War with Iraq?

[trubluluc]

How many think we should get into it with Iraq.

How many would like to see Bush personally lead the charge?

[TroyD]

As one with a personal vested interest I would guess it isn't a matter of 'if' but more a matter of 'when'...

TSgt BDT, USAF

[nascarmann]

We missed the boat when we were there before. IMO....we don't have a justifiable reason to go in there and start killing people now. We also should wait until we get more world support and the UN see's fit to do more than they are right now.

http://wayneg.ws/discus/clipart/kill.gif

[madmax]

I have no problem with it but I wonder why WE always have to flip the bill for cleaning up the world of scum. If we do go over there I think we should spend the extra cash to capture the whole event in 5.1
madmax

[LiquidSound]

Stomping the fuck out of an oil hording jackass...6 billion dollars. Watching a turban sporting sand weasel splatter to bits in Dolby 5.1 Priceless......

[meestercleef]

If it turns out well for us, then Bush will get credit for being a bold, brilliant leader. If not, he'll be blamed for being a warmongering fool. And every Monday morning QB will claim to have told you so. I really don't know if we should invade or not, because I don't know if there's some sort of special info they aren't telling us because it would compromise security. However, the thing that bothers me the most is the aftermath--even if it turns out to be a nasty fight, dealing with the aftermath will be more difficult that defeating his armed forces. And I have very strong doubts that there will be something as succesful as the Marshall Plan or the rebuilding of Japan in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think that we are looking at post cold-war world with shit hitting the fan here, there, & everywhere off & on for the indefinite future. Maybe not WWIII, but a lot of conflicts that could, over the yrs, add up to a body count similar to a world war. But I'm just babbling. I know even less than a Sunday a.m. talk-show "expert"!

[goingganzo]

i think we should go in and kick some ass the country with 1 nuke is the danger not the country with alot is not i think they have us aginst the world mentality like the natizi was we can solv the problem with 1 or 2 tatical nukes

[HBombToo]

I agree with Nascarmann!
I'd like to see Iraq try some dumb sheat with Israel then we get the clear right to go and kick some ARSS with our friends! Immediate response without congressional approval and deal with the politics later.

[TroyD]

I dunno fellas, I dunno.......and I'm not REAL sure this is the best place for a political debate.

As far as being justified in doing it, well, the fact that Iraq has blatantly non-complied with the UN resolutions and terms of surrender of the Gulf war is enough justification. Saddam has participated in the genocide of the Kurds and I'd bet ANY amount of money he has been an active supporter of terrorism. So if we don't have UN support, eff 'em I say.

Add to all that, Iraq is probably closer to nuclear capability than anyone would care to admit.

Now, having said all that, is this something that I look forward too? Well, to be honest, I've done a fair amount of time in shitty places and am not real eager for more but if that's what it comes too, well that's that.

BDT

[Dr. Spec]

Originally posted by LiquidSound
Stomping the fuck out of an oil hording jackass...6 billion dollars. Watching a turban sporting sand weasel splatter to bits in Dolby 5.1 Priceless......

Laughed our asses off here!!!!:lol:

Doc

[LiquidSound]

Either we attack iraq...or we wait, and debate, and twiddle our thumbs until they attack us first. It's GOING to happen folks..whether we want to admit it or not. Remember, we're the white devils..ANY attack on us is justified by Ala or Buddha or Rammalammadingdong or Orville Redenbacher or whoever they expect to get 21 virgins from.
The best defense is a strong offense...

P.S. I hope every one of those damn virgins look just like Don King.

[HBombToo]

TroyD, I respect that more than I can express!

[trubluluc]

Guys-

I have a couple reservations:

1st) If Iraq is so close to having nuclear capability, why is it only we (USA) seem to be really concerned about it? When other countries who would be far more at risk seem less so.
2nd) And...why is it that Bush is banging the drum, instead of our defense minister, or security advisors?
I have a sinking feeling that letting saddam off the hook is our previous president Bush's greatest
regret. And that now he is hoping his son can finish the job he should have.
We had the country behind the invasion,
we had the armed forces there and committed.
And then, with saddam against the ropes, in the 12th round, ex-president Bush calls it all off.
When he should have finished the job, and gotten saddam's head.


Does Saddam need to go? Absolutely!

But do we really want to spend a single Americans blood, or a freaking trillion dollars
to do so?

[gidrah]

The Monitor 10Bs and I went over for that Desert Shield/Storm shindig. It wasn't fun. I wouldn't wish that on anybody. Then again I'd go back if they would let me.

We WILL go back. If not now, then later. The last I heard Saddam is letting UN inspectors back. This will buy him some time. But as long as he's in charge there will be an ongoing threat.

[F1nut]

But as long as he's in charge there will be an ongoing threat.

There in lies the main problem for us and the entire world. It's a tough call, but I would feel better with Saddam and his camel swinging from the gallows pole.

[PETERNG]

How many times in the past that "Sadam" has trying to "mess and fool" with us. That the way he is, and he never change. Are we just sitting "duck" to watch him build the "nuclear bomd" to thread the rest of the world? Like the chinese use to say "if you want to kill weed, you have to pull up the root", we have some unfinish business here to take care of... Not the matter of "if", but "when" (like Troy said), and I say "soon"

[joe logston]

old man bush realy f---k up he should have got saddam then, in desert storm. we are going to pay for it now.

[nascarmann]

we are going to pay for it now.

We are? Damn.....you be a republican for sure HEY?:rolleyes:

[Micah Cohen]

You guys have been pretty good in this thread, which is why I'm allowing it to survive. Everyone has interesting, informed opinions, and I respect that.

So I'll get into the mix: I think we should play saddam's game. The world, I mean the civilized world, is too filled with "tribal loyalities," either to the US, against the US, against our support of other struggling democracies, against the free market, for them to jump in with us against this tyrant -- a guy who kills his own people and hordes whatever "aid" comes into his country for his own gain (in other words, the people of Iraq never see the benefit of foreign aid).

Germany hates France. France hates England. England is angry at Canada. And everyone hates Israel (and US). China and Russia don't want to funnel any money out of the hands of their ruling classes and into a worldwide fiasco of a war over dirt, so they hate everyone else. And the US stands alone as the single greatest achievement of humankind on the planet, struggling to support democracy and freedom, even when that support takes the form of supporting dictatorships and tyrants who fit our program at the time (ie: Saddam himself, who is killing his people with US weapons).

So we have to play his game: Send the inspectors back in, let him dupe them and hide his arsenal, then slip up and we nab him. I think Bush is right to be firm and decisive on this issue, and I think he's doing the right thing. I even like what Powell has been saying abou the flimsiness of the Iraqi letter -- and I don't like Powell (I think he's too much of a "Dove" to do us any good).

So now we'll see... How great is it that Bush actually motivated the UN, the worst most wasteful and hateful of quasi-governmental organizations? (I wish that the terrorist plans had hit the UN building, but of course all of al quieda's friends are in that building...)

MC

[madmax]

Do your part as americans!!!

[madmax]

Lets see if this works

http://www.funforyou.com/files/content/BLL.swf

[wodom1]

maybe this is why their AAA misses so much!

[meestercleef]

get 'em micah! altho i think you're a bit hard on the UN. their job is almost impossible, & if they help to avoid WWIII, then they've done some good, no matter how effed up they are. the wwI/wilson's attempt at league of nations/wwII scenario illustrates why such an organization is needed. it's a worldwide organization, and as such reflects the human race, desperately trying to live together in spite of ourselves. to rephrase some famous person, the only thing worse than having a UN-type organization is not having one. thank you, and i look forward to your vote. :lol:

[Micah Cohen]

Well, I don't know.

The UN I think has been much more of a hiderance than a help in world affairs. Plus, I'm still stymied by one small thing: How come the one middle eastern country that is a democracy, a free society, a non-theocracy -- where women have equal rights, all religions are free to practice and the government changes peacefully with each election -- has NOT been allowed to join the UN? (I mean, of course, Israel, the only civilized country in the whole middle eastern region.) Freaking CHINA is a member of the UN, and China is a hardline communist country that routinely kills its citizens.

Sometimes, the UN makes no sense. This Kofi Annon character is another guy who has won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything for peace... Just like Arafat and Mother Theresa. Whaddathey just giving those things out?

MC

[Strong Bad]

War should be the absolute last option. Ride it out and play Saddams game. When he slips up, which he most certainly will, then we slam his ass hard!

We saved all the goofball towel heads in the Middle East over 10 years ago and what thanks do we get...ZIPPO! Now they want us to stay away in the name of the Muslim world. I say let their Muslim beliefs save them next time Saddam runs holy hell on that region...which he will!

When that happens, we should kick back with some cold brews, chips and dip and a fresh bushel of steamed crabs and enjoy the fireworks!

First cold one is on me!!! :D

[jcaut]

I hear a lot of people saying that they think George W. just wants to finish what Bush Sr. started. I don't think that really has anything to do with it. Pretty-much everyone agrees that not finishing the job the first time around was a mistake. But the fact remains that we have Saddam there, (crazy-ass terrorist-supporting, chemical weapon-hording, nuclear-craving, U.S.-hating, Kurd-killing lunatic that he is) blatantly ignoring the UN resolutions and terms that were agreed-to at the conclusion of the Gulf war. That's all we really need to know, IMO. I think military action is completely justified. The problem is that we've been talking about it so long now that he knows it's coming.

I wish it wouldn't come to that. I have friends and family serving in the military, and I certainly don't wish another Gulf war on them. But if that's what it takes, then I support it.

[TroyD]

I agree with Micah, what has the UN actually DONE about anything? Not just Iraq but anywhere? Nada, zip, zero. Case in point was Somalia, the UN peacekeepers didn NOTHING to stop Adid and his band from hijacking aid shipments.......How about the Serbs? What did the UN do to prevent that? It may well be that the UN is very well intentioned but as far as actually accomplishing anything of real importance. Pffft, right.

They passed all these resolutions that Iraq was supposed to comply with after the Gulf War and Iraq has thumbed thier noses at the UN since. The UN arms inspectors? Pffft, Iraq has agreed to let the UN inspect MILITARY sites. Not the 'non-military' sites where Iraq will horde all thier stuff.

Again, I'm not a warmonger, as I said before for purely selfish reasons. However, sticking our heads in the sand HOPING that Iraq will play nice (the UN method) just isn't cutting it. At some point there HAS to be consequences

BDT

[Micah Cohen]

That's what I believe as well, that at some point there have to be consequences -- and, further, that we, as the top of the food chain on the planet, should be the ones doling out the consequences. No matter how "bad" we are, no matter what "questionable" things our gubmint does, fact is we are the zenith of human endeavor on earth: we are the society to which all others aspire, we are the leading light of the planet's civilized peoples. And so, what we say goes.

I'm far more hard-line than I can even let on here. I say, we should bomb every barbarian back to the stone age, even tho that's not that far for some of those countries. I wonder why we -- in the 21st century -- are even trying to bargain and negotiate with "princes" and "kings" and tribal leaders and dictators... What is this, ye olde middle ages? This is the modern world: there are NO KINGS AND PRINCES. We shouldn't tolerate that BS.

These warring barbarian tribes are nothing but trouble, and we should wipe them out. The world will be a lot better off.

Next week, I plan to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA at The Senator Theater, and I know I will weep, because the situation has not changed, even today. The film and its issues are more relevant than ever.

It's funny about the UN doing nothing. What did Mother Theresa do? Nothing really. She was a crusader for ending poverty and hunger, but... Poverty and hunger still exist. She was around a long time, too; she had loads of time to crusade, and what? Nothing. Not a dent. Arafat? Wins the NPP, and then turns down the Camp David accords, thus guaranteeing that his people remain prisoners of his own refugee ideals instead of becoming free to start their own government? How can this be? *I* want a Nobel Peace Prize. I've done more for peace than Kofi Annon and Arafat put together.

Idiocy.

Now, I have to leave. So keep it civil while I'm gone. Discuss what you think the inspectors are going to find or not find. Discuss what you think we should do if the inspectors get the run around. Discuss how you think this affects the flow of support for terrorist groups in the middle east, africa and even spain.

Also, what news shows is everyone watching on TV? Fox News? CNN? MSNBC?

MC

[madmax]

Micah is gone now. Let the games begin!!!
madmax

[cruiser3]

The 'game' in the Middle East is about oil and chess manuvers by 'other' power players in the world politic. When Iran threatened stability in the Middle East with its radical Islamic regime, we SUPPORTED Saddem and his chemical warfare against Iran. Now that Iran has been taken off the table, so-to-speak, we are now engaged with Iraq due to the fact that he is now the so-called destablilizing factor.

Take a real close look at what the Oil Industry wants over there and you will begin to see what the game is really all about.....My sadness arises over one thing. We will kill alot of our men in a war with this guy. When Saddam invades or actually comes forth with a threat that is real, let the international community dictate his fate.

[TroyD]

I would agree that supporting Iraq against Iran may not have been the right thing. I also don't think that we are taking him out only because he is a 'destabilizing' element. The issue, to me, is that he is actively pursuing and close to achieving nuclear capability. I have no illusions that he would be reticent to use it. That being the case, we really have no choice.

