Zooropa
Acrobat
OK, one thing that I don't understand is how something so obvious can remain so hidden from so many. We live in a world in which weapons of mass destruction can change the landscape of the world in the blink of an eye. Think of it this way, If Hitler had acquired Nuclear weapons, the world would be a very differnent place than it is today. Look at the delicate way we must handle North Korea. It's a whole new game out there, and conventional warfare, while still effective and persistent, is not nearly as powerful as it used to be. Iraq vs. the US in a conventional war = easy victory for US with minimal casaulties. Nuclear War between Iraq and US = US victory with heavy cauaulties. Now, what if Iraq does produce nuclear weapons and sells then to terrorist organizations. If detonated in the US, who would we go after? What if it took a week or more to find out who had used them against us? More may be detonated before we were able to retaliate, and by then, the devistation would be enormous. The US economy would be in tatters, plunging us into a recesion that would make the great depression look like nothing. It was mentioned in a different thread that Bin Laden would be unlikely to cooperate with Saddam because he considers him an infidel. Funny, Bin Laden didn't seem to object to American aid during the Afghan war against the USSR. Not to mention, Al Qaeda is by no means the only terrorist organization out there. If Bin Laden really held himself to his priniciples, I'm sure that dozens of other terrorist organizations would jump at the opportunity.
As for the arguement that we built Saddam, and only have ourselves to blame.... Politics makes strange bedfellows, but more importantly, sometimes it is more important to fight the greater evil first, rather than all the evil. Stalin was an allie against Hitler and Nazi Germany. There are dozens of other examples which I'm sure many of you will know. At the time, Saddam's rise was a valuable asset at the time, and now, much like we did against Stalin, we must remove him as well. So, whether you agree with this policy or not, let's be careful before we blame this thinking on the Republicans, and particular Reagan, Bush, Bush II.
As for European objections, I don't have any research to back this belief up, but I really feel that the issue comes down to most Europeans viewing the war on terror & the War on Iraq as US business, rather than world business. After all, Bin laden and Hussein are pissed at us, not Europe. So it seems as if many European people and governments don't want to get involved, because they don;t want to have to take the protective measures that the US takes at home and abroad. Afterall, These security measures cost $$$$. Anyway, this is not ment to offend anyone, just an observation.
Really the whole point to this thread is that Saddam is a threat to the world, not just the US. To remove him from power is an important goal. This pending War is not about revenge or even to a certain extent oil (although protecting our interests is vital to por nation). It's about safety, and if we have act premptivly, so be it, I'd rather piss off a few people and be safe, that to pander to every anti-warmonger and pay the consequences later.
oooo, one more thought, I hate the often sited 'fact' that Replulicans are war mongers. Well, to this I respond, from the start of the 20th century, The United States has been involved in five major wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian gulf. And here is a list of US presidents at times of War:
WWI ? Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
WWII- Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat). Harry Truman (Democrat)
Korea - Harry Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam ? Jonh F. Kennedy (Democrat), Lyndon Johnson (Democrat), Richard Nixon (Republican)
Persian Gulf ? George Bush (Republican)
If you do the math, it adds up to 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans. So what was that about Republicans loving War? Now, to prempt a few responses, obviosly WWI and WWII are different situations that required US involvement, but the last three, still 3 to 2 in fav of the Dems.
That's all.......
As for the arguement that we built Saddam, and only have ourselves to blame.... Politics makes strange bedfellows, but more importantly, sometimes it is more important to fight the greater evil first, rather than all the evil. Stalin was an allie against Hitler and Nazi Germany. There are dozens of other examples which I'm sure many of you will know. At the time, Saddam's rise was a valuable asset at the time, and now, much like we did against Stalin, we must remove him as well. So, whether you agree with this policy or not, let's be careful before we blame this thinking on the Republicans, and particular Reagan, Bush, Bush II.
As for European objections, I don't have any research to back this belief up, but I really feel that the issue comes down to most Europeans viewing the war on terror & the War on Iraq as US business, rather than world business. After all, Bin laden and Hussein are pissed at us, not Europe. So it seems as if many European people and governments don't want to get involved, because they don;t want to have to take the protective measures that the US takes at home and abroad. Afterall, These security measures cost $$$$. Anyway, this is not ment to offend anyone, just an observation.
Really the whole point to this thread is that Saddam is a threat to the world, not just the US. To remove him from power is an important goal. This pending War is not about revenge or even to a certain extent oil (although protecting our interests is vital to por nation). It's about safety, and if we have act premptivly, so be it, I'd rather piss off a few people and be safe, that to pander to every anti-warmonger and pay the consequences later.
oooo, one more thought, I hate the often sited 'fact' that Replulicans are war mongers. Well, to this I respond, from the start of the 20th century, The United States has been involved in five major wars, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Persian gulf. And here is a list of US presidents at times of War:
WWI ? Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
WWII- Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat). Harry Truman (Democrat)
Korea - Harry Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam ? Jonh F. Kennedy (Democrat), Lyndon Johnson (Democrat), Richard Nixon (Republican)
Persian Gulf ? George Bush (Republican)
If you do the math, it adds up to 6 Democrats, 2 Republicans. So what was that about Republicans loving War? Now, to prempt a few responses, obviosly WWI and WWII are different situations that required US involvement, but the last three, still 3 to 2 in fav of the Dems.
That's all.......
Last edited:
