This whole thing is Saddam’s fault. He never should have let us send him all those weapons and chemicals. What was he thinking?
I don’t know, but he should have known that receiving tacit approval from the U.S. for an invasion of Kuwait actually meant “back the hell off or we’ll bomb the hell out of you.”
Have to agree with Johnny LA on this one.
Was going to go into a tirade, but after my recent eruption in the Pit I’m kind of tuckered out. There’s just not a valid justification for war with Iraq at this time.
I very much agree with JOHNNY LA also, sums up my feelings to a tee.
side note-check out my sigline for more info
Some of us don’t enable sigs. Just so you know.
It reminds me of little boys playing with they plastic men & plastic planes only on a larger scale.
And since WHEN have we been the “good guys”??
Let’s start listing all the times and places where our policies, behavior, actions, presence, etc. have caused problems.
We’ve been a nation of empire building takeover artists and regime topplers since at least the Spanish American war.
We may feel like we’re the good guys, but the bad guys never feel like they’re doing anything wrong. Just ask Saddam.
Sell your SUV, don’t just slap a Flag on it. I know it’s a dream that I pulling out of my ass here, but maybe, just maybe we can reduce the suckling of the oil tit for once?
Yeah, OK, I know.
Gotta go.
There is a person who lives near me who has a large SUV - with a sticker that says ‘NO OIL WAR’ or something to that effect. I find it terribly amusing.
During the campaign for the 2000 election I saw one of the BIG SUVs with a Nader 2000 sticker on it. I couldn’t help pondering whether the driver was just confused or some mischievious Nader supporter had put the sticker on the SUV surreptiously.
It doesn’t matter WHAT kind of government gets put in after Saddam. It will be at least good five or six years before Iraq can reorganize itself enough to be a pain in our collective ass. By then, Bush will be finished with his second term, and his successor can point out that the new Iraq threat isn’t his fault–he wasn’t even in office yet. Then the successor can start trumpeting for another war to “fix” Iraq.
Why let a little thing like lack of justification ruin a perfectly good war? It’ll be great television. Lots of explosions, loud noises and flashing things. We’ll all be glued to our sets.
Er . . . do your co-workers understand, even vaguely, what the difference between a bomb and an ICMB is? Or what is needed to project power? Never mind. The loudest advocates of the war are generally the least informed.
I vote for Operation Re-Election.
Erm… Nope!
The department director came by one day, and the “three strikes” law was being discussed on the radio. He said he didn’t understand why there was even any debate. I pointed out that stealing some cookies or something doesn’t really warrant 25 years in prison. He countered, “But if he’s committed other felonies, how many chances are you going to give him?” The same guy says that a watch won’t spontaneously build itself out of raw materials and that it needs a creator; thus, evolution doesn’t happen. (Personally I think that it proves evolution, else the first watch would have been atomic.) But that’s a debate for another thread.
Suffice it to say that my cow-orkers (NB to new posters: it’s an old joke) hear “nuclear” and seem to think that Sadam has missiles that can reach us or terrorists under his command who can smuggle a device into the country, place it, and set it off. While a “dirty” (i.e., non-fission) bomb is unpleasant, it’s primary value is terror rather than actual damage. But my cow-orkers think “nuclear” means Hiroshima, and that Sadam is going to bomb the U.S. if we don’t kill him first.
Now, Sadam is a dangerous lunatic. I don’t think he understands nuclear brinksmanship. I think he thinks that he can hold a nuclear threat and that the U.S. wouldn’t dare attack him as long as he has The Bomb (assuming he makes them). Seriously, would the U.S. nuke a city in retaliation for an horrific Iraqi attack? I’d feel queasy about it. But I think that the present administration might not have such great qualms given sufficient provocation. Sadam with a Bomb is not a good thing. I can certainly see why the Hawks want to go to war now rather than later. It’s safer to attack now. But I think war is a last option. I think there are diplomatic otions. I think there are “black” options, if need be. I don’t think that now is the time for war.
I thought it was Operation Bend Over, American People
And Iraqi people, and probably British people.
Except that the little plastic men and plastic planes and plastic tanks and plastic whatevers represent real men who would love nothing more than to come home. I know, because I’m married to one of them.
I know, I knew what I was getting into when I married him. But I’d like to think my husband might be going over there for something greater than getting Bush the Lesser re-elected.
[sub]handy, that wasn’t aimed at you. It’s aimed at the geniuses who think this exercise in bullshitting the American people is actually a good idea.[/sub]
Robin
My money is on Operation Make Daddy Notice I wear Big Pants Now
How about preventing your child from being incinerated by a nuclear bomb, or poisoned by gas, or infected with Anthrax or Smallpox? Is that a good enough reason?
Sure. If there was any evidence whatsoever that there was such a danger. The fact is that Bush and his harem of ass kissers haven’t offered an iota of proof to back up their claims.
If you seem to think that some proof exists, then by all means provide a link to it.
Bush will go down in history as our worst president ever. Ten years from now people will deny that they voted for him.
Do you promise? 
Sure. I think it’s a pretty safe bet.
(And I can always adjust the criteria for “worst president ever” so Dubya fits the bill )
My vote for a “nickname” goes to Operation Just Cause II.
“Get that evil Norieg-- err, Hussein.”
Seems to be running according to the same script.
Okay. Let me see if I can explain this.
Airman gets up five to seven days a week, and puts on his Air Force flightsuit and goes to work. He works at an Air Force Base. The Air Force pays him. The Air Force might send him to the Middle East, which means he’s in immediate danger of getting shot down or having his plane crash, or any number of war-related horrors.
On the other hand, the threat of nuclear annihilation, or chemical or biological warfare is still, at best, theoretical. There has been no clear and convincing evidence that, even if Iraq has these capabilities, Iraq is going to use them against the US. (Yes, I know about the Kurds. Sam Stone meant to make the comparison real, and I’m keeping it personal.)
So, weighing a real versus a theoretical threat? I’d rather have the theoretical threat versus the real life insurance check and the real flag that might drape Airman’s coffin. Sorry, I’m just funny that way.
Robin