BDT

[cruiser3]

"The issue, to me, is that he is actively pursuing and close to achieving nuclear capability"

.....and about 12 other Countries........why dont we invade them too?

[phuz]

I liked this article, and I'm curious what some of you think.

http://www.viceland.com/issues/v9n7/htdocs/you.php

[cruiser3]

phuz

Pretty much on target. Albeit a little radical in some respects.

[phuz]

Originally posted by cruiser3
phuz

Pretty much on target. Albeit a little radical in some respects.


Are you a speed reader? Damn. heh

Yes a bit radical. I don't agree with everything, but I liked it in general.

I guess to answer the original question, no... I don't think we should go to war with Iraq. If we do, we are going to really piss off the Arab's and many other countries... and I'm really not sure that's something we want to do.

[Micah Cohen]

More American nutcases.

>> It seems World War III is about to go down. <<

No it doesn't. Relax.

>> America has randomly chosen Iraq as the center of terrorism even though weapons inspectors and embargos left Iraq broke and powerless years ago. <<

No, and no. Iraq is anything but broke and powerless. Saddam is making billions from the embargo and from oil sales to you and me. And he actively supports terrorism, no question, and would, given the chance, gleefully wipe out any democracy that he can. Nothing random about it.

>> They claim the reason is that Iraq is capable of eventually having deadly arms, but they ignore the fact that every other anti-Western country is equally capable. <<

No one's ignoring anything. Anything "anti-western," we should snuff them out. Remember, we are the top of the food chain on this planet. France and Germany should be first on our list.

>> Opponents to the invasion claim annihilating such helpless people for no good reason is going to set the entire Arab world into an anti-American rage that will be more like the apocalypse than simply another Desert Storm. <<

Puh-leeze. Like they're not already in an "anti-American rage." Did anyone notice how fast CNN pulled the footage of palestinians and saudi citizens dancing in the streets with joy right after the second twin tower collapsed? DANCING IN THE STREET BECAUSE THEY KILLED AMERICANS. Helpless people? They seem pretty capable to me -- they're all filled with hate and own guns and are ready, in a very good uncivilized way, to die for their rich dictator's and nutty mullah's causes.

Then they talk to Scott Ritter? He was an Iraqi weapons inspector back in 1998, and all he could talk about was how dangerous and horrible Saddam was! Now, he's been bought off by Saddam in the intervening 4 years and he's an anti-American wacko. He's as much a traitor as that John Lynde character, who should be shot or hung in public, on the mall in DC. Do some research on Scott Ritter and you'll see that anything he says is suspect. He's a liar and a dissembler. :mad:

>> If we do, we are going to really piss off the Arab's <<

And so? When are they not pissed off anyway? When are they not warring amongst themselves, all the "princes," "kings," "emirs," "mullahs," "warlords," and "tribal leaders"? Time to join us, guys, in the 21st Century. Democracy would really piss them off, huh? :lol:

MC

[phuz]

Micah I'm not here for a debate. :)

I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate, I was just presenting a different side of the story and stating my opinion.

[Micah Cohen]

We're actually having a nice little discussion here. I like it. We're being civil and enjoying each other's opinions.

I don't mean to "challenge" anyone to a "debate." (There is no debate; I'm right.)

I think it's especially important for someone who says "I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic" to understand the spin put on coverage of this stuff. Unfortunately, it's mostly an un-American spin, and we often don't even realize it. Always seek the unbiased truth.

It pays to learn about this stuff, and to explore it, because it's all going to impact all of our lives. It's too easy for us to be removed from it here in America, for us to be lazy... CNN removed footage of MUSLIMS CHEERING IN THE STREETS OF GAZA AND SAUDI ARABIA WHEN THE TOWERS WERE HIT, they stopped playing the footage BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID THEY'D LOSE THEIR LUCRATIVE MIDDLE EASTERN BROADCAST RIGHTS! No fooling. It pays to know this stuff.

We should be forced to watch NOT the footage of the towers coming down every day, but the footage of arabs in the street dancing with joy at the death of Americans. We should see this every day! It would INSPIRE us, I'm sure.

MC

[HBombToo]

This is an excellent discussion and I'm glad to see we have so many Patriots.

I would like to raise a question regarding nuclear capabilities though. Are not the delivery systems as important as the actual bomb itself? or maybe, should inspectors focus on delivery systems as well as nuclear, chemical and biological production?

Hell if Iraq is still using the Scud then IMO the only Nation we should be concerned with is Israel in the region... is this a false interpretation because I don't view myself as a professional political analyst either.

