What I want to know is, where were Babs, and Clooney and Marty Sheen when Clinton invaded Afghanistan without UN approval? I’ll tell ya, they were mattress dancing in the Lincoln Bedroom and having coffee with Hillary! The Dems are going crazy! They are out of the Whitehouse, they are out of power, they are afraid of President Bush and his approval numbers and are organizing ralleys in New York and Calif. trying to stir things up. For them, it is not about Iraq, it’s about 2004. They are out and we need to keep them out! You notice they don’t have any displaced Iraqi people out demonstrating with them, of course not, they want Sadaam out too!
I have little proof besides the training camps discovered in Iraq that Saddam has been helping terrorists. It would seem to undermine his position to have another large terrorist strike against Americans right now. The common American would assume “it was those dang Ay-rabs again”, and “Saddam’s an Ay-rab ain’t he?”, so “LET’S KICK HIS ASS!”
I think that’s what allowed GW to topple Afganistan without the large protests that we are getting now, and terrorism hasn’t exploded since that country (run by very strict Muslims) was cleaned out.
I think the real reason to topple Saddam is to prevent him from using his WMD’s to quietly threaten his neighbors into doing what he wants. And if a WMD war starts between Israel and some other state, he has the might to “counterattack” in the name of Arab solidarity, further cementing his position as the leading power in the area.
In the meantime he’s using his oil resources to build his military and bribe members of the security council. It’s too bad there’s no Kuwaiti’s willing to spend their billions on a mass-marketing bid for war like a decade ago.
GW is using arguments that appeal more to the common person: terrorism, Iraqi oppression, etc. Ending Iraq as the top power in the Middle East doesn’t make a good slogan, though I think the idea is a good one. Iraq would acts more like a Soviet Union than a United States. Invading Iraq now would be better than some greater war in the future. Or even worse, letting Iraq get away with his shenanigans making the UN/US a paper tiger easily bought off with oil money and/or WMD threats.
-k
X~Slayer - there is no need to apologise for not responding earlier - but nice to hear them anyway!
So “the US has the best intelligence gathering network in the world” has it. You are joking surely?! 9/11 was the result of one of the worst ongoing intelligence blunders in US history (and there have been many) - US intelligence had virtually nobody that read or spoke half the languages they found they needed in the immediately aftermath, no inflitration of relevant terrorist organisations (well it is “deep cover” there is going to be shit to pay when the US hear the CIA knew about it all the time) etc etc. The US has no idea what it is about to walk into - it is going to bring a decade of shit down on your heads that will make 9/11 look like a tea party.
And “a case has been made that it threatens the entire world thru its support of global terrorsim” has it. Well it has been made by GW but with zero support - NO links are evident to anyone else around the world that either of these statements are correct. Me thinks you simply trust your leaders too much…
Finally "In historys past before 9-11, the US was prepared to take the first blow before striking back. Embassies can be taken over, barracks blown up, military operations be ambushed, ships be attacked, and servicemen lives be taken by the score and hundreds.
This all changed when civilians come under attack first. It would be immoral to allow that to happen again when it can be prevented. A preemptive strike disables the ability to do that, at least for that localized aspect of it. the US cannot wait for the first strike anymore. It will now strike first when threatened. The message is now, “Dont Tread on Us”."
Oh dear, where do I start - or stop. Try looking the history of US aggression since WWII in Central America (another communist threat to the entire world, eh?). Or how about the US shooting down an Iranian airliner full of civilians (“Sorry, our mistake!” another victory for world class US military intelligence) - imagine if that happened the other way around? Do you think the US would have accepted Iranian apologies?
The US have a well documented history of unprovoked aggression and international terrorism (the car bomb the CIA let off in Beirut) and this latest episode is by no means unique. Sad and tragic, personally because my Prime Minister is crazy enough to support what the US are doing, but not unique…
I see. Clinton invaded Afghanistan, Glenda the Good Witch is actually a transsexual, and Santa Claus is 110 pounds and wears plaid.
Which one of those is the most absurd? I dunno either.
While I agree that the Democrats want back in and will do about anything to do it, making up stuff like “Clinton invaded Afghanistan” is baloney. It’s even too much for me to swallow.
Forgive me, Forgive me!! I meant to say Serbia/Croatia, that whole mess–which he did without UN approval–none of which have anything to do with Santa Claus or transsexuals. I’m trying to bring up a valid point that these Hollywood Democrat liberals and their protests have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with GWB’s approval ratings. It is just like now when we read the history of WWII and wonder where the world was when Hitler was murdering millions of Jews, and wondering why no one did anything—Iraqi and Kurd alike are suffering at the hands of Sadaam and his ilk–where is the outrage outside of the US and UK?