War with Iraq?
Comments
-
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? -
Pic was killer........:DOh, the bottle has been to me, my closes friend, my worse enemy!
-
It could be worse! We could have AL.
"Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
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
Give War A Chance -
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." -
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.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
a majority of votes? since when does THAT mean anything?
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 . . .Testing
Testing
Testing -
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....Oh, the bottle has been to me, my closes friend, my worse enemy! -
Oh....raife1
YES....it's all boils down to OIL.....Oh, the bottle has been to me, my closes friend, my worse enemy! -
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 **** 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 **** up we should be all over him. I just don't think we should be able to dictate their government.Make it Funky!
-
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... -
INVADE MAC D's!! Overthrow the Hamburgular!!!!Onkyo 696 receiver, Panasonic DVD RV31U,Polk RM6600 w/ 350 sub (rti28's 2nd zone), JVC Dual tape deck, MMF-2.1 Turntable, JVC 5010 CD R. ((its simple, its cheap, it works))
-
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 hoaxmade up by some anti-war types, no doubt.
Give War A Chance -
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
-
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. -
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 **** 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 **** since the early 70's. Why? We have boys and girls in this country that can hit Mars with a **** 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) -
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 -
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.;)Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
>>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
.
Give War A Chance -
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.***WAREMTAE*** -
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?
-
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***WAREMTAE*** -
Hey, thats we do it in the Lone Star State.....
Eff' em.....
Cheers,
RoosterCheck your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service. -
Originally posted by George Grand
Bet your sweet **** it's about oil.
George Grand (of the Jersey Grand's)
No doubt... -
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.