[TroyD]

I agree HBomb.....the issues I have are that, IMO, that once the capability is established, the delivery system is MUCH easier to figure out. Second, even if they could only deliver it as far as Irael, they will. My point is that we need to eliminate that threat, not only for our interests but for the rest of the world.

Like it or not, we are THE superpower.

BDT

[phuz]

"and we often don't even realize it. Always seek the unbiased truth. "

I agree completely, which is why I threw that link out there - because it works exactly the same way for the American media and govt. - so many people just accept it and become sheeple and follow the herd.

As far as Arabs dancing in the street cherring at American loss, do you know why they hate us so much? I don't, but I'm curious.....

Disclaimer: The views and questions that I express in this thread are not necessarily what I believe. I just like playing devils advocate sparking good conversation.

[RuSsMaN]

We're golly green giants walking the earth my friends.....

Eff Sadam, he needs to know the regulators are in town, and we plan on cleaning house, and I mean CLEANING HOUSE.

Good read guys, thanks.

Cheers,
Russ

[Frank Z]

Regarding Mr. Ritter,
His bank account is fatter to the tune of $400,000.00, and now he says "Weapons, What Weapons?" Can anyone guess where the money came from?

[Micah Cohen]

True. He's become a stooge of the Iraqis. Sad, really. But, money obviously counts.

Why do they hate us? Because they are under-educated, kept poor and hungry by their leaders (who siphon all the "aid" into their own Swiss bank accounts). They are taught, by powermad theologians, that we are godless and criminal, mostly to deflect their attention away from the crimes of their leaders. Because we are free and affluent (even the bum on the street here is more affluent than most of the people in the middle east) and they are not.

Because they misread their religious texts to support their own powerhungry agendas. (There are some in this country who do the same thing, just to be fair. But at least we usually have common sense about not allowing those people to have any more "power" than a time slot on "Trinity Broadcasting Network.") Because they believe ancient liables passed down thru the ages about the criminality of freedom, western morality and both Judaism & christianity.

But mostly because they have nothing much else to do with their useless, overcrowded, hungry, empty-headed and misdirected lives. That's why they hate us.

Why do they hate us? Because of "The Anna Nicole Show." Because of game shows. Because of MTV. Because of palm pilots and the stock market. Because of cars and bikinis and the ability to travel state to state without having to "show papers." Because of mashed potatoes and Corn Flakes and steak, rare. Because of sushi restaurants on every corner; because of churches on every other corner. They hate us because we can get away without having to pray 6 times a day. And soap operas. They hate us for those, too. They hate us because in their blinkered, 17th century views, we are too modern.

But, we shouldn't care about why they hate us. We should simply force them into the 21st century kicking and screaming. And if it takes a mighty big cattle prod to do it, so be it.

MC

[meestercleef]

Polk could create a new "Knights Templars" forum, in between off-subject & music & movies

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14493a.htm[/url]

To avoid descending into decadence & laxity of faith, only true Polksters would be allowed to serve.;)

[cruiser3]

......"Why do they hate us? Because they are under-educated, kept poor and hungry by their leaders (who siphon all the "aid" into their own Swiss bank accounts). They are taught, by powermad theologians, that we are godless and criminal, mostly to deflect their attention away from the crimes of their leaders....."

Thats very true, but I fear we are headed for bigger and deadlier confrontations. The world is a finite place and we now have the capacity to blow it up. I have no doubts whatsoever that 'we' will destroy it....I just really hate to see it in my lifetime....after all, I like my new Excursion and my Plasama TV.....

[cruiser3]

Just one more thought before I retire this thread.....a quote from Shakesspeare I think appropriate here:

.Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war

in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor,

for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.

It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind...


And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood

boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no

need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,

infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of

their rights unto the leader, and gladly so.

How do I know?

For this is what I have done.

And I am Caesar."

[nascarmann]

Because they believe ancient liables passed down thru the ages about the criminality of freedom, western morality and both Judaism & christianity.

One can talk forever and express very little. One can talk little, and be heard forever?

If this was easy...... :rolleyes:

[joe logston]

im ready for electic cars, the hell with giving them money for oil, if they didnt have that money, all they would have is a camels and a swords.

[trubluluc]

Or we could do what Brazil did when faced with an oil shortage and, unlike the USA, limited financial resources. Make fuel out of alchohol.
They manufacture fuel out of sugar cane processing left overs, in other words, out of what would be thrown away.
We could do the same thing here, with corn stalks etc. The farmers of America could produce enough to completely wean us off of crude oil for auto fuel.

Course we'd have to convince some of the richest people in the country (all friends of Bush), to get out of the oil business.....
yeah sure, that will happen.

-Luc

[pensacola]

My advice for Bush would be:

1. Get support from Congress, if possible.
2. Get support from the UN, if possible.
3. Do the right thing--regardless of how #1 & #2 above turn out.

We now have the strongest leader in the Oval Office since
Ronald Reagan. We finally have a president that is not laughed
at by other world leaders.

9-11-01 should have taught us to strike FIRST, and not wait
until attacked, if nothing else. But that is exactly what is being
debated in Congress.
I hope the president stands firm, and upholds the Constitution.

What we DO know is that Iraq will have a nuclear weapon within
5 years.
What we WILL know (if nothing is done to stop them) is that it
will be aimed at us.

"We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail." — G. W. Bush

[Micah Cohen]

>> "We finally have a president that is not laughed at by other world leaders." <<

I don't know. He can't pronounce "nuclear."

MC

[F1nut]

He doesn't have to......he just has to press a button.

[hoosier21]

I like Bush, but damn did you see the "We have an old saying..

Jesus did he look like a dumbass or what?

[nascarmann]

He is a dumbass.......

[trubluluc]

The idiot son of an idiot.

-Luc

[jcaut]

Man, you guys are tough on the prez!

I like him better than the previous idiot, but Micah's right: That "noocular" thing drives me nuts.

Bush has had a pretty tough go at it so far and I think he's handled it remarkably well. He's smarter than people give him credit for. He just comes across otherwise sometimes. Happens to me alot, too.:rolleyes:

Everybody seen this already?

[nascarmann]

I like him better than the previous idiot

Idiot.....if getting caught screwing around and "lying" to cover it up is an idiot...OK. But, if you are talking about "intelligence", you don't really think that do you....

[jcaut]

No, my use of that term had nothing to do with intelligence.

High intelligence is of course a good thing, but when it comes right down to it I'm not sure it has much to do with being able to lead.

I guess what I'm getting at is: There are more important qualifications for a president than being super-intelligent.

Jason

[F1nut]

I look at it this way....."Slick Willy" was just that, like a used car sleaze ball salesman. Bush reminds me of a down to earth, honest person capable of making common errors, but I trust him.

[nascarmann]

There are more important qualifications for a president than being super-intelligent.

Sure.....like a tax cut that 90% of it went to benefit 1%.... Did it really do a damn thing for you and your brothers and sisters or your mother and father? NOT MINE

Or virtually giving what little virgin timber the U.S. (that spells us, you and me) have to the Willamette's and Weyerhaeuser's and such....

Or maybe striping and mining and drilling the Alaskan wilderness....yeah, I will ask my Congressman to help get that one moving faster.....

And his great economic plan has thing just were we all want it....RIGHT:rolleyes:

[jcaut]

I didn't mean to turn this off of one political debate and on to another with my comments.

I agree with you on a couple of those points; Disagree on the others. But these are the same old party-line arguments that people can discuss for hours on end. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so there's really no point.

I'd really rather not argue. You did like my picture at least, didn't you?

[nascarmann]

Pic was killer........:D

[shack]

It could be worse! We could have AL.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020923/thumb.1032822418.gore_iraq_cams103.jpg

[pensacola]

The Numbers Have It:*

60% — Think Bush has a clear policy on Iraq
65% — Approve of Bush's handling of the situation
68% — "Very important" to oust Saddam
68% — Support U.S. military action against Iraq
77% — Support delaying it for weapons inspections
81% — Support attacking if inspections are blocked


* ABC News poll

[burdette]

http://www.comedycentral.com/timewasters/dl_general.jhtml?show=ds

Above is a link the the "we have a saying" thing as presented on the Daily Show on Comedy Central. Look over on the right, photo of Bush at a podium, and it says "Shame on you."

[DarqueKnight]

Sure, Saddam is a bad guy and all, but I think we need to consider what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like.

As far as Iraqi politicians go, Saddam is a comparative moderate. Believe it or not, Saddam Hussein actually was NOT in favor of invading Kuwait (the event that precipitated the Gulf War). More radical members of Iraq's dominant political party, the Baath party, overruled Saddam and voted to invade.

Even though Saddam Hussein is a "moderate" by Iraqi political standards. he rose to the top ranks of the Baath party because of his excellent negotiating and business skills. Going around invading countries and starting wars is bad for business. If you don't believe that, take a look at the former Soviet Union (or even modern day Iraq).

With regard to the Gulf War, among other things, the Iraqi's were incensed over Kuwait's defaulting on a multibillion loan package when they clearly had the means to pay. The Kuwaitis had, in effect, thumbed their noses at Iraq for many years. If you know anything about Arab culture, these kinds of insults against national pride are not taken lightly.

Prior to the invasion, the Government of Iraq sent word to the Bush administration informing them of their intention to invade Kuwait. The Iraqi government received assurances through diplomatic channels that the Bush administration considered the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait an "Arab matter" and there would be no U.S. intervention.

While the Bush administration may have been honest in their initial indication that they would stay out of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the Iraqis seriously underestimated the influence of Kuwaiti money on the American political system at the legislative levels. Seemingly overnight, the Bush administration reversed their earlier pledge not to get involved in the conflict and the rest, as they say, is history.

If the current Bush administration is intent on taking down Saddam, they are actually talking about wiping out the Baath party and occupying Iraq for many years to come. If Saddam drops dead tomorrow, there are several younger, more aggressive, more radical, less business-oriented, members of his party groomed and ready to take his place.

All this talk of taking down Saddam's regime is a red herring anyway. The main issue is OIL. The thought of an Arab strongman exerting undue political and military influence in the region, and thereby undue economic influence on the disbursement of the region's oil supply is not a comforting thought.

[meestercleef]

a majority of votes? since when does THAT mean anything?:lol:

To go back to my first response on this topic, I worry more about the aftermath than the battle. I don't think Saddam has any real friends, altho his henchmen probably figure that in Iraq, it's better to be on his good side & share the plunder than to be outside the inner circle & get nothing or even worse, be on his bad side & get tortured, imprisoned, killed. We should be able to defeat Iraq.
So what's the plan afterwards? I keep hearing "regime change". We supported Noriega, Saddam, & the anti-Soviet mujahadeen (?) in Afghanistan, which contained the seeds of the Taliban. We wound up fighting all of them later on.
If we attack, we should have a plan that goes to great lengths to make sure that we don't wind up with a new future opponent. Which brings me back to my original post again--where's the Marshall Plan or something like the rebuilding of Japan for Iraq or Afghanistan? I expect that the so-called Post-Cold War Dividend is a myth. We will have forces all over the world like in Korea. The money & resources will be used against a lot of little enemies instead of one or two big ones.
And I say to myself, what a wonderful world . . .

[nascarmann]

pensacola
Polkster

The Numbers Have It:*

60% — Think Bush has a clear policy on Iraq
65% — Approve of Bush's handling of the situation
68% — "Very important" to oust Saddam
68% — Support U.S. military action against Iraq
77% — Support delaying it for weapons inspections
81% — Support attacking if inspections are blocked


* ABC News poll

Yeah.....if ABC was here 5 years before the Civil War, the voting would probably be along those same line for support of slavery....

[nascarmann]

Oh....raife1

YES....it's all boils down to OIL.....

[gidrah]

All that and SDAs ta boot.

IMHO:
Isreal has almost (if not at least) tripled their area within the last 40 yrs. We sit and watch
Saddam gasses his own people. These are the ones that George Sr. was told would overthrow Saddam. We sit and watch.
All the shit in Ireland for years. We sit and watch.
Pol Pot existed, much less ruled. We sit and watch.

If the U.N. ispectors return there should be no reason for attack. If he fucks up we should be all over him. I just don't think we should be able to dictate their government.

[jdelan]

Attack Iraq? No I dont think we should. There are lots of countries that have done the same if not more than Iraq has done and yet we dont do a thing.
The fact remains that since the USSR dissolved the US has looked for someone to be the Bad Guy and we try to place it on Saddam, someone whom we built up all during the 70's and 80's.
It's funny how we are friends with Pakistan, whom are just as bad as Iraq and have Nuclear Capabilities but we just ignore them, cause they are our "friends".
We had our chance to knock out Saddam but we stopped. That is our fault, we lost our chance and it's time to admit that.
Lets let Saddam make his mistake again and then go in and mop up, not now, not without good reason...
And yes we known damn well what he has for weapons, cause we gave them to him!
Saddam is not gonna go and attack Israel or any other country, Saddam is NOT that stupid...
If we REALLY wanna go kill some bad guys who are killing their people, then maybe we should look to Central Africa...Oh, right...No money there...Sorry my bad...

[cruiser3]

INVADE MAC D's!! Overthrow the Hamburgular!!!!

[pensacola]

Originally posted by cruiser3
Just one more thought before I retire this thread.....a quote from Shakesspeare I think appropriate here:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war...
.....For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar."



And now the truth comes out:
The quote is NOT FOUND, IN ANY FORM, IN THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE, OXFORD EDITION.

Unfortunately, another Internet hoax—made up by some anti-war types, no doubt.

[goingganzo]

the olny reason he is letting the inspectors in is caues he hid all the weapons and is josting for time so he can get ready for us

[jdelan]

And the only reason we are going in is to destroy the weapons we gave him. Especially the Bio Weapons...We have to destroy those before he can use them on someone else and then the blame will fall on us...
And yes it is fact that we gave Iraq Biological and chemical samples in the 80's.

[George Grand]

Perhaps the ABC News poll could be expanded to include this question:

How many of you are willing to send YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS to a bloodbath in Iraq?

Bet your sweet ass it's about oil. What better reason to put a Texas oil man at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave?

We've been going on about this oil shit since the early 70's. Why? We have boys and girls in this country that can hit Mars with a fucking rocket. Hit it soft enough so that a little machine pops out, drives around the Martian landscape, and sends images back to this planet. Those same people can't figure out a way for me to get back and forth, to and from my job, without burning gasoline? Who you kidding? Think Green. I'm voting for anyone that is NOT from the two major political parties from here on in. Please join me.

That's going to be my contribution for this semester kiddies. See you in another six months (if we all live 6 months).

George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

[trubluluc]

Perhaps I should change my origional
question from:
"who would like to see Bush personallly lead the charge?"
to:
Who would like to see him be the first casualty?

-Luc

[DarqueKnight]

A couple of days ago, CNN ran an interview with Iraq's minister of defense. Saddam has challenged Bush to an old-fashioned duel, on neutral ground, with mutually agreed upon weapons, and with U.N. Secretary General Koffe Annon to be the referee/mediator. White House spokesman Ari Fliescher dismissed the duel offer as "utterly ridiculous.

I thought it was a great offer. Surely Bush could beat an old man like Saddam.;)

[pensacola]

>>I thought it was a great offer. Surely Bush could beat an old man like Saddam

Especially if the weapon of choice is:

Carrier, Aircraft, 1 each



.

[HBombToo]

I would like to reaffirm my position that Iraq should be left alone.

We are applying way to much pressure in the UN and Yes Bush has fullfilled an agenda... so... Let the world body decide!

If oil is a concern then may I suggest long term plans with Russia? The IMF supported development...

A competitive marketplace is good for all and there is a ton of oil in Russia... decrease dependance of oil from the middle east and let the market dictate future action.

justmyrant and I don't want to see this type of HIT on our economy... ~ 10Billion +/- 4 a month is very expensive!

In my Humble Opinion.

[jdavy]

Iraq is a difficult issue. World opinion is very important since we can illafford to piss everyone off. At the same time, we can not simply show the world what we know about Iraq without exposing our information gathering techniques. (people and technology) Personaly I do not think that Bush is handling this problem very well. I am a moderate Republican and I may vote for the Democrat in the next Presidential election. Where have the good leaders gone?

[HBombToo]

Well... at the very minimum I would say Bush sounds like a very resolved Texan. Never a moment when he appeared unsure of himself and never looked for acceptance.

I would say that was a very well delivered message to Iraq!
God help them.

HBomb

[RuSsMaN]

Hey, thats we do it in the Lone Star State.....

Eff' em.....

Cheers,
Rooster

[PETERNG]

Originally posted by George Grand

Bet your sweet ass it's about oil.
George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)

No doubt...

[avelanchefan]

You know whats funny to me. For all the people that do not like GWBush, well you can thank Bud Selig for him being president.

Why? Because when Bush was owner of the Rangers, he really wanted to be commissioner of baseball. Selig promised support for George if Selig could get Fay Vincent out of office. When Bud rallied the owners to kick Vincent out, Bud took the office for himself.

So what did George do? He got pissed, sold the Rangers like he planned to, used the money to run for Govenor of Texas. And the rest as you know is history. So when you guys are blasting George for his blunders, you might as well blast Bud Selig too.

BTW- George has made no qualms about his dislikes for Selig. He really wanted that job badly. And I think he secretly wanted the players to strike so all the blame would be on Bud.

I am in no way a Republican or a Democrat. But I wonder what would be different if Al Gore was in office. And how he would have handled these past 13 months.