[Madison]

Where shall I begin?

First, I want to say that I <3 Bill. My general observations regarding this thread have been that, almost entirely, those who oppose action against Iraq, or oppose the United States’ aggressive foreign policy regarding this matter have written considerably more thorough, detailed posts than those who do not. I’d really like to see that people who agree with the nation’s actions and intent provided explanations at length, especially rather than spewing forth any further cursory appraisals of the situation. To put it bluntly, explain yourselves better. You’re doing an awful job so far.

Now, onto the bigger fish.

Tjrage_25 writes, “And ‘for the record,’ everything bad so far that has happened to the Bush administration was set in place during the Clinton administration (i.e.: Enron, 9/11, economic recession). Clinton screwed up this country big time, it's just now showing the effects.”

Aside from the general consensus that any statement that begins ‘everything bad’ is categorically false, and the pitfalls that lie within your choice of words, your example show a myopic view of history. To suggest that the world, or even the United States, was peachy keen until the moment Bill Clinton took office is ludicrous, and that’s not based on historical fact, world political events, or economic factors; it’s based on common sense. September 11, 2001’s events may have been in planning during the years of the Clinton administration, for example, but that means little. Similarly, they were also in planning during Dubya’s administration, yet you seem unwilling to place any blame on him and his administration for their horrible oversight. The ‘economic recession,’ is, whether you like it or not, a symptom of a capitalist economy. It’s cyclical by nature, and happens sooner or later. It’s unrealistic to expect continued rising and expanding prosperity in our economic system. It’s impossible, even. If you want to blame Clinton, go right ahead, but I think that it’s a case of bad timing coupled with the unfortunate events of last year.

Weedie replied, “I couldn't of said it better, and that is exactly what I meant by saying, "We have been sitting around watching for too long,” and I’m no longer certain how this relates to American foreign policy with regard to Iraq. If you want to debate how corporate leaders take advantage of the system, or, if you’d like to hypothesize about the four hundred million different things that might’ve happened differently to prevent crazed lunatics from flying planes into building, go right ahead. Don’t do it here.

Weedie continues, “Beginning with Bush Sr., we did not take action,” seemingly negating her previous assertion that the ills of the world are the sole responsibility of Bill Clinton. “The U.S. has just sat around and 'observed',” she continues. “We have been taken advantage of. Then the Clinton Administration just caused more problems, and we are now seeing the effects of them. It's time for America to stand up for itself, and take action!”

Take action against whom, precisely? It seems to me that your dissatisfaction lies with Bill Clinton, and not with the Iraqi people. I also do not see when or how the United States had been taken advantage of, either. It’s our fault for not arranging treatises in the time after the Gulf War that established an accepted and internationally recognized protocol for curbing aggressive actions or rearmament on the part of Iraq. Who’s responsible for that? Your beloved Bush Sr., I’m afraid. Kristina hit this right on the head.

Wysiwyg later wrote, “I'm saying appeasement sucks. Why would anyone even want to have him in power makes no sense to me.” Well, appeasement generally does suck. Appeasement strategies have, on the whole, been largely unsuccessful. However, more often than not, such strategies are adopted by nation’s who are in no real position to wage war. They buy time for mobilization and a ramp up of a production, and little else.

As this relates to Iraq, I don’t see inaction as appeasement at all. Rather, the United States is suffering the consequences of its own inaction in the time after the Gulf War, as I stated previously. If there was serious concern regarding Iraq’s military potential, steps should’ve been taken previously to ensure that it could be kept in check. Now, however, I think that it’s politically important that the United States be humble and maintain accordance with the wishes of the global bodies represented in the United Nations. As others have already mentioned, to strike out on our own sets a dangerous precedent that, in my opinion, many people have not given enough thought.

He continues, “There is something called the news. There job is to coroborate the information from the government and make sure its true. There has been credible news stories that are trickling in that show that he needs to been booted.” What news organizations do you patronize, exactly? Media conglomerates such as Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., report very little actual ‘news.’ Their programming is driven by advertising dollars, just like any other television network, and their success depends entirely on maintaining viewership. It’s all nothing more than a clever deception that, sadly, has many people fooled. They provide you with an overwhelmingly pro-American visage of world politics, feed you one or two dissenters on occasion to legitimize themselves, and bow down to the almighty power of popular opinion. There are, of course, some news organizations that still maintain a reputation for fair, unbiased reporting, such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, but, by and large, television and internet news organizations do very, very little to find the truth. The truth is often unpopular and popularity sells soft drinks.

As an experiment, find something that you’re unusually knowledgeable about, and research related news articles. I’m certain that you’ll find more than a handful of inaccuracies. For example, in my case, I know a great deal about amusement parks and roller coasters, and both have been in the news quite a bit this summer. The data presented in these stories is often 100% false, fabricated, or not at all related to the story. There is very, very little that is truth in these instances. Sometimes, it’s as simple as naming rides that don’t exist at the parks that are the focus of investigation. Other times, it’s blatant misuse of statistics to further a solely political agenda. It’s a fun home game. Give it a try.

Finally, Joel Glidden writes, “Saddam has a gun pointed at our collective heads, people.”

Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniacal dictator. I don’t think that anyone, anywhere is arguing that he should remain in power. Rather, I think that some have the humility to question their place in determining the fate of others. Some, obviously, don’t, and possess a frightening propensity to force their will upon others.

Given Hussein’s hunger for power, I have very little that makes me believe he has a gun pointed at my head. See, people like that get off on the power. They live for it. They want immortality, and they want absolute control over everything.

Should Hussein decide one day that the most recent episode of the PowerPuff Girls really pissed him off, and now would be a good time to destroy America, as you seem to paint the picture, there’s a very obvious reason why he wouldn’t do it. If he does, the entire world will, as some of you have so eloquently put it, make Iraq into little more than a crater. Hussein, and the rest of the world, for that matter, knows that to attack America is a suicide pact. Why would someone who loves power so much relinquish it, and his life, so easily?

Now, imagine a more probable scenario in which the United States takes action against Iraq because, the arrogant, ignorant President of the United States views their distaste of Big Macs and Elvis Presley as a direct threat on his male privilege. What you have, in reality, is nothing more than an international pissing contest, to put it bluntly; and it’s a contest I’d rather not be involved in.

One day, when the United States bombs Iraq, especially without the support of the United Nations, Hussein will retaliate. Right now, the world agrees that there is no legitimacy in the existence of Iraq’s military arsenal. However, the moment someone takes action against Iraq, it sends the message to Hussein that he is viewed as a viable and deadly threat, and it legitimizes his military by giving him a fair opportunity to use it. Without our attack, Iraq will continue to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. With our attack, Iraq will use them, and it will get away with it because the actions of the United States will create a rift within the United Nations. On one hand, they will recognize the importance of stopping Iraq from further attacking the United States and other nations. On the other hand, to step in and take action against Iraq in response to whatever situation develops after an American attack would sanction our actions in violation of global desire, and further stroke George W. Bush’s ego.

Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone would trust the fate of a nation to someone who can’t speak English, but that’s just me.

Continued. . .