Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 163
  1.    #1  
    Post your thoughts on the possibility of a war with Iraq here.

    This ought to clog up some servers.
    -Bernie

    "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
    -Dan Quayle
  2. #2  
    dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

    ..I consider the foremost expert on US relations with Iraq to be Scott(?) Ridder, the UN Arms inspector who quit because he was sick of the hypocracy. He says stop the embargo and restart inspections (i.e. "we'll stop the embargo if you let us start inspections), and Saddam won't last long anyway.

    plus, there is precisely 0 international support. Dude, if Canada is against you, everyone is against you.
  3. #3  
    Originally posted by septimus
    ..I consider the foremost expert on US relations with Iraq to be Scott(?) Ridder, the UN Arms inspector who quit because he was sick of the hypocracy. He says stop the embargo and restart inspections (i.e. "we'll stop the embargo if you let us start inspections), and Saddam won't last long anyway.
    You consider him the foremost expert, and yet you can't even remember his name, and additionally expect anyone to buy that you're accurately relaying what he thinks? Personally I consider Ted Nugent the foremost expert on US relations with Iraq, and I'm sure his policy would be "make the sand glow".
    plus, there is precisely 0 international support. Dude, if Canada is against you, everyone is against you.
    Canada's been wrong before.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #4  
    plus, there is precisely 0 international support. Dude, if Canada is against you, everyone is against you.
    First, Tony Blair is strongly on our side; if he can get his own party to shut up, he'd be more vocal. And I'm sure Israel is supporting us. So as a matter of fact, your statement is completely wrong.

    As a statement of hyperbole, I understand. The problem is that France, Germany, and Canada are not the target of Arab terrorists, and thus don't have the stake in it we do.

    From today's Wall Street Journal:
    "Dominique de Villepin is Mr. Vedrine's successor at the Quai d'Orsay, and he's lately been sounding more like de Gaulle, if not yet like Donald Rumsfeld. Here is what he told an annual meeting of ambassadors in Paris this week: "Iraq defies international rules set by the Security Council, holds its people hostage and threatens security, particularly that of its neighbors. Such behavior is not acceptable. We Europeans know too well the price of weakness in the face of dictatorship if we close our eyes and play a passive game.""
    "France's recent shift to the right has been occurring across the Continent. German Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder is trying to keep his center-left coalition together through an election this September, which explains his broadside against Vice President **** Cheney's recent Iraq speech. But he still trails in the polls, and he was rebuked in a televised debate by challenger Edmund Stoiber, who said it was "irresponsible to dismiss theoretical options and take pressure from Saddam Hussein.""

    Am I for an invasion? I think we should amass a force capable of decimating his regime, and then send in weapons inspectors. The first time he pulls any funny business, the UN pulls the inspectors and we replace them with folks with a bit more firepower. This way, everyone wins.
  5. #5  
    Oh my I can't beleive that Ernieba went there! The U.S. is not planning to go to war with Iraq because of no weapons of mass destruction. I read in a local newspaper (in Canada) that what they really need in Iraq is a "regime change". Why is that? Its all about the oil baby -- not the Iraqi people, not Iraq neighbours (who are wary about this posture themselves) and not because of terrorism. Why do you think everyone in the world except Tony Blair opposes the move? Why do you think Collin Powell, the secretary of state and a former army man, oppose the move?
  6. #6  
    Its all about the oil baby -- not the Iraqi people, not Iraq neighbours (who are wary about this posture themselves) and not because of terrorism.
    I wouldn't go so far. The way I figure it, it has to do with oil, but involves genuine concerns over terrorism and regional stability. We are concerned about Iraq's effects on the region. Of course the region is more important than most because of its oil. So while oil is important, it isn't "all about the oil baby".
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I wouldn't go so far. The way I figure it, it has to do with oil, but involves genuine concerns over terrorism and regional stability. We are concerned about Iraq's effects on the region. Of course the region is more important than most because of its oil. So while oil is important, it isn't "all about the oil baby".
    Um...if it's all about the oil, then it'd seem that most of the big name Republicans who oppose it (and have nice consultancies with oil companies and other Middle East ties) would favor it, n'est ce pas? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_advice_3
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #8  
    HAHAHAHAHA!

