IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[Jojo1]

aaron,

How does freedom of speech deal with Iraq? This will be my last post because some peoples opinions on here are idiotic and starting to piss me off.

Anyway so many people take advantge of our rights, and are to afraid to fight for them. Do you not understand that it only takes ONE bomb brought into this country to cripple us? You say Saddam is no threat, but I guess neither is Bin Laden. If murdering thousands of people is not threatning to you then what is? Imagine instead of planes they used bombs, chemical, biological, whatever. Iraq has more bombs than even our own government knows about. Tell me do you think Saddam would hold out to any terrorist group wanting a bomb to use on the United States? Do you realize that if America gets attacked like 9/11 again your lives and mine are going to change dramaticaly. Already look at the security at the airport, and everywhere else you go. If another attack happens you will see the government tightening down and squeezing our freedom from us. YES invading Iraq has a lot to do with everyone in America some are just to stupid to realize it, and they have got so used to the good life that they do not even know what tough times are.

In response to "They are not brought up to hate us", I have to disagree with that one. I am not saying every Iraqi does, but when the their religion has a "Jihad" and America is the devil....than ya i think they dont like us to much. Say what you want i do not care..if we do not go to war with Iraq its going to make the United States look weak. Again ill say WHY MUST WE BE VICTIMIZED BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance.

Edited all my post.... someone else please handle this.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I don't know about you all but I rather stop future terrorist attacks the helping to cause more. I rather stop the terrorist in the future then to worry about retaliatory for something that has already happened. For it is this retaliatory attitude that will get us in trouble and has gotten us in trouble.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The plain FACT is terrorism thrives on torment, on strife, on trouble. By causing more of that you are only leading to an increase of terrorism. It doesn't matter who did what first, this isn't the 1st grade, it matters on whom did what last.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
We step up the populace disproval of these terrorist groups, when get these peoples on our side. We get these people to deal with their own terrorist. We get these people to handle their problems. WE DON NOT DO ANYTHING TO CAUSE MORE TERRORISM.

And no this isn't some thing in my world, it can work and will work. If people would give it a chance.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Jojo1
Anyway so many people take advantge of our rights, and are to afraid to fight for them.

Exercising their rights are not taking advantage of them. Now I believe in some limits. If a kid goes to school with a picture of Bush on his shirt that says terrorist I think he should be sent home. Not so much because it is anti presidential but because it disrupts the school and creates too much controversy that takes away from the reason they are supposed to be there! If everyone could just ignore the kid I'd have no problem with him wearing the shirt.

Do you not understand that it only takes ONE bomb brought into this country to cripple us?

It takes alot more than one bomb to cripple us. If we were so crippled by 9/11 then why is the Taliban gone? How the heck are we in Afghanistan? Even Pakistan tried to tell the Taliban that the writing was on the wall and to hand over Bin Laden. As soon as 9/11 happened there were tons of organizations claiming NON responsibility. That was how afraid they were of a crippled United States.

You say Saddam is no threat, but I guess neither is Bin Laden. If murdering thousands of people is not threatning to you then what is? Imagine instead of planes they used bombs, chemical, biological, whatever. Iraq has more bombs than even our own government knows about. Tell me do you think Saddam would hold out to any terrorist group wanting a bomb to use on the United States? Do you realize that if America gets attacked like 9/11 again your lives and mine are going to change dramaticaly. Already look at the security at the airport, and everywhere else you go. If another attack happens you will see the government tightening down and squeezing our freedom from us. YES invading Iraq has a lot to do with everyone in America some are just to stupid to realize it, and they have got so used to the good life that they do not even know what tough times are.

If Bush was said that key members of Bin Ladens group were hiding in Iraq I would be saying lets go get them. France, Germany, Russia, and China would ALL be supporting invasion. Saddam would be scouring the country LOOKING for these individuals because he is really interested in saving his own butt. He was even too afraid to use chemical weapons against the U.S. in the first Gulf War because he was afraid of strikes against him with nuclear weapons. If he knew we would take that kind of reprisal against our troops what kind of retaliation do you think he expects on chemical attacks traced back to him against our civilians. We cannot invade every country with chemical weapons that might be sold to terrorists. The U.S. CANNOT become a victim of our own paranoia. I do not wish to see our troops in foriegn occupation all over the world (more than we already are anyway) because this will NOT prevent a terrorist attack. We have to continue to have a strong military as a deterrent and the memory of the Taliban to support it. This works very effectively against established governments (like Iraq despite being despotic and tyrannical). Unfortunately totally different tactics are necessary against terrorist organizations.

