The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The situation between Iraq and the West has been deteriorating over the past few months, and now the it has nearly reached its climax, there is a very important choice that must be made, (unfortunately, by George Bush) and that choice is whether or not to attack Iraq. Although this situation does not really concern the world of video games, I think it is something, which everyone should be made aware of. That is why I have decided to post the arguments for and against taking military action against Saddam Hussein. I hope the following will help some people see both sides of the story, because after talking to some of my friends, I found that they seemed to be too narrow minded and were too sure of which choice should be made. By using the Internet, I can be sure that a larger audience will be able to read the arguments and decide for themselves.
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE ARGUMENTS
FOR
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. - These could be used to target major cities such as London and New York.
Saddam Hussein is not complying with UN regulations. - No country or person should regard themselves too important to abide by UN laws.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader. - He could use Iraq’s army to invade neighbouring countries, like he has done before (He invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with over 500,000 troops). During the Gulf War, he kept civilian hostages, including a six-year old boy. Saddam has also been known to use chemical weapons on certain ethnical minorities in his own country, who are still persecuted today.
A pre-empitive strike could prevent needless deaths – An act of tyranny or terrorism could kill many people (if Hitler had been killed before the WWII, it might have been prevented).
The people of Iraq deserve the chance to choose an appropriate leader. –The people of Iraq cannot vote officials into power as they see fit, they must do what Saddam Hussein tells them to, because he runs a Dictatorship. The people of Iraq deserve the right to vote, through a Democracy.
AGAINST
Although Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, so do most countries. – Most of the world’s largest nations have nuclear weapons, in fact, enough to destroy the human race. Starting a war would cause needless bloodshed, civilian and military deaths would occur.
Saddam Hussein has no clear motives for war. – It is unlikely that he will wage war on the West, who are more powerful and could crush Iraq in a war. Saddam Hussein has also been trying to prevent war recently.
George Bush is on the brink of breaking UN laws. – If President Bush decides to attack Iraq (without the approval of the UN Security Council) he will be breaking UN laws. This could cause other countries to follow suit, and pursue their own policies (i.e. India could invade Pakistan).
George Bush has failed to bring complete peace to Afghanistan. - Many civilians have died in the attacks on Afghanistan, yet Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice. An attack to topple Saddam Hussein could have the same outcomes.
Excluding Israel, there are no Democracies in the Middle East. – Why should Saddam Hussein be toppled if most other countries nearby consist of Dictatorships?
George Bush could have underlying reasons for an attack. – President Bush’s father failed to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and Iraq is rich with oil, perhaps Bush plans to topple Saddam to settle the personal matters and make a profit from the oil.
CONCLUSION
Saddam Hussein has caused much needless suffering, but the attacks in Afghanistan caused many civilian deaths (including the bombing of a wedding); therefore George Bush has also caused needless suffering. The main argument against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and perhaps nuclear capability. England and the US both have nuclear weapons but that does not necessarily mean that they will use them, I believe that the same applies with Saddam Hussein, who has weapons, but is trying very hard to avoid conflict. Some people say that Saddam should have been toppled because he was not complying with UN regulations; but even now, after Saddam Hussein has said that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed into Iraq, George Bush still wants to undertake military action against Iraq. This supports the theory that George Bush wants to topple Saddam Hussein for personal reasons, and perhaps to take Iraq’s oil reserves. The fact that Iraq is runs a Dictatorship should not be a reason for war, as many other Middle Eastern countries also have Dictatorships. If the US wages war on Iraq, then they will be breaking UN laws, which is complete ignorance of one of the UN’s chief motives; to keep the peace in the world. I believe that provoking Saddam Hussein could cause him to make very bad decisions, in desperation and a war would cause needless destruction and the deaths of civilians and soldiers from many nations. I think that any action to be taken against Iraq should be planned and carried out by the United Nations, not independent countries.
I hope that this post has helped you to see both arguments, and will help you to make an informed decision as to which choice you think is right.
Thanks for reading,
Lombardo
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE ARGUMENTS
FOR
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. - These could be used to target major cities such as London and New York.
Saddam Hussein is not complying with UN regulations. - No country or person should regard themselves too important to abide by UN laws.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader. - He could use Iraq’s army to invade neighbouring countries, like he has done before (He invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with over 500,000 troops). During the Gulf War, he kept civilian hostages, including a six-year old boy. Saddam has also been known to use chemical weapons on certain ethnical minorities in his own country, who are still persecuted today.
A pre-empitive strike could prevent needless deaths – An act of tyranny or terrorism could kill many people (if Hitler had been killed before the WWII, it might have been prevented).
The people of Iraq deserve the chance to choose an appropriate leader. –The people of Iraq cannot vote officials into power as they see fit, they must do what Saddam Hussein tells them to, because he runs a Dictatorship. The people of Iraq deserve the right to vote, through a Democracy.