    A "GORE IN 2004" and he is saying it's dumb?!?!?!
  9. #9  
    Well how comes Iraq's neighbours do not share them same concerns as the U.S? A lot of Iraq's neighbours are concerned that the war WILL de-stabilize their regimes, and by extension, the region.

    The U.S. is going after Iraq because it is an easy target. North Korea is a more dangerous state and the U.S. is bribing them to keep them happy.


    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    I wouldn't go so far. The way I figure it, it has to do with oil, but involves genuine concerns over terrorism and regional stability. We are concerned about Iraq's effects on the region. Of course the region is more important than most because of its oil. So while oil is important, it isn't "all about the oil baby".
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    Am I for an invasion? I think we should amass a force capable of decimating his regime, and then send in weapons inspectors. The first time he pulls any funny business, the UN pulls the inspectors and we replace them with folks with a bit more firepower. This way, everyone wins.
    That would be, what, one Seal team?

    Personally, I don't believe invading Iraq now is the right thing to do, either. Doing so would just give the extremists another martyr to idolize, as well as tipping the moderate Arabs more towards the extremist line, and we don't need that.

    OTOH, if he happens to launch a SCUD with nerve gas or such, I say take him out. Surgically, of course, so as to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Um...if it's all about the oil, then it'd seem that most of the big name Republicans who oppose it (and have nice consultancies with oil companies and other Middle East ties) would favor it, n'est ce pas? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_advice_3
    I never said that people's opinions on how to best get oil are the same. It's like saying "it's all about comedy" and then realizing some people think Jim Carrey is funny, and some don't.
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well how comes Iraq's neighbours do not share them same concerns as the U.S? A lot of Iraq's neighbours are concerned that the war WILL de-stabilize their regimes, and by extension, the region.
    That's an easy one. Their populaces (populi?) actually believe we are evil and any action we take is by extension evil. They don't want an infidel power ousting a Muslim one. It isn't about rationality, really.


    The U.S. is going after Iraq because it is an easy target. North Korea is a more dangerous state and the U.S. is bribing them to keep them happy.
    You're right. They are easier than North Korea, but as shown by the talks with the South, North Korea is at least making progress. Mr. Sadam still pays the families of suicide bombers.
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by sowens

    OTOH, if he happens to launch a SCUD with nerve gas or such, I say take him out. Surgically, of course, so as to keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
    There's a reason he didn't launch such weapons in the first gulf war (wow, am I implying there will be a second or what?). He's not crazy, regardless of what others say. He's not goiing to do anything that is going to turn the tide of the world against him. He is manipulating the world's players with his puppy dog look. My personal opinion is Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush are the only ones with the guts to call his bluff. I'm not implying WWII here, but if someone had stepped up and called Hitler's bluff (Mr. Chamberlain, I'm looking in your direction).

    --Kurt
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Well how comes Iraq's neighbours do not share them same concerns as the U.S?
    I'm thinking probably because he's not providing money and intelligence to terrorists who are attacking their countries.
    A lot of Iraq's neighbours are concerned that the war WILL de-stabilize their regimes, and by extension, the region.
    That says something about the stability of their 'regimes', doesn't it?
    The U.S. is going after Iraq because it is an easy target.
    It is?
    North Korea is a more dangerous state and the U.S. is bribing them to keep them happy.
    If they could bribe Saddam and keep him in line, they'd probably do that too.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I never said that people's opinions on how to best get oil are the same. It's like saying "it's all about comedy" and then realizing some people think Jim Carrey is funny, and some don't.
    You didn't say it was 'all about the oil'. I wasn't disagreeing with _you_.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer

    There's a reason he didn't launch such weapons in the first gulf war (wow, am I implying there will be a second or what?).
    Then why was there news footage showing what was left of SCUD missles in both Saudi Arabia & Israel all over the news during the Gulf War?

