Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[DanLevin247]

I say that attacking Iraq is a neciessity. If some one is going to harbor terrorists, they deserve to die. Plus... the idea of a campagin to attack sounds good, i.e. attack Iraq. Bomb Saddam and so on.

[tjrage_25]

Not to mention "paying" his own people to blow themselfs up in Isreal.

[Ashley Weed]

Rock on Republicans!
Go Bush! Finish the things your father left unfinished!


No, it's not necissary to use nuclear weapons, and yes I believe that we should consult with the UN before taking drastic measures. However, we have sat around watching for too long. The Clinton Administration was a joke, and I am glad it is over!

[FotoPlasma]

I have lost all faith in humanity...

Wait, that would imply that I had some, in the first place...

Someone kill me, please.

[mtaman02]

how about neither.

we all no why we are attacking iraq right. prez bush wants to attack iraqw so that the economy of the us goes up. this happens b/c the people become interested in whats going on in the outside part of the us that they will go to the stores to prepare for the attack. thats the only reason why we are attacking. other then that we have no real reason to attack. and i refuse to accept saddam not letting UN weapon inspectors in as a reason why to attack


my .02 cents

[tjrage_25]

I wouldn't.

Saddam is *NEVER* going to come to terms with the UN or US. Again, and again, and again, and again he lets us have and "unconditional" inspection. But when inspectors arive he restrits them to only where he wants them to go. It's time to let him know we mean buisness, let us see what's really in your country, or we knock down the door and look for ourselfs.

Weapons are like a drug to this man. He needs them, he craves them. And as his arsenal grows, his ego does too. One day that ego is going to get so big, we will use this arsenal.

After all, why does a third world country with a dictator want with a nuclear arsenal, other than to use it? Deterence? From who?

[mtaman02]

oh and for the record


i feel as if the clinton administration did more good then the bush administration managed to do in its first 2 months. clinton got things done. the 2 bushs on the other hand mange to screw things up. we were warned about 9/11 and bush just sat back and laughed at those warnings. both bushes have been the worst presidents ever.

[Madison]

Originally posted by weedie

However, we have sat around watching for too long.[/b]

Could you explain to me, please, exactly what it is we've been watching for too long?

You can do this in brief or at great length, honestly, but I'd like to know what is happening in Iraq that is worth the cost of lives lost in conflict. Please, for my sake, and perhaps for the sake of other people reading with interest, also take the time to explain your reasons so that I may better be able to understand them and form a rebuttal, if that should prove to be necessary.

For example, noting that Iraq may be stock-piling an arsenal of weapons, while not producing tangible, definitive, or even suggestive evidence as to the existence of, or intent to use these weapons is useless to me.

However, explaining how a first strike on the part of the United States benefits the world socio-political climate (There ARE other PEOPLE on this planet, whether you'd believe it or not) while, at the same time, minimizing the risk of devastating, unnecessary, and retaliatory counter attack would be peachy keen.

Please, try to keep the entitled 'proud to be an American' propoganda to a minimum, thanks.

[srawls]

You wouldn't be implying that Saddam Hussein has anything in common with Hitler, would you? Please, please say 'No.'

Actually, my government teacher did that the other day. He put up a picture of the British Prime Minister before Winston Church Hill, and then one of Kofi Anon (sp?), and kept on flashing them back and forth. He then drew a parallel between Kofi Anon and the Brithish Prime Minister. He said that Adolf Hitler stock-piled weapons which was against the treaty that ended WWI, but told the world that he would not attack with them. They believed him, much like Kofi Anon is believing Saddam Hussein now.

Now, I personally don't agree with pre-emptively attacking Iraq, but what you said reminded me of what my government teacher said, so I thought I'd pass it on.

Stephen

PS. Just to insert a little humour into the thread, if you haven't read this from theonion.com, then I recomend that you do. The headline is: "Bush seeks UN support for 'US Does Whatever it Wants' Plan"

[tjrage_25]

we were warned about 9/11 and bush just sat back and laughed at those warnings. both bushes have been the worst presidents ever.

And exactly what did Clinton do the first time around at the WTC? These things take planning, even if we did pick up on it, we learned our lesson. There

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

For example, noting that Iraq may be stock-piling an arsenal of weapons, while not producing tangible, definitive, or even suggestive evidence as to the existence of, or intent to use these weapons is useless to me.

Are you kidding me?! These are the people who mount research labs on 18-wheelers, then drive off when the inspectors come. Then when the inspectors try to investigate the vehicle, they are told that they can't! If there were no weapons there would be no reason for Bush to even suggest attacking them.

Please, try to keep the entitled 'proud to be an American' propoganda to a minimum, thanks.

But I am proud to be an american, it keeps the pay checks coming, a home to live in, and me alive.