AGAINST
Although Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, so do most countries. – Most of the world’s largest nations have nuclear weapons, in fact, enough to destroy the human race. Starting a war would cause needless bloodshed, civilian and military deaths would occur.
Saddam Hussein has no clear motives for war. – It is unlikely that he will wage war on the West, who are more powerful and could crush Iraq in a war. Saddam Hussein has also been trying to prevent war recently.
George Bush is on the brink of breaking UN laws. – If President Bush decides to attack Iraq (without the approval of the UN Security Council) he will be breaking UN laws. This could cause other countries to follow suit, and pursue their own policies (i.e. India could invade Pakistan).
George Bush has failed to bring complete peace to Afghanistan. - Many civilians have died in the attacks on Afghanistan, yet Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice. An attack to topple Saddam Hussein could have the same outcomes.
Excluding Israel, there are no Democracies in the Middle East. – Why should Saddam Hussein be toppled if most other countries nearby consist of Dictatorships?
George Bush could have underlying reasons for an attack. – President Bush’s father failed to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and Iraq is rich with oil, perhaps Bush plans to topple Saddam to settle the personal matters and make a profit from the oil.
CONCLUSION
Saddam Hussein has caused much needless suffering, but the attacks in Afghanistan caused many civilian deaths (including the bombing of a wedding); therefore George Bush has also caused needless suffering. The main argument against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and perhaps nuclear capability. England and the US both have nuclear weapons but that does not necessarily mean that they will use them, I believe that the same applies with Saddam Hussein, who has weapons, but is trying very hard to avoid conflict. Some people say that Saddam should have been toppled because he was not complying with UN regulations; but even now, after Saddam Hussein has said that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed into Iraq, George Bush still wants to undertake military action against Iraq. This supports the theory that George Bush wants to topple Saddam Hussein for personal reasons, and perhaps to take Iraq’s oil reserves. The fact that Iraq is runs a Dictatorship should not be a reason for war, as many other Middle Eastern countries also have Dictatorships. If the US wages war on Iraq, then they will be breaking UN laws, which is complete ignorance of one of the UN’s chief motives; to keep the peace in the world. I believe that provoking Saddam Hussein could cause him to make very bad decisions, in desperation and a war would cause needless destruction and the deaths of civilians and soldiers from many nations. I think that any action to be taken against Iraq should be planned and carried out by the United Nations, not independent countries.
I hope that this post has helped you to see both arguments, and will help you to make an informed decision as to which choice you think is right.
Thanks for reading,
Lombardo
The situation between Iraq and the West has been deteriorating over the past few months, and now the it has nearly reached its climax, there is a very important choice that must be made, (unfortunately, by George Bush) and that choice is whether or not to attack Iraq. Although this situation does not really concern the world of video games, I think it is something, which everyone should be made aware of. That is why I have decided to post the arguments for and against taking military action against Saddam Hussein. I hope the following will help some people see both sides of the story, because after talking to some of my friends, I found that they seemed to be too narrow minded and were too sure of which choice should be made. By using the Internet, I can be sure that a larger audience will be able to read the arguments and decide for themselves.
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE ARGUMENTS
FOR
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. - These could be used to target major cities such as London and New York.
Saddam Hussein is not complying with UN regulations. - No country or person should regard themselves too important to abide by UN laws.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader. - He could use Iraq’s army to invade neighbouring countries, like he has done before (He invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with over 500,000 troops). During the Gulf War, he kept civilian hostages, including a six-year old boy. Saddam has also been known to use chemical weapons on certain ethnical minorities in his own country, who are still persecuted today.
A pre-empitive strike could prevent needless deaths – An act of tyranny or terrorism could kill many people (if Hitler had been killed before the WWII, it might have been prevented).
The people of Iraq deserve the chance to choose an appropriate leader. –The people of Iraq cannot vote officials into power as they see fit, they must do what Saddam Hussein tells them to, because he runs a Dictatorship. The people of Iraq deserve the right to vote, through a Democracy.
AGAINST
Although Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, so do most countries. – Most of the world’s largest nations have nuclear weapons, in fact, enough to destroy the human race. Starting a war would cause needless bloodshed, civilian and military deaths would occur.
Saddam Hussein has no clear motives for war. – It is unlikely that he will wage war on the West, who are more powerful and could crush Iraq in a war. Saddam Hussein has also been trying to prevent war recently.
George Bush is on the brink of breaking UN laws. – If President Bush decides to attack Iraq (without the approval of the UN Security Council) he will be breaking UN laws. This could cause other countries to follow suit, and pursue their own policies (i.e. India could invade Pakistan).
George Bush has failed to bring complete peace to Afghanistan. - Many civilians have died in the attacks on Afghanistan, yet Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice. An attack to topple Saddam Hussein could have the same outcomes.