    He's not crazy, regardless of what others say. He's not goiing to do anything that is going to turn the tide of the world against him.
    Yet he consistently refuses to let the UN inspectors into the country, which is exactly what the international community (including his neighbors) want.

    You're right: Saddam's not going to do anything blatant (such as launching a SCUD missle) to raise the ire of the world. However simply going in and removing him is not the answer, either, as someone just like him will pop up somewhere else, using Saddam as a rallying cry.

    He is manipulating the world's players with his puppy dog look. My personal opinion is Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush are the only ones with the guts to call his bluff. I'm not implying WWII here, but if someone had stepped up and called Hitler's bluff (Mr. Chamberlain, I'm looking in your direction).
    We'd still have had WWII, since Hitler would have rolled into Poland anyway. Calling the bluff of people like that doesn't work, because they could care less about anyone else. That's still not a reason to remove him, though. In the case of Saddam, the next move needs to be his, and we should react to that move accordingly.
    It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
    -- ComaVN (from Slashdot)
  17. #17  
    It's not about the oil, huh? Well, maybe it's all about reelection. Maybe it's all about the son finishing his dad's unfinished buisness. It's about a 'new regime' (quote G.W.Bush) and not about letting the people of Iraq decide (e.g. democracy)

    Look at Afgahnistan. They had to go there, I agree. But isn't it surprising that the current president Karzai has tight contact to the current US legislation (Karzai has worked with some of them in earlier projects). You can't tell me that the US didn't have their hands in that.

    As far as terrorism goes: Israel started attacking Palestinians a couple of days after 9/11 harder than before because of 'terrorism'. So did the russians in "Tschetschenien". All acts of war seem to be justified with terrorism nowadays.

    One very helpfull tool to deal with international terrorism is the international court in Den Haag and right after 9/11 I heard it on the news that it's too bad it wasn't ready, yet. Now it is and who is blocking it? The U.S. of A. They didn't want it that you could sue american soldiers at this court. To achive this they blocked the UN mission on the "Balkan" which gave us Germans a hard time since we can't opperate outside our country without a UN mission. That endangered a very important peace keeping mission and it's the US fault. Did you know that they threatend to attack the Netherlands (Den Haag, Netherlands) if they tried to prosecute amarican citizens. They wanted to invade an allied country and get their people out if we (the rest of the world) tried something stupid. Excuse me, but that is fu**ed up! How come the whole world has to obey laws except the US?

    Now, Iraq. When I first heard that the US is planning to attack Iraq again I couln'd believe it. Maybe I don't know all the facts but it seems that GWBush is trying to pull something off that is not reasonable if taking all things into account. In my opinion the only reasons for attacking Iraq are greed and a way too big selfesteem. It's about securing the oil flow. It's about supporting the arms and energy industry where almost all of the current legislation came from. It's about
    being in a better situation for the reelection in 2004. I stronly believe that if GWBush would have been in his second term already there would be no talks about attacking anyone whatsoever. He doens't want to be a one termer like his dad.

    Finally, I think the US government has no rights to condemn terrorism in such a broad way like they are doing right now. They had their shares in that buisness as well. Look at South America were the US military and intelligence has helped underground groups to plan and execute all kinds of actions that are no less brutal than the terroristic acts they want to stop so bad now. And wasn't even Bin Laden on the payroll of the CIA at one point in history? Didn't he learn what he does now from the best: the US military? He's just a pissed employee getting back at the company that laid him off.

    Right now the European governments and the union are mostly against supporting a war and that's good. I don't see the need for a war against Iraq. The US has to learn that they can't shape the worls the way they want. In the coming decades the way we live will change dramatically and even the US can't stop that. If they don't start thinking more towards a more global community instead of trying to put everybody else in a place they thing fits them then I believe 9/11 is not even the tip of the iceberg and I'm not just talking terror acts.