In response to "They are not brought up to hate us", I have to disagree with that one. I am not saying every Iraqi does, but when the their religion has a "Jihad" and America is the devil....than ya i think they dont like us to much. Say what you want i do not care..if we do not go to war with Iraq its going to make the United States look weak. Again ill say WHY MUST WE BE VICTIMIZED BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag




It takes alot more than one bomb to cripple us. If we were so crippled by 9/11 then why is the Taliban gone? How the heck are we in Afghanistan? Even Pakistan tried to tell the Taliban that the writing was on the wall and to hand over Bin Laden. As soon as 9/11 happened there were tons of organizations claiming NON responsibility. That was how afraid they were of a crippled United States.

Our economy is still suffering the effects of 9/11. One bomb can do much more then take 3000 lives. It took the US off the road to recovery and back to a psuedo-recession. It has cost our economy Billions. Our economic might was crippled. We are still not back to where we were.


If Bush was said that key members of Bin Ladens group were hiding in Iraq I would be saying lets go get them. France, Germany, Russia, and China would ALL be supporting invasion. Saddam would be scouring the country LOOKING for these individuals because he is really interested in saving his own butt. He was even too afraid to use chemical weapons against the U.S. in the first Gulf War because he was afraid of strikes against him with nuclear weapons. If he knew we would take that kind of reprisal against our troops what kind of retaliation do you think he expects on chemical attacks traced back to him against our civilians. We cannot invade every country with chemical weapons that might be sold to terrorists. The U.S. CANNOT become a victim of our own paranoia. I do not wish to see our troops in foriegn occupation all over the world (more than we already are anyway) because this will NOT prevent a terrorist attack. We have to continue to have a strong military as a deterrent and the memory of the Taliban to support it. This works very effectively against established governments (like Iraq despite being despotic and tyrannical). Unfortunately totally different tactics are necessary against terrorist organizations.

I bet France would still be against it. They are too concerned about their $ in Iraq and are willing to let Saddam slide. We can not afford that! By the way, the payments the Iraqis are sending to families of suicide bombers in Israel directly supports terrorism!


This is not about invading a country because they might use chemical weapons against us. This is about violations of a UN resolution. As I have said (in a post long ago that you might not have see) we are probably going to have to attack Iraq without UN support because of the corner the administration has backed us into. The military buildup was necessary and good because as even the French authorities have stated it forced some compliance with the weapons inspectors. If a non war solution is eventually reached it will be because of the threat of the US military. It would be great if a compromise can be reached for a deadline where the UN can present a united front. It is not the deployment of military force that angers me but the lack of diplomacy with our allies. We cannot let fear of being victims set our foriegn policy. We do not want to BECOME the monsters that some UNJUSTLY portray us as.

Saddam has played hide and seek with the UN for 12 years. If left unchecked, he could become a global threat. Yes he is complying now, but what happens if the threat of war goes away? He will stop! France is so full of cowards that they can't see this point.

SHartley made a great point about this in a previous thread. I will paraphrase: "The approach the UN is taking is stop breaking the rules or I will yell at you. If you keep breaking them, I'll yell louder!" There has to be a stick behind the threat!

[Collegeboy]

I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

I will answer 1stdeadeyes question when I get back.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

I will answer 1stdeadeyes question when I get back.

[1stdeadeye]

It can't work!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I thought it was clear enough but let me explain it in a different way.

By say I rather stop future terrorism then punish people for past actions I am saying that the first thing you need to ask yourself is will this action lead to more terrorism or created more terrorism (OUTSIDE THE GROUP WHO DID IT). Meaning you punish the group through cutting of their funds, and such. You punish the group, not the civilian population around them.

That should get it done.

Please explain how not going after the fanatics who are terrorist that hide amoungst the civilian population will lead to less terrorism! If anything, it will embolden them to new hieghts. If Clinton had severly attacked Al Qaida after the embassy bombing in Africa, do you think September 11th would have happened? If we had bombed and attacked the terrorist camps then instead of launching a few cruise missles and leaving that they would have had the infrastructure to organiza and launch the attacks they did? Think about it. If we had ordered the Taliban to give up Osama and then atacked them as we did post 9/11, 9/11 couldn't have occurred. Osama would have been a fugitive hiding in a cave with Mullah Omar!

[Jojo1]

OK I said that was my last post, but I just cant stop typing =).

Aaron,

First of all the United States should have went into Iraq 12yrs ago when Saddam wasnt complying with UN resolutions. Second when did you join the CIA? You seem to know everything about Saddam. Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now. Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation. I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.
Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have. It seems in this new century everyone is joining the nuclear age. On the news two days ago Iran announced they are well on there way to producing there first nuclear weapon. So how can you say Saddam is no threat to us? When clearly nuclear weapons are becoming more common.

[aaron_mag]

I will not try and quote 1stdeadeye and Shartely since many of their arguments are the same (as each others). I will not just restate my arguments. I am saying that the administration should have been more diplomatic in dealing with allies. If I just keep repeating my stance and never conceding any points then wouldn't I be the ultimate hypocrite?:)

When I say diplomacy I would have liked to see the U.S. take the lead in coalition building. This would mean drawing up a plan that included France and Russia in the reconstruction of Iraq after the war. This would also mean that France and Russia would be responsible for contributing aid to Iraq for reconstruction. The long range plan, however, would be to let the people of Iraq take over after reconstruction was complete and not to make them subservient to the U.N. of course. I realize this is easier said then done.

I will also concede that a timeline for action would have to be drawn up. If the French, Germans, Russians, and China would not follow the timeline they agreed to then we would have go it alone. Of course France and Russia would then not be part of reconstruction. The core of my disagreement with most of you is that I don't believe the administration did enough to build a coalition about when to invade Iraq (including letting the opposing countries submit a timeline and reach some sort of accord). Many of you maintain that the opposed nations would never have come to a satisfactory compromise. Again I will concede that you may be right. Still I do not want my country to deal with other nations in a high handed forceful manner. That is not the country I am proud to be a part of.

Switching gears I am glad to see President Bush starting diplomacy on Palestine. No peace in the middle east will ever be possible until some sort of settlement can be reached. It is also good to see that the Palestine issue has been hammered out in the UN and is a coalition approach. I realize that getting those two groups to agree on anything, however, is going to be tough. This type of effort, however, is the country I am proud to be a part of.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Jojo1
OK I said that was my last post, but I just cant stop typing =).

First of all the United States should have went into Iraq 12yrs ago when Saddam wasnt complying with UN resolutions.

I thought the quote (in a post above) from Bush Sr. explained the rational for not invading the Iraq at that time explained it well.

Second when did you join the CIA? You seem to know everything about Saddam. Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now.

I watched a special on the Gulf War and a General was explaining why Saddam did not use chemical weapons. Of course I do not know for sure that this is true. I believe the official government stance is that chemical weapons were not used. This does not mean it is true. This relates back to my previous statement that just because the President says so doesn't mean I automatically accept it as fact.

Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation.

That is the one fear I have as well. I do not fear a Saddam that is contained but I do fear a Saddam who fears he is going to die anyway so might as well take as many with him as well. I suppose I feel the same way as the general above who felt they had him contained and that time to create a united front in the United Nations only weakens his position.

I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.

I feel the opposite. I feel like our paranoia will destroy us and we will end up taking away from ourselves what no one else in the world can take away from us. The proliferation of conservative talk shows scares me.

Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have. It seems in this new century everyone is joining the nuclear age. On the news two days ago Iran announced they are well on there way to producing there first nuclear weapon. So how can you say Saddam is no threat to us? When clearly nuclear weapons are becoming more common. [/B]

The fact that India and Pakistan are nuclear armed scares me also! One thing is clear, however, that to control the proliferation of nuclear powers the U.S. CANNOT go it alone. To be effective it will have to work with Europe, Russia, and China. As "traditional" nuclear powerhouses we all share the interest of capping nuclear power. Like it or not we must work with these other countries or watch smaller nations play us against each other.

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by Jojo1
Anyway he gases his own people. You said that he would not use chemical weapons on the United States...Well have you ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? I know a few vets who came back from Iraq who have trouble moving there hands now. Also the so called BOMB i am talking about is not just one silly bomb that can blow up a building. Imagine a terrorist hijacking a plane and detonating a chemical weapon 20,000ft above Washington D.C. To me that is pretty crippling. Also you are talking about Saddam like hes a normal person. He is a maniac and now he knows the US is not going to let him slide. He may do some terrible act out of desperation. I am really not trying to argue with you. I just think this country has become far to liberal and far to politically correct. Our own freedoms will and up being our demise.
Interesting fact: The French in the mid 80's gave Iraq the technology to use and produce plutonium. If the Israelis would not have not taken it out think out what Saddam might have.

Just a few points..I know this has been gone over before...

Yes he gassed Kurds. But we supported him knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds. And dont forget our ally Turkey has killed its share of Kurds. So in effect gassing of Kurds is AOK with us. As CollegeBoy has pointed out in the past, the Kurds are considered terrorists in that area.

Yes France built him a nuclear reactor. But didnt the CIA give him *anthrax*? Did we not give him billions in money/food/weapons? Why does France get all the blame for helping him?

As for Gulf War Syndrome. I totally believe there is Gulf War Syndrome. I knew someone who had problems after serving in the Gulf.
But last I checked the government still denies there is Gulf War Syndrome. Hows that for "Supporting Our Troops"?


JDub

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious


Just a few points..I know this has been gone over before...

Yes he gassed Kurds. But we supported him knowing full well that he was gassing Kurds. And dont forget our ally Turkey has killed its share of Kurds. So in effect gassing of Kurds is AOK with us. As CollegeBoy has pointed out in the past, the Kurds are considered terrorists in that area.

Yes France built him a nuclear reactor. But didnt the CIA give him *anthrax*? Did we not give him billions in money/food/weapons? Why does France get all the blame for helping him?

As for Gulf War Syndrome. I totally believe there is Gulf War Syndrome. I knew someone who had problems after serving in the Gulf.
But last I checked the government still denies there is Gulf War Syndrome. Hows that for "Supporting Our Troops"?

JDub

On the gulf war syndrome thing note that this is not an attack against Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. Clinton was in office in the intervening years and did not suddenly reverse the official stance on Gulf War Syndrome. We tend to get into accusing each other of being conservative/liberal. However, I really don't fully trust either side. I certainly did not trust Clinton! His caring and concerned manner always seemed false to me and I voted for him! I suppose I find myself in agreement with Jack Dubious so much is because like him I'm very dubious!

[1stdeadeye]

My Turn!

Originally posted by aaron_mag
I will not try and quote 1stdeadeye and Shartely since many of their arguments are the same (as each others). I will not just restate my arguments. I am saying that the administration should have been more diplomatic in dealing with allies. If I just keep repeating my stance and never conceding any points then wouldn't I be the ultimate hypocrite?:)

You're not a hypocrite?


When I say diplomacy I would have liked to see the U.S. take the lead in coalition building. This would mean drawing up a plan that included France and Russia in the reconstruction of Iraq after the war. This would also mean that France and Russia would be responsible for contributing aid to Iraq for reconstruction. The long range plan, however, would be to let the people of Iraq take over after reconstruction was complete and not to make them subservient to the U.N. of course. I realize this is easier said then done.

I will also concede that a timeline for action would have to be drawn up. If the French, Germans, Russians, and China would not follow the timeline they agreed to then we would have go it alone. Of course France and Russia would then not be part of reconstruction. The core of my disagreement with most of you is that I don't believe the administration did enough to build a coalition about when to invade Iraq (including letting the opposing countries submit a timeline and reach some sort of accord). Many of you maintain that the opposed nations would never have come to a satisfactory compromise. Again I will concede that you may be right. Still I do not want my country to deal with other nations in a high handed forceful manner. That is not the country I am proud to be a part of.

Okay, when Colin Powell shared his overwhelming evidence last December, that still wasn't enough for France. What more could they want to see? If that did not convince them, what would? A terrorist strike on Paris?

You can't convince someone who is determined to disagree!