Actually no. Its had more to do with Slurpies.
No. For the exact reasons Johnny LA posted. With him 100%. IF an attack on Iraq is to be made, I want to see some real proof instead of Post-9/11 spin. And preferably, I wouldn’t want it to be a US operation either. I think more pressure should be excercised on Iraq to admit UN inspectors again, but I don’t think “America will bomb your ass” should be one of the means to excercise pressure.
Also, listen to Watermelon Man. Read up on the man he talks about, Ocalan. While I’m against the notion that Turkey sentence this man to death, and I do recognise the Kurds’ struggle for their own state, the Turkish government did an excellent job in catching a terrorist that threatened their nation. Something the US so far has been incapable of.
Saddam is an asshole, but he’s crippled. His impact on the world, even the Arab world, is miniscule compared to where he stood in 1990. Unless there’s concrete proof that Iraq has vast amounts of nukes on the ready, Saddam is the perfect example of “know your enemy”. He ain’t going anywhere, and he’s relatively harmless to the outside world, including the US. A new regime might not be so predictable.
As for the notion that this is all about protecting the innocent Iraqi citizens, give me a friggin’ break. That bullshit didn’t work in the Gulf War, and it won’t work now, mr Bush.
:rolleyes:
I’m surprised this hasn’t been Pitted yet.
Daoloth: Outside of this message board, I find it impossible to hold an intelligent conversation (debate, if you will) with most people. It’s bloody difficult to present arguments that I think are well thought-out and logical when the other person replies with something like, “All’s I know is…”, or gets a glassy expression and just loses interest.
Maybe it’s just me or my style, but it seems to me that outside of this message board most of my fellow Americans I talk to just don’t care. And if they do care, they operate on an emotional rather than logical level.
YMMV.
Sorry for the hijack. I’m just frustrated by the path my country seems to be taking.
Most people don’t want to hear that the reasons for the terrorists attacking us were probably not “cause they hated freedom and liberty”. What are they, Cobra? No one wants to hear that this seething hatred of the United States may actually stem from policies pursued in the Middle East over a number of years.
Where are the UN inspectors now? IIRC, they were kicked out of Iraq years ago. I think we should have attacked the day after he kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. Inspections were a condition of his surrender, he just ignored those conditions and the world stood by and did nothing.
We don’t know for sure whether or not he has nukes or bio weapons because he gave the UN inspectors the boot. That is why we need to go back. I believe that rigorous enforcement of these conditions are the only way to ensure our security.
Who are “we” in your scenario, Cheesesteak? Surely, not the US all by itself?
As far as I’m concerned, “we” is whoever wants to take part in the action. If only the US is willing, it will be only the US, and I am comfortable with that. I am frankly surprised that there was no international call for action when Iraq violated their agreement with the UN, and remain surprised that so many still do not want to force Iraq to uphold the agreement.
I do agree with that sentiment, I just think that in the current situation, enforcing the UN resolutions should be anything but a US-only task. For one, to protect the US from opening itself to widespread criticism -or worse- from the Muslim world. And also, to give the signal that disobeying internationally enforced restrictions and resolutions is something that the international community won’t stand for, not the US alone.
In short, the UN needs to grow a pair of balls when it comes the the enforcement of their resolutions.
There is a mad man running Iraq who is in the process of detonating a nuclear device in NYC unless we stop him. All he needs is time.
Any more info needed that that!
I had to read that post twice K2.
That seems a pretty accurate summation of what the govt would like us to believe.
** World Eater ** not the entire gov’t - many people in the gov’t (mostly on one side of the political spectrum) don’t think of Iraq as a threat. When Congress cried foul about the President not going to them and the President agreed they now say they will get to it after the elections (WTF is that!).
The funny thing is that I see many people on one side saying that we must cut back on fossil fuels because it might cause global warming - meaning the risk is too great to take a chance that it may be true. But when we are looking at this man actually building the bomb with “To: NYC” written on the side those same people say we don’t have enough info.
** World Eater ** not the entire gov’t - many people in the gov’t (mostly on one side of the political spectrum) don’t think of Iraq as a threat. When Congress cried foul about the President not going to them and the President agreed they now say they will get to it after the elections (WTF is that!).
The funny thing is that I see many people on one side saying that we must cut back on fossil fuels because it might cause global warming - meaning the risk is too great to take a chance that it may be true. But when we are looking at this man actually building the bomb with “To: NYC” written on the side those same people say we don’t have enough info.
k2dave-
Can you cite corroborating evidence about Saddam’s bomb in NYC? Anything more specific than the nebulous “weapons of mass destruction” would be preferred. I would love to read it and I’m sure it would convince me to your way of thinking, because I have both friends and family in N.Y. and I’ll need to warn them about the bomb aimed at the city.