    Let me close by saying that I dearly hope a war againt Iraq will not start. In my opinion the reason for such actions are too shallow. And comparing Hussein with Hitler is nothing but a joke. Whoever does that should get them history books back oud and take a closer look!

    just my two euro cents on a very important and yet difficult issue

    anderas,
    osnabrueck,
    germany
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by sowens


    Then why was there news footage showing what was left of SCUD missles in both Saudi Arabia & Israel all over the news during the Gulf War?
    They were conventional. The quote to which I was responding was implying chemical or biological contents.


    We'd still have had WWII, since Hitler would have rolled into Poland anyway. Calling the bluff of people like that doesn't work, because they could care less about anyone else. That's still not a reason to remove him, though. In the case of Saddam, the next move needs to be his, and we should react to that move accordingly.
    We'd still have had a WWII but it would have been contained to disposing of Germany. It's a different thing when they've overrun all of Europe and killed millions of people because of their religion (think Turks now).
  19. #19  
    Originally posted by treopolis
    It's not about the oil, huh? Well, maybe it's all about reelection. Maybe it's all about the son finishing his dad's unfinished buisness. It's about a 'new regime' (quote G.W.Bush) and not about letting the people of Iraq decide (e.g. democracy)
    I don't think anyone here has really said that oil doesn't play a part in it. That's a very mypoic view. I can tell you certainly it isn't about some family feud with the Bush clan. Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier (sp?) but he isn't some bloodthirsty freak out to avenge the political death of his father.

    Look at Afgahnistan. They had to go there, I agree. But isn't it surprising that the current president Karzai has tight contact to the current US legislation (Karzai has worked with some of them in earlier projects). You can't tell me that the US didn't have their hands in that.
    No one claims the US had no hand in the new Afgahn regime. It's fairly clear we had a lot to do with their present situation. I think it's funny when people take things that are perfectly obvious and pretend they are fighting some incorrect perception.


    As far as terrorism goes: Israel started attacking Palestinians a couple of days after 9/11 harder than before because of 'terrorism'. So did the russians in "Tschetschenien". All acts of war seem to be justified with terrorism nowadays.
    That's because someone had the guts to stand up and say the murder of innocent civilians is a horrible horrible crime and needs to be stopped. As in any reasoning, it may be innaccurately applied, but there was a time when a king throwing innocents in jail for life was not seen as a reason to launch a war. These days, we try to stop genocide and oppression. Terrorism is one more offense to add to the list.


    Did you know that they threatend to attack the Netherlands (Den Haag, Netherlands) if they tried to prosecute amarican citizens. They wanted to invade an allied country and get their people out if we (the rest of the world) tried something stupid. Excuse me, but that is fu**ed up! How come the whole world has to obey laws except the US?
    I personally think the international criminal court is a good idea, but I understand the concern. Now about invading the Haag, you have to be kidding. There is no way that would ever happen, and I'd be willing to go out on a limb that your source for that information is wrong.

    It's about securing the oil flow. It's about supporting the arms and energy industry where almost all of the current legislation came from. It's about
    being in a better situation for the reelection in 2004. I stronly believe that if GWBush would have been in his second term already there would be no talks about attacking anyone whatsoever. He doens't want to be a one termer like his dad.
    Oil does play a part in it. It's a vital part of our economy and I don't think we should be ashamed of trying to protect our sources. Think of the effect of having no oil on a modern society. It isn't much better than a bunch of nuclear bombs in terms of infrastructure desctruction. The American arms industry is already supplying more than half of the worlds arms. A war isn't needed to support them. I'm sure there are some political considerations, but it's not as cut and dry as you think. If anything, wouldn't he learn that his father's triumph doesn't necessarily translate into success at the polls? Remember, Bush 1 had huge approval ratings after the war, and lost the election a year and half later. If anyone knows a victory would leave him vulnerable, it would be Bush 2. Indeed, Bush 1 has been rumoured to be urging caution to his son.

