Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[Bill Gold]

continued again...

Yes, at times in our past, we have done things which were wrong. Does this negate the validity of a future course of action? I think not.
-Mike Rush

Our country has done some horrible things, and told some horrible lies. I think we owe it to ourselves to keep the government in check, and make sure that they aren’t trying to trick us again. The Gulf of Tonkin speech that I cited in an earlier post speaks directly to this issue. I will not allow myself to be tricked into believing a government fabricate lie. That’s just how I am. I’m very weary of anyone who comes to me and says “trust me…”, especially if my life is possibly on the line. I’m 19 years old, and am healthy enough to be drafted. I should be able to review the facts, how they were gathered and possibly by whom, and then make a decision that could quite possibly put my life in jeopardy for this country’s survival. 50,000+ Americans lost their lives because of a lie our government knowingly told us, I won’t lose mine over another lie.

Do you really believe that if we turn a blind eye to a threat it will go away? Do you really believe you can negotiate with someone willing to die while killing you? What would you negotiate with? What is it you can say to convince your mortal enemy to change his mind? And make no mistake, the people of whom you all have been discussing are your mortal enemies.
-Mike Rush

I don’t see enforcing the inspections per the agreement after the Gulf War, or by enforcing inspections per a revision of those agreements, as turning a blind eye. Yes, you’re right, we’ll never know if/where he’s hiding other weapons. Iraq isn’t trying to kill us, like I said before, it would practically be signing their own death warrants if they did try to kill Americans. I guess we just don’t see this issue the same way, which isn’t a bad thing.

Some ask if Afghanistan will be the last? Or Iraq? Or will there be another? These are the same questions asked during past global conflicts. And the answer has allways been the same... Only God knows the future.
-Mike Rush

There will always be another.

There comes a time in everyones life, in every societies lifetime, when they must ask themselves what is it they believe in. For us as a people, this is one of those times. Will we rise to the occasion and be victorious? Or will we go silently into the night? It is entirely up to you. But remember, with every thought, comment, or question that brings our conviction into question, the enemy gathers strength.
-Mike Rush

Rise to what occasion? To attack Iraq before they hypothetically attack us? That just gives other countries, and terrorist groups more reason to hate us. Must we keep giving them fodder to feed to their children? By tossing our international muscle around we just piss people off. Letting inspections continue is hardly going silently into the night.

If the US did not have its isolationist attitude during the late 30s and until December 7th, WW2 would have most likely been a much smaller conflict with much fewer casualties. If we would have stepped in when the Nazi's first attacked (Poland, I think ... its been too long and I don't have my old history book handy), Hitler's army would have had less power and could have been defeated sooner. The U.S. has great power in the World's eyes, and with that power comes a responsibility to protect peoples weaker than us. What if the U.S. had an Isolationist ideology now? The World would criticize us as they did during the "European War (aka WW2)".
-Paul Copioli

Paul, with all due respect, I believe it’s improper to judge WW2 in that manner with the hindsight we have now. It was the opinion of the entire American people in the late 1930’s / early 1940’s that (pre-Lend/Lease Act) WW2 was for people too far removed from our country. No one wanted to jump into another war, seeing as WW1 decimated and traumatized Americans (soldiers and civilians alike).
Speaking of WW2 issues,

…I'm saying appeasement sucks…
- wysiswyg

Where did that come from? The US isn’t appeasing Iraq. It’s not like they’ve gone back into Kuwait and we’ve been sitting on our thumbs. Appeasing, in a historical sense, is a term used to describe the pacification of a person/country/party which has taken, or is about to take, either wealth/land/slaves/people/etc. Saddam hasn’t encroached upon his neighbors like Hitler did to the Czechoslovak border in the late 1930’s. Saddam also hasn’t forcefully taken over another country like Italy conquered Ethiopia without any repercussions from the League of Nations.

I do not like war. I wish it wasn't necessary. Negotiation only works when both side are willing. Saddam is NOT willing. He only negotiates to stall for time. We must act ... sooner or later.
-Paul Copioli

I agree. Action needs to take place, but I refuse to accept or support a military strike without evidence that it is necessary. At this juncture (while the UN hasn’t authorized military action against Iraq), I would support inspections per the old agreements, or a revision that Iraq consents to.

Until next time,
-Bill