Excluding Israel, there are no Democracies in the Middle East. – Why should Saddam Hussein be toppled if most other countries nearby consist of Dictatorships?
George Bush could have underlying reasons for an attack. – President Bush’s father failed to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and Iraq is rich with oil, perhaps Bush plans to topple Saddam to settle the personal matters and make a profit from the oil.
CONCLUSION
Saddam Hussein has caused much needless suffering, but the attacks in Afghanistan caused many civilian deaths (including the bombing of a wedding); therefore George Bush has also caused needless suffering. The main argument against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and perhaps nuclear capability. England and the US both have nuclear weapons but that does not necessarily mean that they will use them, I believe that the same applies with Saddam Hussein, who has weapons, but is trying very hard to avoid conflict. Some people say that Saddam should have been toppled because he was not complying with UN regulations; but even now, after Saddam Hussein has said that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed into Iraq, George Bush still wants to undertake military action against Iraq. This supports the theory that George Bush wants to topple Saddam Hussein for personal reasons, and perhaps to take Iraq’s oil reserves. The fact that Iraq is runs a Dictatorship should not be a reason for war, as many other Middle Eastern countries also have Dictatorships. If the US wages war on Iraq, then they will be breaking UN laws, which is complete ignorance of one of the UN’s chief motives; to keep the peace in the world. I believe that provoking Saddam Hussein could cause him to make very bad decisions, in desperation and a war would cause needless destruction and the deaths of civilians and soldiers from many nations. I think that any action to be taken against Iraq should be planned and carried out by the United Nations, not independent countries.
I hope that this post has helped you to see both arguments, and will help you to make an informed decision as to which choice you think is right.
Thanks for reading,
Lombardo
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN: THE ARGUMENTS
FOR
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. - These could be used to target major cities such as London and New York.
Saddam Hussein is not complying with UN regulations. - No country or person should regard themselves too important to abide by UN laws.
Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader. - He could use Iraq’s army to invade neighbouring countries, like he has done before (He invaded Kuwait in August 1990, with over 500,000 troops). During the Gulf War, he kept civilian hostages, including a six-year old boy. Saddam has also been known to use chemical weapons on certain ethnical minorities in his own country, who are still persecuted today.
A pre-empitive strike could prevent needless deaths – An act of tyranny or terrorism could kill many people (if Hitler had been killed before the WWII, it might have been prevented).
The people of Iraq deserve the chance to choose an appropriate leader. –The people of Iraq cannot vote officials into power as they see fit, they must do what Saddam Hussein tells them to, because he runs a Dictatorship. The people of Iraq deserve the right to vote, through a Democracy.
AGAINST
Although Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, so do most countries. – Most of the world’s largest nations have nuclear weapons, in fact, enough to destroy the human race. Starting a war would cause needless bloodshed, civilian and military deaths would occur.
Saddam Hussein has no clear motives for war. – It is unlikely that he will wage war on the West, who are more powerful and could crush Iraq in a war. Saddam Hussein has also been trying to prevent war recently.
George Bush is on the brink of breaking UN laws. – If President Bush decides to attack Iraq (without the approval of the UN Security Council) he will be breaking UN laws. This could cause other countries to follow suit, and pursue their own policies (i.e. India could invade Pakistan).
George Bush has failed to bring complete peace to Afghanistan. - Many civilians have died in the attacks on Afghanistan, yet Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice. An attack to topple Saddam Hussein could have the same outcomes.
Excluding Israel, there are no Democracies in the Middle East. – Why should Saddam Hussein be toppled if most other countries nearby consist of Dictatorships?
George Bush could have underlying reasons for an attack. – President Bush’s father failed to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and Iraq is rich with oil, perhaps Bush plans to topple Saddam to settle the personal matters and make a profit from the oil.
CONCLUSION
Saddam Hussein has caused much needless suffering, but the attacks in Afghanistan caused many civilian deaths (including the bombing of a wedding); therefore George Bush has also caused needless suffering. The main argument against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and perhaps nuclear capability. England and the US both have nuclear weapons but that does not necessarily mean that they will use them, I believe that the same applies with Saddam Hussein, who has weapons, but is trying very hard to avoid conflict. Some people say that Saddam should have been toppled because he was not complying with UN regulations; but even now, after Saddam Hussein has said that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed into Iraq, George Bush still wants to undertake military action against Iraq. This supports the theory that George Bush wants to topple Saddam Hussein for personal reasons, and perhaps to take Iraq’s oil reserves. The fact that Iraq is runs a Dictatorship should not be a reason for war, as many other Middle Eastern countries also have Dictatorships. If the US wages war on Iraq, then they will be breaking UN laws, which is complete ignorance of one of the UN’s chief motives; to keep the peace in the world. I believe that provoking Saddam Hussein could cause him to make very bad decisions, in desperation and a war would cause needless destruction and the deaths of civilians and soldiers from many nations. I think that any action to be taken against Iraq should be planned and carried out by the United Nations, not independent countries.
I hope that this post has helped you to see both arguments, and will help you to make an informed decision as to which choice you think is right.
Thanks for reading,
Lombardo
The impression i got from Panorama was that Saddam's missles aren't powerful enough to reach America, or even Britain. However i think he must be retired. He is a very evil man, and anyone of his mind should not be in charge of running a country.
Hmm well I've seen that news programs have also said they dont have the technology to send anything that far. I was watching this other program which was the US military advisor person and he said the only way to actually get into iraq is through a beachhead which can easily be defended.... Sound familiar? But we do have better technology now....
cookie monster wrote:
> The impression i got from Panorama was that Saddam's missiles aren't
> powerful enough to reach America, or even Britain. However i think he
> must be retired. He is a very evil man, and anyone of his mind should
> not be in charge of running a country.
Saddam's current weapons mean that Israel, Turkey, Cyprus and the entire Middle East are all within missile range. Iraq is currently making no secret of the fact that it is testing longer range missiles which would bring more of Europe into range.
The threat is that Saddam will give terrorist groups access to his WMDS and allow them to use them, hitting western cities like NYC and London.
Think about it, all western countries have massive problems contolling illegal immigration. If just 1 person were to sneak in, carrying a backpack, containing a nuke of nerve gas, and major city would be fair game and easy to attack.
Panorama ? BBC program so I don't take them seriously most of the time, there program was overly biased and might as well not have bothered.
The other program someone mentioned, with the US advisor. I'm sorry, but that guy didn't have much of a clue. No one wants to establish a beachhead ! Beachheads are for full scale invasions and long coflicts, everyone wants this to be a total blitz and over in weeks if possible. The beachheads are already in place for this kind of operation - Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, an the mass flottilla of ships sitting around in the sea...... whilst many countries say they won't help, they will when it comes to go time, and if they won't....welll I'd hate to be the country that sends interceptors up against the RAF and USAF because they'll be shot ou of the sky.
If the UN continues to mess around with such stupid deals as yesterday then it's time the USA and the UK, and our real allies, showed the world that were not going to be constrained by self interest politics and fatal opinions.
~~Belldandy~~
> The impression i got from Panorama was that Saddam's missiles aren't
> powerful enough to reach America, or even Britain. However i think he
> must be retired. He is a very evil man, and anyone of his mind should
> not be in charge of running a country.
Saddam's current weapons mean that Israel, Turkey, Cyprus and the entire Middle East are all within missile range. Iraq is currently making no secret of the fact that it is testing longer range missiles which would bring more of Europe into range.
The threat is that Saddam will give terrorist groups access to his WMDS and allow them to use them, hitting western cities like NYC and London.
Think about it, all western countries have massive problems contolling illegal immigration. If just 1 person were to sneak in, carrying a backpack, containing a nuke of nerve gas, and major city would be fair game and easy to attack.
Panorama ? BBC program so I don't take them seriously most of the time, there program was overly biased and might as well not have bothered.
The other program someone mentioned, with the US advisor. I'm sorry, but that guy didn't have much of a clue. No one wants to establish a beachhead ! Beachheads are for full scale invasions and long coflicts, everyone wants this to be a total blitz and over in weeks if possible. The beachheads are already in place for this kind of operation - Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, an the mass flottilla of ships sitting around in the sea...... whilst many countries say they won't help, they will when it comes to go time, and if they won't....welll I'd hate to be the country that sends interceptors up against the RAF and USAF because they'll be shot ou of the sky.
If the UN continues to mess around with such stupid deals as yesterday then it's time the USA and the UK, and our real allies, showed the world that were not going to be constrained by self interest politics and fatal opinions.
~~Belldandy~~
cookie monster wrote:
> The impression i got from Panorama was that Saddam's missles aren't
> powerful enough to reach America, or even Britain.
Al'Qaida didn't have missiles or weapons to get as far as America yet they still managed to kill over 3,000 people. Just because they don't have weapons to get that far doesn't mean they won't still find a way to attack the UK or USA
> The impression i got from Panorama was that Saddam's missles aren't
> powerful enough to reach America, or even Britain.
Al'Qaida didn't have missiles or weapons to get as far as America yet they still managed to kill over 3,000 people. Just because they don't have weapons to get that far doesn't mean they won't still find a way to attack the UK or USA
cookie monster, i didn't mean that Saddam Hussein would necessarily have to attack from Iraq, attacks on major cities can result from one person with a bomb, or even a plane. Nevertheless, it is good to hear everyone else's opinions on the matter, keep 'em coming!