I'm done with this thread.

GO BUSH!!!!

[MattK]

Originally posted by Team522 Captain
oh and for the record


i feel as if the clinton administration did more good then the bush administration managed to do in its first 2 months. clinton got things done. the 2 bushs on the other hand mange to screw things up. we were warned about 9/11 and bush just sat back and laughed at those warnings. both bushes have been the worst presidents ever.

Can't agree more. There was a report done on terrorism during the clinton admin (although not finished till early Bush's Admin). That CLEARLY stated Bin laden was a threat. I have no idea why the media hasnt jumped on it.

[srawls]

There was a report done on terrorism during the clinton admin (although not finished till early Bush's Admin). That CLEARLY stated Bin laden was a threat. I have no idea why the media hasnt jumped on it.

What are you saying?

Are you saying we should have imprisoned or killed Bin laden because a government report said he is a threat? Are you saying that all associates of Bin laden should have had the same treatment?

Let me borrow the words of someone smarter than I

Please, for my sake, and perhaps for the sake of other people reading with interest, also take the time to explain your reasons so that I may better be able to understand them and form a rebuttal, if that should prove to be necessary.

Stephen

[Bill Gold]

…I'm terrified of the actions and motivations of our government, I doubt the intelligence, morality, and virtue our the President…
-Michael Krass

I’m with you 100% Michael.

In the late 1960’s, President LBJ went on television and told the American people that the Vietnamese had attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. He knew it was a lie when he said it, and it didn’t stop him. I’ve got tremendous respect for quite a few great things that LBJ accomplished for this country while he was in office, but this just proves that good, well intentioned people lie. And sometimes these lies cost ~50,000 American lives, like the ones which were lost later in the Vietnam War. Sorry for the history, I’ll try to keep it down from now on.

Why are we talking about attacking Iraq? I guess it’s because of his chemical weapons, and because we think that he might be working on or may already have nuclear weapons. Ok. So does Pakistan, and China, not to mention all of the nukes that the old Soviet Union had stashed in the nooks and crannies of their enormous country. Oh. Because our government told you that Saddam has been plotting to kill Americans with his weapons. Or maybe it was because our government has told you that Iraq and Al Queda have had close contact over the past couple years. Well, I don’t trust my government and I’d like to see this “undeniable proof.” But when people ask for the proof, the government tells them that disclosing the evidence would be a security risk to the country. Well, looking back at the 60’s, I won’t accept hearsay from my government. I can decide for myself whether or not this proof is as undeniable as they claim.

Bush 1 should have eliminated Hussein in the first place, but unfortunately he didn't. Clinton most definitely should not have allowed the weapons inspectors to be kicked out, but he didn't. He should have stood up to him then and put a quick stop to it. However he didn't, we now have a dictator whose had over four years to do whatever he's wanted in the way of weapons program. He's used them before I know that , you know that then what makes you think he won't use them again. The fact is we need to enforce the rules of the war we've already won. We can not allow or afford to let Iraq get any weapons. I think and I think that you do to that the past two administrations have seriously dropped the ball on the entire Iraq issue.
-Jim Giacchi

Bush 1, as you referred to him, had no authority to eliminate Saddam. The UN resolution which allowed our coalition to take action against Iraq just authorized us to remove Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. Should Bush have gone against such an explicit order? No, and I commend him for not overstepping his UN mandate. Although, the US doesn’t have a strong record concerning obeying UN resolutions… but that’s a different story (for now).

And you know if one goes down we all do down as well
The balance is precarious as anyone can tell
This world's going to hell
-“Kyoto Now” by Bad Religion

If the United States takes unilateral action against Iraq, we will practically be opening the gate for Russia to invade Georgia (no, not the state north of Florida), and China to invade Taiwan.
-FotoPlasma

Great point Foto. With all of this talk of invading Iraq, no one has yet to mention what will happen after our hypothetical removal of the leader of a sovereign country. Russia and China oppose a revision on the old UN resolutions requiring inspectors to tell Saddam when they are going to inspect his “royal palaces.” This heads up is what allows the Iraqis to hide some of their weapons from inspectors. But why does Russia take this stance on this issue? Because they want the US to take action against Iraq without a UN mandate. If the US attacks Iraq without the consent of the UN, then Russia can make a valid claim to support action against Georgia. Russia desperately wants to kill off the Chechen rebels. They just need to find a “legal” way of doing it. Same goes for China wanting to take action against Taiwan. If we take unilateral action against Iraq, we’ll be doing our part to make sure our world goes to hell (faster than it already is).

It's not that hard to find it with sattelites and I'm not talking about pictures of buildings but of pictures of communities being burned down.
-wysiswyg

On a side note… After Operation: Desert Storm was finished, Gen. Schwartskoff (yeah. I can’t spell his name.) said that the satellite information wasn’t as useful as most people had thought. He said that he wished there were manned spy planes in the air during that campaign. Since the SR-71 had been retired…

I say that attacking Iraq is a neciessity. If some one is going to harbor terrorists, they deserve to die. Plus... the idea of a campagin to attack sounds good, i.e. attack Iraq. Bomb Saddam and so on.
-Dan Levin

There’s no proof that Saddam is harboring terrorists. Old men and women don’t go to war. Old men send young men young women to war. Be careful what you wish for.

Not to mention "paying" his own people to blow themselfs up in Isreal
-tjrage_25

What are you talking about? I feel like I shouldn’t have to respond to this. Give me some proof. /me shakes his head in pain

Again, and again, and again, and again he lets us have and "unconditional" inspection. But when inspectors arive he restrits them to only where he wants them to go.
-tjrage_25

First of all, they were never unconditional inspections. The inspectors have always had to notify Saddam when they were going to look through his palaces. Please stop with this nonsense.

It's time to let him know we mean buisness, let us see what's really in your country, or we knock down the door and look for ourselfs.
-tjrage_25

The US has always been serious about inspectors. But why do you think that the US has the right to use its military (without the blessing of the UN) to force another country to show us what weapons they may or may not have? Do you think we would be willing to show other countries where, and in what quantities we store our weapons? You’ve got to be kidding.

Weapons are like a drug to this man. He needs them, he craves them. And as his arsenal grows, his ego does too. One day that ego is going to get so big, we will use this arsenal.
-tjrage_25

Really? How did you happen to come across this information? Have you sat down and had dinner with the man.. talked about his feeling regarding weapons? Don’t put words in other peoples’ mouths. You may come off as intelligent to most people, but you sound like an idiot to the rest of us. Grow up kid.

After all, why does a third world country with a dictator want with a nuclear arsenal, other than to use it? Deterence? From who?
-tjrage_25

Yes, a deterrence. Look at this from Iraq’s point of view. You’re stuck in the middle of the desert, people don’t like you, and not too far away there’s a place called Israel which is armed to the teeth with weapons, some of them being nuclear weapons. That seems like a bad situation, does it not? A deterrence sounds like a decent alibi to me.

OK. I’ll get back to my commentary now.

So why now, are we talking about attacking Iraq? The Republicans are in the minority in the Senate by one representative, and they are in control of the House of Representatives by a slim margin. For the past 2 years this country has gone down the crapper quite rapidly. The economy is in disrepair, our rights as American citizens have been taken away from us under the guise of “Homeland Security” (gee… homeland sounds kinda like something the Nazis or Soviets would say…), and Osama Bin Ladin is still unaccounted for among other things. This sounds like unstable ground for the Republicans to try to gain seats in either house. So what do we do? Start getting the American people to look over at another country; one that isn’t ours. We’ve got to get them to focus on our hatred for other people instead of the horrible job that the Bush administration has been doing.

With all of this talk about action against Iraq, no one has talked about what will happen after we’ve hypothetically removed Saddam from power. Are we expected to believe that everyone in Iraq will love democracy, and we’ll just sit down and drink some tea with these people? Give me a break. These people, like the people of Afghanistan, have only lived in turmoil. Democracy is not instinctual for these people. What’s more likely is that the US will back another dictator who is more friendly with us, and would sell us oil at a very low price. Our government is more concerned with Iraq’s oil than with Iraq’s weapons and dictator. Anything that would make our country less dependent upon OPEC is a plus for our government, as long as it doesn’t lower the consumption of oil by Americans. Like Dick Cheney said a while ago, conservation is not the answer… Yeah, to him and his buddies. Tell that to the millions of Californians who had to conserve electricity a couple summers ago during our “Electricity Shortage”, which was really just Enron, et al manipulating the markets, and raping us of our hard earned money. It’s the same reason why Dick Cheney and Bush 2 want to make Alaska and the Pacific Coastline look like Swiss cheese without any regard for the environment.

Ok. I’m done for now.

[Melissa Nute]

Honestly, I don't feel CD is the place where this should be discussed but then again that's my opinion

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by Yearbook50
Honestly, I don't feel CD is the place where this should be discussed but then again that's my opinion

I kinda feel that way too. Sure, were mature, but still, were adolecents (some of us) and are still in Middle/High/College.

But the other side says yes. Why? We need to discuss this. It isn't safe nor healty for us to build all this steam in us without letting it out. And infront of the White House isn't the ideal "location" for it.

So, here's my question to you guys, If George Dublue-ya invades and throws Saddam, what will this set as a precident. As you know, precidents set the world, only the coragious start them, the ignorant keep following them.