It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What should have been done with Iraq?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
With all the anti-American comments on ATS concerning the war in Iraq. How its illegal or its just a war for oil, etc. I started to do some quick research on how we got to where we currently are. I was interested to read about all the UN resolutions starting from 1980 on up to today. I think what surprised me the most is how completely useless the UN resolutions were. You would have a resolution after resolution where UN would say you need to stop the IRAQ/IRAN war. We are serious this time you need to stop it. No wait, now we are really serious, you need to stop the war. And of course everyone knows of the corruption of the Oil for Food program. We also know that Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds and Iran, not to mention the mass murders, rape rooms, etc.

At this point I then started to think, "ok, if the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq after resolution 1441 what should have been done?" So my question to the ATS crowd is "How would you have handled Iraq? How would you have stopped Saddam? And because of the similarities, how would you have handled Hitler?


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This is how I would have handled Iraq: I wouldn't have. I would have left Iraq alone. I'd have left Vietnam alone too.

I'd be staying out of the business of other countries and minding that of my own, focusing on feeding and caring for my own citizens.

When people really want help, they ask for it. I don't remember hearing anyone over there asking Uncle Sam to drop by.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Anatomic Bomb
 


So the fact that the UN was already involved and was issuing resolutions, however useless, against Iraq doesn't matter to you? What is the difference between Iraq and say Dalfur? In both situations citizens were/are being killed for various reasons and that doesn't bother you?

At what point as a human being do you decided to get involved and make this world a better place? At what point are you willing to fight for those people that can't fight for themselves? Also as I mentioned that during World War 2, Hitler was doing similar things as Saddam. Would you also have chosen to ignore what was going on in Europe?

I just have a hard time believing that you so easily just brush things aside. You have to know that sooner or later something was going to happen outside of the Middle East, maybe not to the US but to one of our allies? What then?



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Well, I would have started by not supporting Saddams regime in the first place. After all, the US administration supported Saddam with weapons, training, and logistics in order to get him in power of the communist part of iraq. The idea was that Saddam was going to be yet another comprador leader that would sell the natural resources of iraq to multi-national corporations at rock bottom prices, while at the same time, crush any labour organizations to keep a large pool of cheap labour for exploitation.

I probably also wouldnt have Armed both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict while saying I was a neutral party. Nor would I have said my government will remain neutral if you were to invade Kuait in order to stop the slant drilling operations. Even if i didnt remain neutral, I probably would have given Saddam more than one week to withdraw his forces from Kuait before I started dropping bombs on their soldiers, infastructure, and water systems.

Afterwards, I wouldnt have launched sanctions on Iraq which only crippled the civilian sector and drove them further into prostrate.

As for the Hitler remarks...Well he was the butcher of Bagdad, but that of course was when he was a friend of the US administration. The comparison to hitler is a propaganda ploy used on a number of regimes in the world. Its purpose is to spur atrocity stories in the media in order to whip the public into a fervor of patriotism in support of a conflict.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
glass parking lot, mixed with mass genocide.

would have taken 5 maybe 10 years to cover it up and forget about but the job would be done in a matter of minutes and the oil would be ours.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I would have threatened Saddam with very real violence. He was an evil, twisted son of a bitch, no-one can deny that, but the destruction of two countries to get to him (and his oil) is a bit much.

I'd have probably gone as far as the SCUD decommissions, but not left them completely defenseless from attack. Then I would not invent some fantastical WMD story and more importantly, I wouldn't have invaded and led to the death of nearly a million people.

But if Saddam didn't play ball, I'd take out one of his sons. Discreetly. That would show him that no-ones messing around and that he better stop what he's doing and pay attention.

If that doesn't work, then there's two options, let him free and watch as he ethnically cleanses his country, or invade and risk even bigger casualties. Either way you think of it, it's horrific.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 

Thankyou Dale.

I think DaleGribble has given a very condensed statement of the prevailing neocon position. The only thing he didn't do was say how advantageous that would be to Israel (providing of course that they could avoid nuclear fallout issues.)

I cannot state what the US should have done in regard to Iraq because that would be treading on ground that starts to attract unwanted attention.

However, let me put it this way, if the people of the United States put their hearts and minds to work on it they could find a way to get along just fine without middle east oil and the oligarchs that control the US oil industry. They wouldn't have to shoot one single person. Just cultivate a better more constructive attitude.

Fortunately we are starting to see the beginnings of that with the green movement. Too bad for all the innocent dead, maimed and grieving Iraqis who happened to be born between the US and what it wants.


[edit on 1-2-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar

But if Saddam didn't play ball, I'd take out one of his sons. Discreetly. That would show him that no-ones messing around and that he better stop what he's doing and pay attention.


as for takeing out one of his sons i dont think this would have worked very well as he has attacked one of his own sons for doing certian things such as openly abusing the ladies. he may have even felt less threatened with one less son.

he left his son pretty bad off from what i understand he was unable to have sex after the attack. he was shot several times in the groin area.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Can we clone a few million Iraqis, say 3x the loss (not bad for a divine assistance/angelic investments as goodwill)?

"...can these bones live?..."
King James version

Ezekiel 37:3



[edit on 1-2-2008 by smurf55]



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Maybe the policy George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton followed regarding Iraq was the best. They allowed Hussein to be kept in power, but kept him in check with UN inspections and the occasional cruise missile attack.

They both could have easily lead a full on invasion of Iraq and deposed Sadam Hussein, but chose not to because they knew invading Iraq would be one huge mess. They both knew it would not only be difficult to occupy Iraq, but Hussein's absence would create a power vacuum which would lead to unstability in the region.

I think Bush could have flipped Sadam Hussein into an ally in the war on terror if he played his cards right. While it is true there are a lot of bad things that could be said about Sadam, he was not a terrorist nor a religious fundamentalist. Hussein also had a history of dealing amicably with people like Rumsfeld in the past. Hussein would have been eager to get back into the good graces of the international community. He could have been receptive to the idea of offering the US help and maybe even cleaning up his own act in exchange for the US lifting trade and military sanctions.



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
America will pay dearly for the imperialistic crimes it has commited against Iraq. We may have defeated the German nation but we took the very core of the evil and transplanted it here, fed and watered it and boy did it grow.
We had control of the northern & southern airspace of Iraq before the war. Quite frankly Saddam couldn't take a dump without us knowing about it but for some reason he was still a threat that if ignored would manifest itself in the form of a 'mushroom cloud'. That was total BS.
He had no chemical weapons and would have hung osama bin laden if he was ever caught in that country so those excuses are also bunk.
Al Queda is there now only because were there now.
I would also have stayed home and found some way to get health care for our people. And don't tell me it would cost to much money when we have shipped pallet loads of cash, much of which is missing, to that crap hole.
Answer me this. Why do we have to be pushing our imperialistic garbage on the world? Is that not what Hitler did before the world banded together and defeated him?
Dear god save me from your followers.
www.liveleak.com...




top topics



 
0

log in

join