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.

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

Systems

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 **** 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 **** 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 **** 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 **** 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!!!!

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!

Systems

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.

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 **** 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!!!

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-**** 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