    And wasn't even Bin Laden on the payroll of the CIA at one point in history? Didn't he learn what he does now from the best: the US military? He's just a pissed employee getting back at the company that laid him off.
    So you don't do anything? That's a stupid view, if you ask me. That's like saying because as a kid you ate all you wanted, whenever you wanted, that you cannot eat less right now. To say you cannot change your reasons or opinion is to commit yourself to a lifetime of bad choices and horrible consequences. Moreover, no one is perfect. After using reason you do things you think are best for you right now. Sometimes that hurts you. Just because you tried something else (helping Iraq against Iran, for instance) you can't go back and try to fix it? That view won't get you far, my friend.

    Right now the European governments and the union are mostly against supporting a war and that's good. I don't see the need for a war against Iraq.
    AH!!!! People, people people, the bombs are not dropping. What do you think the US is doing at this very minute. We are making the case for an Iraqi war. We are doing exactly what you say needs to be done. You can disagree with the reasoning, but until we actually do something, please resist saying how we never listened to anyone in this case.


    Let me close by saying that I dearly hope a war againt Iraq will not start. In my opinion the reason for such actions are too shallow. And comparing Hussein with Hitler is nothing but a joke. Whoever does that should get them history books back oud and take a closer look!
    My reasoning on Hitler is not to compare their acts or potential for evil, but merely as a justification for preemptive strikes instead of delayed containment.

    A question: if Hussein had nuclear weapons, or chemical-tipped scuds, would you favor a strike? Or would you prefer to see the blood in the streets of Tel Aviv / New York first? Are you categorically rulling out a removal of Sadam or are you just saying you haven't seen enough evidence yet?

    just my two euro cents on a very important and yet difficult issue
    Your euro cents are almost worth as much as two American cents, though a lot more than they were a few months ago. :-)
  20. #20  
    first of all, I like to point out that I'm by far not as political as it might seem. To be honest most of the stuff I wrote was pointed out to me by a friend of mine. Does it make my statements less truthful? No. Still I don't want to get into idealistic fights here (or anywhere else for that matter ) Being a European I felt the need to throw in some alternative viewpoints

    Originally posted by KRamsauer


    That's because someone had the guts to stand up and say the murder of innocent civilians is a horrible horrible crime and needs to be stopped. As in any reasoning, it may be innaccurately applied, but there was a time when a king throwing innocents in jail for life was not seen as a reason to launch a war. These days, we try to stop genocide and oppression. Terrorism is one more offense to add to the list.
    But I guess we can both agree on the fact that cruel acts have been done on both sides be it in russia or israel. In my personal perception a lot more actions have been justified with 'anti-terrorism' regardless of the circumstances. Just something I've noticed...


    I personally think the international criminal court is a good idea, but I understand the concern. Now about invading the Haag, you have to be kidding. There is no way that would ever happen, and I'd be willing to go out on a limb that your source for that information is wrong.
    Sorry to dissapoint you. The US Senat wanted to pass a law to allow just that. In the end a milder version was passed authorizing "the use of any means necessary, including force, to secure the release of Americans or other "allied persons" from ICC detention" until the end of the 2002 fical year. To me that sounds like a Marines team going in to get out "your boys". A fast search pointed me to the Human Rights Watch web page.



    Think of the effect of having no oil on a modern society.
    Yes, and get aquainted to it because it's gonna happen sooner or later. Which leads us to the enviromental topic where the US is also going against the rest of the world (Rio!)...

    AH!!!! People, people people, the bombs are not dropping. What do you think the US is doing at this very minute. We are making the case for an Iraqi war. We are doing exactly what you say needs to be done. You can disagree with the reasoning, but until we actually do something, please resist saying how we never listened to anyone in this case.
    To answer with your own words: to keep the US from attacking Iraq I'd rather use verbal
    preemptive strikes instead of delayed containment.
    SCNR


    Your euro cents are almost worth as much as two American cents, though a lot more than they were a few months ago. :-)
    I know and I love it. Thanks to WoldCom and even the Bush administration. I read in a newspaper the otehr day that a lot of arabic investors are pulling out their money from the US stock exchange because they fear that the might lose it once the war starts.

    On a more metaphorical level, do you mean that my 2 cents are a little less worth than your 2 cents on our topic? Just kidding
Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions