War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2002, 11:00 AM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama
And also, Saddam kills 500,000 Iraqi children everyday (or whatever the figure is) so that he can blame it on the infidels/great Satans of the West (Bush Sr -->Clinton -->Bush Jr) and garner international sympathy. Apparently, his strategy is working.

~U2Alabama
Bama, I wasn't aware Saddam kills 500,000 children EVERYDAY! The whole country must be awash in corpses...it sounds like an international crisis. Haven't read this in the news anywhere. Could you provide some evidence of this. Possibly you made a typo?

Possibly what you meant was that Saddam's regime is (in your opinion) responsible for the death of a great number of Iraqi's over the last few years? I'm not trying to speak for you...just making an observation about your comment. I would disagree with that assessment. The international community widely acknowledges that U.S. and British economic sanctions have accounted for the majority of deaths in Iraq over the past 10 years. One could argue that the sanctions are Saddam's fault-thereby implying that he is responsible for those deaths you cited, but I reject that. Saddam may be an evil man, but he has posed no risk to the U.S. or his Arab neighbors since the Gulf War. (see Scott Ritter's comments about this from my previous post). Our sanctions are literally destroying the hopes, dreams, and lives of Iraqi's.

Throughout history, nations without a middle class have languished in poverty and hate under the rule of dictators. Our sanctions on Iraq have wiped out there middle class. If we here in the West want to endear ourselves to the Iraqi people than economic sanctions that destroy any hopes of their future aren't the answer. Hatred towards the West will prevail and dictators like Saddam will continue to exist until our policies empower the people of Iraq to seize the day. A rebuilding of Iraq's economy is necessary for the middle class to return to power...it is than that the Iraqi people will truly be able to overthrow the Saddam regime. True, all of this rebuilding of Iraq's economy doesn't fall on our shoulders...but the repeal of oppressive economic sanctions currenly crippling Iraq and responsible for countless, innocent Iraqi lives is a required step towards achieving that goal.

War is not always the answer...and who is to say that a war in Iraq, i.e. regime change, will provide a safer, more peaceful Iraq? Saddam may be a nuisance...but he isn't a threat to our sovereignty. We should be more concerned with the likes of Iran (who shortly will possess nuclear capabilities), India, and Pakistan. These countries are much more capable of causing the world great harm. How does one think Iran will react if we have a preemptive strike on Iraq? You gotta believe that Iran will feel threatened by the U.S. in such a case...Bush has already called them an "axis of evil". Iran's going to be sitting there thinking "Are we next?" Where does it all end? With a nuclear bomb...that we have threatened to use numerous times in our rhetoric? I believe it doesn't end...as long as Bush is calling the shots. The guy (I believe) wants perpetual war. Nothing would make him happier. It worries me. No exit strategy exists and a preemptive strike on Iraq has no justification under international or domestic law...and no one wants this war...except the Bush administration.

I pray that God shows Bush that there IS a better way...
__________________

Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 11:40 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 01:58 PM
I am not for WAR ..but I am for change of sadam husain in iraq in whatever way possible

AcrobatMan
__________________

AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 01:18 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:58 PM
On this day 12 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990.


The reason to attack and change the regime in Iraq in 2002 is if we believe that Saddam is likely to supply sometime in the future, terrorist with weapons of mass destruction, to do damage in the USA far greater than what happened on 9/11. The question is how serious and likely is this threat? Have the risk of not doing this started to outweight the cost that an invasion would involve? Remember to think about the risk and cost of the use of weapons of mass destruction in a major US city. Also look at the possible attackers previous record in international actions. The true threat from Saddam is not his possession of such weapons but the possiblility that he would try to use them directly(unlikely) or indirectly. Saddam is a miscaculator, he may miscaculate that he could do harm and damage through a terror organization and get away with it, believing it could not be traced back to him.

As far as the sanctions, the UN figure on the number of deaths cannot not be confirmed at all. Remember, IRAQ is a POLICE STATE! Iraq only lets international media and organizations see things it wants them to see. It is there for impossible to attain any accurate estimate of deaths in Iraq since 1991! It is also impossible to determine of sanctions were a cause of death or if it was the government and military which control the distribution of goods and services throughout Iraq. It is in Saddam's interest to see the Sanctions lifted so he can use his oil money to rebuild his military which was largely destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War.

Another thing about the sanctions is that Iraq can sell as much oil as it wants to buy humanitarian supplies. While Iraq was primarily import dependent for most of its heavy military weapons, that was not so about all civilian goods and services. But in any event, they have Billions of dollars to use to buy more than enough food and humanitarian supplies under the watchful eye of the UN. In addition, Saddam has his own money which is used for the Republican guard and to build weapons of mass destruction. He also likes to build palaces and murals of himself all over this place. This is money that could be used for his people. Then there is the Black Market, that is alive and well. Saddam of course control much of this. Iraq's anual exports and imports have been back to the same level they were before 1991 for several years.

Bottom line here is, little accurate info can be gathered on the true condition of Iraqi civilians by Int. Organizations or media because of Saddam's Police State. Only the US military might have the capability to answer this question with spies or spy equipment. But even then it would be difficult to gather accurate info. Given that Iraq can buy the humanitarian supplies it needs(with UN approval) to take care of its people with its massive oil exports into the tens of Billions, the only reason people in Iraq are suffering is because of Saddam, who is creating their suffering to get sanctions lifted, by denying them goods. Saddam wants to rebuild his military and getting sanctions lifted is the first step.

There will not be a middle class in Iraq to threaten him unless Saddam allows it. Remember, this is a dictatorship and a Police State. It has been that way for over 20 years! The middle class could only defeat Saddam Hussain if they had the military capacity to defeat the Republican Guard which they have never had and do not have now, and can't have do to Saddam's Iron grip on the country.

An invasion and regime change in Iraq could be very stabilizing for the region given the massive problems that Saddam has caused(invading Iran and the 1980-1988 War, invading Kuwait, the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and his own civilians, attacking Saudia Arabia with troops and Scud Missiles, attacking Israel with Scud missiles, and in 1987 attacking one of our frigates with an anti-ship missile, just to mention a few things). The US would have to stay there for the next 10 years in some capicity to rebuild the country and guard the security of the government, but this has been very successful in the past. Just look at Germany and Japan today, these are two of the most wealthy and democratic countries in the world thanks in large part to the efforts of the USA after World War II was over. Iraq can quickly rebuild itself because of the massive amount of wealth that it is already sitting on. One of the worlds largest known oil reserves. Most developing countries are not sitting on a pot of gold(oil) like Iraq. It is these funds that can pay for the war and reconstruction. These funds right now are not used by Saddam and only when he decides to buy humanitarian supplies. Get Saddam out of the picture, and within in 10 years, you'll have one of the wealthiest countries in the region. They even have the chance to beat Saudi Arabia do to extra resources like the Tigeris/ Euphrates river. Instead of being a destabilizing influence, Iraq could be a stabilizing influence and with US help easily guard against Iranian ambitions. In fact, with the more liberal and democratic stances growing in Iran now, democracy in Iraq could push that foward even faster. The bottom line is, when countries are defeated and taken over by the USA, it is actually a huge benifit since dictatorship is taken out replaced by democracy, US troops to help with security and massive funds to help in reconstruction from the richest country in the world. Again, look at what happened to GERMANY and JAPAN. Look at SOUTH KOREA, a poor farm country in 1950 is now a growing Asian industrial power.

But it is true that containment of the past 11 years has been very cost effective for the USA and the region. It may be so in the future. Of course if speaking about the interest of the Iraqi people, a US military invasion and regime change is in their best long term interest. The problem now is whether containment will continue to work in the future. Is the RISK of staying with just containment begining to outweight the COST of invading and changing the regime? That is not an easy question to answer, but if it is yes, then regime change should be done.

As far as international law goes, the 1991 Gulf War is not technically over do to Iraq's failure to 100% comply with all the UN demands that led to the Gulf War Ceacefire. Were technically still at war because they have failed to meet their obligations under the ceacefire terms.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 01:24 PM   #24
Banned
 
LOVE MUSCLE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: my lovenest / in bed with Larry, Bono, Larry, :heart: Adam, Larry, Edge, *swoon* kisses and THUD !!!
Posts: 986
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono



Sorry to confuse you Rono, that magnificant machine is the B-2 Stealth bomber (a.k.a. B-2 spirit, flying bat-wing, etc.).

Rather than argue this point again I decided to post a couple of pics that ought to speak for my opinion.

As Rob is aware, I don't mean to offend anyone with them.



Read you, LOVE MUSCLE
LOVE MUSCLE is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 02:02 PM   #25
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
On this day 12 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait, August 2, 1990.


The reason to attack and change the regime in Iraq in 2002 is if we believe that Saddam is likely to supply sometime in the future, terrorist with weapons of mass destruction, to do damage in the USA far greater than what happened on 9/11. The question is how serious and likely is this threat? Have the risk of not doing this started to outweight the cost that an invasion would involve? Remember to think about the risk and cost of the use of weapons of mass destruction in a major US city. Also look at the possible attackers previous record in international actions. The true threat from Saddam is not his possession of such weapons but the possiblility that he would try to use them directly(unlikely) or indirectly. Saddam is a miscaculator, he may miscaculate that he could do harm and damage through a terror organization and get away with it, believing it could not be traced back to him.
I understand what you are saying STING2 but I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the U.S. should be in the business of "preemtive strikes". There is no precedent for this type of action and it certainly undermines the foundation of international law. Also, I'm a big believer in our Constitution...that requires a Declaration of War from Congress before this type of action is taken. As I said earlier, the Bush administrations "preemptive strike" mentality is imperialist arrogance, imo. I still tend to agree with Scott Ritter's assessment that Iraq is not a threat to the U.S. or the Middle East. If the U.S. under the Bush admin adopts a policy of "preemptive strikes" who will be next??? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Surely those nations, some with nuclear capabilities, are wondering the same thing...and don't think for a second they aren't going to protect themselves if they sense an American preemptive strike. It's perpetual war...with a high human toll and unexpected results.

I'm of the opinion that the American public is largely ignorant of the potential ramifications of an attack on Iraq. They have bought into the spin of the Bush admin and those opposed to such an attack in the Congress have pooh-poohed their objections for fear of being labeled un-patriotic by the Bush political machine. No credible evidence exists of Saddam's capabilites...if it existed we would know about it. Where is the evidence?

Lastly, am I the only one who remembers during the presidential debates with Al Gore that Bush emphatically said he was against "nationbuilding?" I remember Bush criticizing the Clinton administration for this very policy. Yet, nationbuilding is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and are proposing to do in Iraq. So much for campaign promises...
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 03:59 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,737
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LOVE MUSCLE
As Rob is aware, I don't mean to offend anyone with them.
That's probably the case.

I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.
anitram is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 04:08 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 04:51 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: God is Love
Posts: 185
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.
I just got a huge lump in my throat reading that chilling statement. How awful. Makes one really appreciate how good we have it here in the U.S...how ugly war can be...and how it affects the human psyche. I'm honestly speechless...
Like someone to blame is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 05:51 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 09:58 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame


Possibly what you meant was that Saddam's regime is (in your opinion) responsible for the death of a great number of Iraqi's over the last few years? I'm not trying to speak for you...just making an observation about your comment. I would disagree with that assessment. The international community widely acknowledges that U.S. and British economic sanctions have accounted for the majority of deaths in Iraq over the past 10 years. One could argue that the sanctions are Saddam's fault-thereby implying that he is responsible for those deaths you cited, but I reject that. Saddam may be an evil man, but he has posed no risk to the U.S. or his Arab neighbors since the Gulf War.
For this argument to work, you would have to argue that Saddam would not have been a danger to the US or his people or his Arab neighbors or Israel had the UN *not* implemented the sanctions, and this is not clear.

Okay, I just realized that there are way too many negatives in that sentence. Let me put it this way: I think there's a good chance that Saddam would have been causing trouble without the sanctions.

Quote:

I pray that God shows Bush that there IS a better way...
I'm not sure what ideas you have, but I don't think Saddam's regime is going to go away without the use of force. Maybe the US could train a bunch of Iraqi guerrillas and send in a bunch of secret agents for an inside job.
speedracer is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 06:31 PM   #30
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


That's probably the case.

I was a little girl when I spent one of my birthdays hiding in a basement due to shelling. In a small room of 3m x 3m, with 13 other people. We were there for 2 and a half days, and this is but one such example. I was a little girl when we saw Serb women decorating tanks that were heading for Bosnian villages. There are no words to express how disturbed I am by your pictures. You see the planes; I see the kids who will be hiding from them, and I see the adults they'll grow into and the struggles they'll have to regain their humanity and choose not to live vindictively.

Maybe you won't stop posting them, but you know what, it's something worth considering.

I am sorry you find this disturbing.

Your reference to shelling is caused by artillery, I did not post pics of artillery cannons/rounds but 2 airplanes that I see daily that really had nothing to do with your situation.

IMHO these aircraft are beautiful, magnificant and are a beacon of freedom to which I am a part of. As a dear friend of mine told me a couple of months back, "I am a part of this." And when telling him about how I love to sit by the runway sometimes and watch the aircraft take off he assured me that everytime they take off it is because of me. This friend of mine is a very wise man, and he is also a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army.

And I also want to point out that these aircraft are part of my religion. They are here to protect this country, and our allies against evil. I believe that christianity teaches us to protect one another, and to protect those who cannot defend themselves. Even if that means we lose our own life in the process. Some of us have put our own lives on the line on your soil to try and help you.

I feel for your situation, and I am sorry you had to go through that. We were born into this world without a choice of our past history. But we damn sure can make a difference in our future. I think it is reasonable at the least to say that in doing so these aircraft are going to have to head east.

I myself find many things in here disturbing. I could name you five signatures that I find nauseating, at the very least. I guess that is the cost of entering FYM.

Please do not take it personal.
z edge is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 06:59 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 08:58 AM
(In a classic melon departure...)

Why, suddenly, is there so much sympathy for a dictator? Certainly, Bush is not one of our more loveable American presidents, but, for all intensive purposes, Hussein is not exactly a cuddly dictator himself.

I've felt all along that Hussein is perhaps one of the minds behind September 11th; if not that, at least a financial source. Bin Laden, in reference to his motivations against America, often refers to two scenarios that started from the half-assed Gulf War:

1) Continued American military presence in Saudi Arabia, which he "believes" is a desecration of holy land.

2) Continued American aggression and sanctions against Iraq.

It's funny how many sympathies this man has for a nation he's never lived in, right? Money can certainly build loyalties, and, without evidence, I think that Hussein may indeed be one of Al-Qaeda's silent partners. The guilty party is often the one with the most to gain and the least to lose, and, indeed, Hussein would have much to gain from Al-Qaeda's success. While I am disgusted at America's most half-assed way of dealing with Iraq over the last decade, it is too late to just say "oh well" and let him go free. This man needs to be removed, because an unleashed, battered dictator is the last thing the Western world needs.

I am often upset at the history behind all of these military conflicts, which often are borne of self-serving past conflicts. I see that America is no longer in the business of building nations, which successfully disassembled and built powerful allies out of Germany and Japan. Indeed, over the last decade, we've seen the fall of the Soviet Union as a sputtering and slowly improving nation, and I certainly see Afghanistan as being similarly ineffective. Of course, why would America wish to build powerful competitors when it can have political vassals? Unfortunately, I believe, it is this system that is fueling the conflicts of the future. We may be solving immediate problems, but what problems are we creating for the future? That is where I have some trust issues with Bush, as Reagan, his self-professed political idol, and Bush, Sr., his father, were no different.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:35 PM   #32
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,044
Local Time: 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Money can certainly build loyalties
true
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:43 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,737
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by z edge
Your reference to shelling is caused by artillery, I did not post pics of artillery cannons/rounds but 2 airplanes that I see daily that really had nothing to do with your situation.

Is there some sort of rule as to what should and should not trigger old, painful memories? Because God certainly knows millions of people's lives would be a hell of a lot easier if that were the case.

Anyways, I don't care to continue on with this. It's a beautiful day.
anitram is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:46 PM   #34
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,349
Local Time: 05:58 AM
I didnt quite see the point in posting those plane pictures either.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 07:57 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Melon,
We did give Russia over 5 Billion dollars in the 1990s but it simply went to the mafia. With a country as large as Russia, unless they let us come in take control of the government for a decade or so, its up to them to solve their problems. We can help with money and advise. I think eventually things will work out, but you have to realize that democracy and capitalism has no history in Russia unlike Germany and maybe Japan had. In addition Russia is much larger and more complex ethinically, especially if you throw in the 14 other new countries formed after the break up of the Soviet Union.

I think Bushes policy in 1991 in regards to the Gulf War was perfect. The USA had the full support from the international community in everything it did, which did not call for the overthrow of Saddam. The international community payed the cost of the war(in fact, they overpayed, there was a slight profit for the USA). Iraq's Conventional military capabilities were cut by 2/3s and the remaining 1/3s capability has been decayed because of 11 years of sanctions. The countries in the region in addition to a small US force or able to deter any adventures by Iraq's conventional forces. Iraqs own military capability is still strong enough to deter military action by Iran. The military balance has been restored and that has meant peace for the countries that border Iraq for the past 10 years unlike the 10 years before 1991. In addition, the UN inspection team was very successful in the 1990s in destroying and disrupting Iraq's weapons program.

Unfortunately, the problems with Bush's policy came to ahead when the inspection teams were kicked out in 1998. We have not taken serious action to get them in there and that is part of the reason Iraq becomes a threat. Saddam secretly supplying terrorist with mass destruction weapons is now a possiblity. But as long as the inspection teams were in there, I do not feel there is a threat, providing they get to look at what they want.

The international climate in 1991 made going all the way to Baghdad an impossibility. Remember, there was still a Soviet Union, and as late as the fall of 1990 there were still over 2,000 Soviet troops and advisors in Iraq. It was difficult enough to get the mandate to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Nearly every democrat in the Senate voted against the use of force! They thought you could regulate Saddam's behavior with sanctions! I'd have to say they were of the mark on that one.

Bottom line, Bush Sr. did an amazing job, when one looks at the context and environment in which the action was taken. The Senate only approved Bushes use of force by 53 to 47. It was the Republicans and a few Democrats on one side, against the rest who were Democrats. There was definitely no public support, at least not in the Congress for going all the way to Baghdad and there certainly was no support in the international community for doing that either.

Regardless of the political opposition, I think Bush Sr. made the right choice back then in not going all the way to Baghdad based on what was known then. No one felt that Saddam could survive the aftermath of the Gulf War. Plus 2/3s of Iraqs military was destroyed and they would have to endure UN inspections for years. Security and balance of power were restored.

Now though after 9/11, the effectiveness of terror organizations seems to have increased combined with the fact that no inspectors have been in Iraq since 1998, leads to the concern that the two may hook up some time in the future to commit an act worse than 9/11! These two problems did not exist in 1991 in the magnitude that they exist today. So now we have the question do the new risk of just continuing containment outweight the cost of invasion and regime change in Iraq?
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 08:02 PM   #36
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 05:58 AM

Who needs areason to post pictures of cool planes???

I'd start a thread exclusively for that purpose, but I started two pro-military threads long ago, and they both got flamed. I didnt voice any political opinions in them, either. Just posted links to charities and groups that help make life better for deployed members of the armed forces.
__________________
".....People of America - SHUSH-........."

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...

^^ Life's a bitch, so i became one ^^
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 08:23 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Like Someone to blame,

As far as international law goes, the 1991 Gulf War is not technically over do to Iraq's failure to 100% comply with all the UN demands that led to the Gulf War Ceacefire. Were technically still at war because they have failed to meet their obligations under the ceacefire terms.

If a country is under threat of a harmful attack or one that could cause mass loss or the end of the country, it is the Presidents duty to use all means neccessary to prevent such a disaster from taking place. I would have supported as I'm sure everyone would preemptive action by the FBI in the days before 9/11 if they could have put info together and had found more things out. I would have supported a preemtive strike on Al Quada strong holds(with a large ground force instead of cruise missiles) in Afghanistan in 1998 after the embassy bombings in Africa. Israel would not exist today if it had not launched a preemptive strike in 1967. The only way you defeat terrorism once it is likely to happen is to strike first!

Again though, are policy of containment on Iraq has worked very well, but with the inspectors out, and the new aggressivness of terrorist, the question is raised: does the risk of continuing the policy of just containment outweight the cost of invasion and regime change? As I said in the begining were already technically at war because Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 and has failed to comply with the Gulf War Ceace fire resolutions.

As far as a congressional declaration of war, that has not happened since 1941. But look at all the military actions that have been launched under both democratic and Republican administrations. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Beruit, Panama, The Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan. There are more that did not make this list. I think the threat of nuclear destruction in under 15 minutes at any given time during the Cold War, made the need for a declaration of War not at all relevant. The President has to have a free hand to act in certain situations to safeguard the security of the country. Congress and the US public has recognized this. There are still votes of approval for certain military actions, but I doubt they will use the declaration of war again. Public approval can be measured or recieved in other ways.
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 09:54 PM   #38
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
 
Sicy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,349
Local Time: 05:58 AM
Normal

I was referring to the planes dropping bombs.

I dont like war.
__________________
Sicy is offline  
Old 08-02-2002, 11:34 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:58 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: War with Iraq...What is the U.S. Thinking?

First off, I have not voiced my opinion for or against an attack on Iraq; we will get to that later.

Quote:
Originally posted by Like someone to blame


Bama, I wasn't aware Saddam kills 500,000 children EVERYDAY! The whole country must be awash in corpses...it sounds like an international crisis. Haven't read this in the news anywhere. Could you provide some evidence of this. Possibly you made a typo?

This was my personal stab at all of the figures I have seen in this forum over the past couple of years about all of the Iraqi civilians that George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, former Journey lead singer Steve Perry, George Bush Jr., and most recently, Tony Blair, have been killing on a daily basis with their own hands. It has ranged from 5,000 to 500,000, and in timespans of "per minute" to "since 1991."

It is about responsibility. A certain ideology (not liberal, not conservative, I don't know what to call it) wants to shift responsibility in the world.

When a guy rapes a woman and is convicted and sent to prison, who is responsible for the fact that his son grows up delinquent and commits crime himself? Is it the dad's rape victim, the dad's arresting police officer, the prosecuting district attorney, the trial witnesses, the judge, and the jury?

I believe that Saddam is both (1) allowing his civilians to starve and die due to economic sanctions and the (2) he is killing his own civilians in order to bolster carnal numbers, as sickening as that is, to use to sway people around the world. Like I said, it is working. Like the rapist father above, Saddam can point the finger at those who are punishing him rather than taking responsibility himself and stepping down for the good of his people.

What was your opinion on sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s? Listen to Bono's rant in "Silver & Gold" on RATTLE AND HUM. Bono is pleading for Western sanctions against the apartheid regime in Cape Town.

Up until January 15, 1991 (the day I turned 18 - and registered with Selective Service), the United States, Great Britain, Jordan and numerous other countries sought a diplomatic resolution with Iraq. The efforts failed. As I learned in my History of Foreign Policy class a few years later, military action is the final stage of diplomacy.

Saddam Hussein is very likely developing new chemical weapons and in possession of others. Just because they were allegedly eliminated a few years ago (officially, at least, according to your statistics) certainly does not mean that he has acquire others. Don't forget that the early 1990s saw the breakup of the former Soviet Union, and the subsequent rise of a mafia-run black market of their old weaponry, ESPECIALLY in the Southern-most former "republics" near Iraq. I think of Saddam (or you or me for that matter) wished to go on a shopping spree for unmentionable weapons in that area, it would be quite easy. Melon makes a good point of his possible financial connection to the attacks of 9/11. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the Czech meeting; in fact, it was Czech intelligence authorities that notified us of this alleged meeting; I have not heard them say "Oh, sorry, we were just kidding."

And you are incorrectwith this statement:

Quote:
...and no one wants this war...except the Bush administration.


It was Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who first called for action against Iraq as far back as October, 2001. And numerous other Democratic and Republican members of Congress have done the same.

I don't know if it is possible for me to agree with zooropa, Melon and Sting2 at the same time in this thread, but to an extent I do.

The thug needs to be removed from power; how and when we do it, I am not sure yet. Why some of you accept his retention of office is beyond me.

Can anyone post any "good things" about Saddam? Should I start one of those "What do you know/like/love about Saddam Hussein?" threads?

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 12:38 AM   #40
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:58 AM
I am impressed.

Achtung Bama that was great
that post was needed

STING2, as always

Sicy
I didn't post planes to offend anyone, rather they voice my opinion more than my words can at times

Rob
I do feel for your last paragraph bud
Diamond was right you are a nice guy
I have a lot to tell you in a bit

Melon
Get your ass over here and take J.C. Watts seat when he leaves

Honestly Melon, you have proven once again how open you are and I do appreciate it as others do

*with this direction I am going to add some *** back to this thread
__________________

z edge is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×