Actually, we wouldn’t be screwing around in the Mid East so much if we would cut our oil consumption. But an oilman president and vice president asking us to cut consumption? BAHAHAHAHA!
The U.S. can only lose by unilaterally invading Iraq. Sure, we can kick their asses from here to Kingdome Come on a military scale, but it would be political devastation. There is NO popular support, and the world community would castigate us for it. It’s time for our government to state clearly that we have no intention of waging war on Iraq unless it commits an overt act of aggression. OK, people may die, and perhaps right here on our own shores, but until it happens, the U.S. would be foolish in the extreme to do anything but lay low and wait. If Saddam is the madman that many think he is, he will provide an excuse sooner or later,(hopefully AFTER the current administration is out of the White House)and our military can visit holy hell on him perhaps with the blessings of even the other Middle Eastern countries.
What Bush is proposing is nuts, based on the information we have at this point.
There comes a time when folks have to take a stand and I find it puzzling that so many folks whom I would characterize as liberal (supporting free speech and women’s rights, being against (at least American) nuclear weapons, ranting about the abuse of human rights by the US) have an issue with us going in and dumping on Saddam. Or, for that matter, just about any country in the Middle-East, including Saudi Arabia
Reasons? General Patton’s will do fine, just substitute nations as neccessary:
From his Speech to the 3rd Army
There are three reasons why we are fighting this war. The first is because we are determined to preserve our traditional liberties. Some crazy German bastards decided they were supermen and that it was their holy mission to rule the world. They’ve been pushing people around all over the world, looting, killing, and abusing millions of innocent men, women, and children. They were getting set to do the same thing to us. We had to fight to prevent being subjugated.
The second reason we are fighting is to defeat and wipe out the Nazis who started all this goddamned son-of-bitchery. They didn’t think we could or would fight, and they weren’t the only ones who thought that, either. There are certain people back home who had the same idea. Both were wrong.
The third reason we are fighting is because men like to fight. They always have and they always will. Some sophists and other crackpots deny that. They don’t know what they’re talking about. They are either goddamned fools or cowards, or both. Men like to fight, and if they don’t they’re not real men. If you don’t like to fight, I don’t want you around. You’d better get out before I kick you out. But there is one thing to remember. In war, it takes more than the desire to fight to win. You’ve got to have more than guts to lick the enemy. You must also have brains. It takes brains and guts to win wars. A man with guts but no brains is only half a soldier. We licked the Germans in Africa and Sicily because we had brains as well as guts. We’re going to lick them in Europe for the same reason.
That’s all and good luck.
I don’t know about you, but MY government is charged with protecting its citizens, not retaliating for our deaths. You’re pretty cavalier with the lives of us Easterners, am I right in thinking PNW means Pacific NorthWest? Nobody is talking about how Portland is a prime target…
If you’re not a target you shouldn’t just say “people may die” and act like it’s “OK”. Some of us ARE targets and don’t particularly want to wait because you non-targets want a few of us to die before we do anything. If Saddam does have WMD, the twin towers will be nothing but a warm-up if he manages a successful attack. I’m not interested in finding out how successful he might be.
Let’s do it this way. Everyone in this country that wants to go to war with Iraq, put your money where your mouth is. Sign up, and you’ll get an M16 and some BDUs. Not up for fighting in the trenches? Ok, go be a cook or a mechanic or something. There’s over 200 ways to be a soldier! Ever see the commercial?
I heard it said the other day that war with Iraq wouldn’t be about terrorism, or ousting Saddam, or even oil interests–it would be about protecting Israel. Now I don’t necessarily believe that, but it was an interesting point. I think Saddam would be much more capable/willing to mess with Israel than the U.S. (but he would also know that putting a nuke/bio weapon into Tel Aviv or something would ensure massive retaliation)
Of course, “Israel” would be so far down on the average American’s list of reasons to go to war that it could never happen unless there was something that drastic. Again, I’m not saying I believe that, but in a warped way it makes some sense, and I’ve never really heard it discussed.
All in all, I think it comes down to this. Invading Iraq is such a terrible can of worms. Americans, and probably a lot of them, will die to oust Saddam. I don’t think that’s a worthwhile trade. And then what do we do after the “war” when there’s no government and the country is ruined (although a lot of it already is).
I think most importantly is this: Saddam loves himself more than he hates America. Why would Saddam risk his power and position by provoking America? He knows that right now he has carte blanche to be evil as long as he leaves Israel and the U.S. allies alone. Even if Saddam had nukes or whatever (and I don’t see any reason to believe that he does), he wouldn’t use them except as a last resort–Saddam wouldn’t Hitler himself when the Allies are closing in on his bunker–that’s when he does his worst.
There are more oppressive regimes (African warlords) and much more dangerous nation-states (North Korea?) for us to bother with Iraq.