man shoots another man, do you arrest the killer or the gun?

Saddem has a personality tho

[JMHX]

At 2/22/03 07:45 PM, DarknessIncarnate wrote:

At 2/22/03 05:46 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Tell me one thing... when a man shoots another man, do you arrest the killer or the gun?

Saddem has a personality tho

So we kill Saddam, not invade the entire nation. The people despise him - do you really think that his sons would line up to take over if he got shot? No. Things don't work like that. They won't just walk up to the position and neither will his Republican Guard. Things would fall like a domino effect.

[tiden12]

thats not entirely true hes sons would be more than happy to take over i eman have you not seem all the things his oldest son has done?

[JMHX]

At 2/22/03 08:48 PM, tiden12 wrote: thats not entirely true hes sons would be more than happy to take over i eman have you not seem all the things his oldest son has done?

The instability resulting from Saddam's assassination would change a lot.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 2/22/03 08:55 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 2/22/03 08:48 PM, tiden12 wrote: thats not entirely true hes sons would be more than happy to take over i eman have you not seem all the things his oldest son has done?

The instability resulting from Saddam's assassination would change a lot.

A lot more bad would result from us just killing Saddam and leaving. We have no idea what would happen. A worse leader could take power, convince the people the U.S. is a big international bully (not too far from the truth, mind you) and invoke an uprising against the U.S. with more terrorism than you could imagine. Some of the egregious things those people in that frame of mind are possible of would send you home crying for a hug from your mother.

What needs to be done is what Bush has in mind. Elimate the corrupt Iraqi forces, help put a new, democratic, and "safe" government in power, and carefully monitor the new Iraq for a few years, gradually loosening our grip around them.

You kill Saddam and you have thousands waiting to take his place. And the sickest thing? Saddam would be remembered forever as a great martyr fighting international absolutism.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

Besides, assassination is a pretty dirty business. You've gotta have people on the inside, and people you trust. Even then, its a big gamble on things. And after all that, Amnesty International would be screaming about how "inhuman" it was, just like they're screaming about how Thai police are killing pushers.

[Deathman33]

Dictators...They all act the same. A trend every time one comes to power. Much like Pyongyang from N Korea, Saddam basically doesn't want to have anything to do with the rest of the world. Once that happens the surrounding countries want to know what is going on b/c we have absolutly no IDEA what they are doing. That creates mass chaos and freaks out the entire world for these "terrorist threats." Yeah maybe we might have chemical warfare...but have you ever noticed that almost every single country is woried about having to deal with nuclear/chemical terrorism.

[firehead]

Actually, killing only saddam would be less risky than invading the whole damn country and kill the army and a lot of civilians and put out puppet government.

If you could only instate a democracy in Iraq problems would have at leats a chance of solving.

If the US put a puppet government is still a dictator since the people of Iraq won't have have a fucking word to say about it, which is as bad as having saddam gorven them.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

Killing Saddam would be the best option, but then again, it's not as certain as invasion

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/23/03 12:55 AM, firehead wrote: Actually, killing only saddam would be less risky than invading the whole damn country and kill the army and a lot of civilians and put out puppet government.

If you could only instate a democracy in Iraq problems would have at leats a chance of solving.

If the US put a puppet government is still a dictator since the people of Iraq won't have have a fucking word to say about it, which is as bad as having saddam gorven them.

A simple assassination would almost certainly result in another dictator coming to power. You can't just kill Saddam, leave, and expect a democracy to naturally form. There was military government for a short period in Japan after World War II, but only until we could get a democratic government set up. Then we left, and the Japanese have ruled themselves ever since. Think the same can't happen in Iraq?

[JMHX]

Well...let's kill him anyway. No harm could come from axing Saddam. Besides, if another dictator comes to power, all of you can go ahead and invade.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/24/03 12:00 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well...let's kill him anyway. No harm could come from axing Saddam. Besides, if another dictator comes to power, all of you can go ahead and invade.

that really woudn't work. if we were to do it, (even though im against it) i know we would have to place a leader in charge, and make sure politicval parties were set up, and that every 3-6 years, the people could vote.

you can't kill a leader of a country ad expect the country to magic itself better again

[NEMESiSZ]

Do you have any political information other than the comics in "Mad" Magazine?

If you had any experience with political debate, you'd realize making up facts doesn't EVER make you correct.

[JMHX]

I think we can all agree that the Iraq debate is getting old, and as soon as the invasion happens, we're going to have an end to topics like this.

[PreacherJ]

The thought of Saddam being the root of all this evil is a bit silly. If you kill Saddam, somebody just fills his place. There might be an even crazier guy around the corner just WAITING for an opputunity to push the big red button.

Interesting thread.

Word.