This topic has been moved to Political Discussion.
We should not attack Iraq
-
We are not at war.
You’re utterly wrong. :x
We ARE at war, whether you choose to believe it or not. We’re not at war the same way we have been in past conflicts, but it’s a war nonetheless. -
who will be in charge after suddam?
-
American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
American military commanders will run the country until we can appoint a beneficial (for the country) leader who supports democracy and human rights.
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose. -
@cystic:
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!
That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!
You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!
Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!
Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-? -
@Deviant:Scripter:
@cystic:
give me an F**king break. Like they have in WHAT country???
Too many dictators in too many countries have shafted too many of their own citizens and the US goes after Iraq - why?
because certain groups got pissed off over US influence in the middle east? Or because that’s where the oil is?
this isn’t a “moral” war that the US is involved in. This is not a moral thing that they are doing. This isn’t about survival, helping another country, or even a superficial hint of righteousness. This is about:
a) Americans trying to clean up their own mess (again), and
b) Oil and
c) Politics.
Bush thinks he can solve all 3 in one “tactical strike” irrespective of the loss of life, dignity, sovereignty, and the rights of a country to screw up.
This is the wrong approach. Still. It lacks creativity, elegance, or even a coherent purpose.What the hell? That’s not MY idea, it’s one possibility that might happen. I didn’t say it’s ever been done either!
no, you said it would be done. I don’t think it can, and i certainly don’t think that America will.
That’s where the oil is? How about that’s where f*cking Saddam Hussein is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons!.
Then the world should go after America, Russia, and any other country that stockpiles these. I think that we should go after Bush 'cuz he’s crazy, dictator-like, and is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Also because America goes around bombing everyone - something Iraq hasn’t done in 11 years.
You think Bush is the only one who wants to go in and take out Saddam? Wake up and smell the f*cking coffee! There are people from every political party who want Saddam dead, so don’t make this another “Bush vs. the World” comparison!
sorry,
America vs. the world.Why the hell do you presume to know more than the American intelligence agencies? Have you seen the f*cking classified evidence?! Hell no. Do you have any frickin’ clue how much our government DOESN’T show us citizens??? You frickin’ anti-war idiots don’t have any clue how to keep a nation safe!
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?Ok, calm down D:S… :wink:
Sorry bout that ranting, I wish we’d just nail Iraq and get it the hell over with… :-?But why stop at Iraq? There are enough nations out there that aren’t inline with American policy - enough that have weapons, anti-west sentiments (well, anti-US anyway - i have to wear a Canadian flag so i don’t get confused with you guys), and dictators who mis-treat their people.
-
Yanny& Falk & others,
…Well SUD,
i don’t agree with you.
If America takes up leadership (with action and without consensus) too early, that would be contra-productiv, if not stupid.
THe rest is too long to talk about from miy side ( and i am too lazy at the moment… maybe tomorrow) -
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
well, there are fewer of them. people who don’t attack/bomb other people are less likely to get attacked/bombed in retaliation. anti-war idiots/pacifists in general are a lot less likely to end up in the ER as the result of a barfight than pro-war idiots/other idiots. Canada, Portugal, Switzerland/ a hundred other countries don’t really get very many terrorist attacks. It might be b/c we’re small, however i’d guess that if we were as antagonistic, then we’d also get bombed more frequently.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff. -
Of course we are not at war.
We do not treat those captured as prisoners of war.
0% of our economy is focused on this war.
There are probably only 5,000 people fighting this “war”.
We have not declared war. -
@cystic:
@Deviant:Scripter:
ummm . . . us fricken anti-war idiots very rarely get bombed, unless we’re attached to a pro-war idiot.
Do the terrorists distinguish between anti-war and pro-war when they’re bombing a subway? I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
well, there are fewer of them. people who don’t attack/bomb other people are less likely to get attacked/bombed in retaliation. anti-war idiots/pacifists in general are a lot less likely to end up in the ER as the result of a barfight than pro-war idiots/other idiots. Canada, Portugal, Switzerland/ a hundred other countries don’t really get very many terrorist attacks. It might be b/c we’re small, however i’d guess that if we were as antagonistic, then we’d also get bombed more frequently.
and the classified evidence is really meaningless as no one knows what it is. What are they trying to hide by keeping it classified? The truth, or lies?
Oh my God. You just don’t get it, do you? That’s why they call it CLASSIFIED! The people who know what it is are the ones who have to make the decisions! Not you or I. Can you imagine the price we’d pay if the government was to show the general public all it’s classified information simply to please our curiosities? :o
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff.Hey CC, I have a Bio test on Tuesday. Think you can stop by tomorrow evening and help me study?
-
Hey CC, I have a Bio test on Tuesday. Think you can stop by tomorrow evening and help me study?
Hahahaha, looks like CC made a new friend. :wink:
-
sure EG - love to help. Trouble is, you’re nowhere near Winnipeg, and i have cardiology rounds for the next few weeks.
Any questions feel free to private message me.
what kind of biology? -
yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff.I absolutely agree with you. This IS life and death stuff, therefore I don’t think we need to be releasing every single shread of evidence to the general public. Bush has told us is reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and has laid out the evidence. They’ve even gone as far as to show satellite photographs. Now, some people will not choose to believe him, and I don’t really have a problem with that. No president is going to get 100% for his actions, no matter the cause. There’s not much more this administration can do before they start compromising American lives.
Of course we are not at war.
How do you define war?
We do not treat those captured as prisoners of war.
I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass how the al-Qaeda prisoners are treated. Have you seen the sh*t that our military police have to put up with on a daily basis? It’s appalling.
We have not declared war.
Yes we have.
“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.” - George W. Bush -
Didn’t declare war in Korea or Nam, those must not have been wars either.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.
Does that mean the US of A are not a peaceful nation?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
Bush has told us is reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and has laid out the evidence. They’ve even gone as far as to show satellite photographs.
Well, first you talk of the classifed evidence, which we have to trust… so these pics shown were not, supposedly. What does that mean? Old evidence, false data, faked pics… why are they not classified, and when they are not, why do you believe them ;)?
Seriously now: Does the “classified” include other nations leaders (except T.Blair), or have they been permitted to see that evidence? If yes, why did most say “there is nothing new about it”, if not: why not? -
Does that mean the US of A are not a peaceful nation?
Well, in the broadest of terms, Yes, I would consider the US a peaceful nation. But in the context of his statement, be drew a distinguishment between the US and other (presumeably smaller) countries…that’s what I was referring to.
Well, first you talk of the classifed evidence, which we have to trust… so these pics shown were not, supposedly. What does that mean? Old evidence, false data, faked pics… why are they not classified, and when they are not, why do you believe them ?
Seriously now: Does the “classified” include other nations leaders (except T.Blair), or have they been permitted to see that evidence? If yes, why did most say “there is nothing new about it”, if not: why not?First, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying, but I’ll give it my best shot :-?. I believe the pictures, becuase that’s what our president is showing us. I know enough to know that the President of the United States and other key officials (ie Colin Powell & Don Rumsfeld) know ALOT more than I do…that’s why I’m trusting them and what they say.
Secondly, No, we are not sharing every piece of classified information with our allies and those countries we’re trying to convince on board. Why would we do that? That would surely jeopardize any attack (if we ever get to that point.) Of course, we do share some information, but not all of it.
My point is simple.
You can either sit back and criticize the officials, claiming they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Or you can trust in what they tell us and support any efforts to make our country a safer place. If you don’t want to support Bush for some reason or another, then do it for this reason: We have men & women, brothers & sisters, moms & dads, and friends over their fighting as we speak. Support it for them. :wink: -
@Deviant:Scripter:
I know enough to know that the President of the United States and other key officials (ie Colin Powell & Don Rumsfeld) know ALOT more than I do…that’s why I’m trusting them and what they say.
You know enough to assume that the president et. al. know ALOT more than you.
Secondly, No, we are not sharing every piece of classified information with our allies and those countries we’re trying to convince on board. Why would we do that? That would surely jeopardize any attack (if we ever get to that point.) Of course, we do share some information, but not all of it.
Do you wonder why the US find such a hard time of convincing others then?
Or you can trust in what they tell us and support any efforts to make our country a safer place. If you don’t want to support Bush for some reason or another, then do it for this reason: We have men & women, brothers & sisters, moms & dads, and friends over th(ere) fighting as we speak. Support it for them. :wink:
Please do NOT patronize me.
It is not my country. I prefer to support more peaceful countries.
And why should i support people fighting when i think that their fighting is not backed up by any laws? Should i support any two people who happen to beat themselves up for no better reason that they are son and daughters etc? -
Yanny& Falk & others,
On Iraq. One would prefer to act in unison with a broad coalition. We aren’t exactly sure what will happen if we do act. We aren’t exactly certain what will happen if we don’t act.
However, we do have plenty of evidence of Saddam’s extremely brutal nature. We do have evidence of wide-scale use of chemical weapons. We do know that he has stockpiles of WMD and we do know that he wants more and will do anything to get them. We do know that he ignores every resolution and every action we have taken. We do know that he will let his people remain in abject poverty and suffering because of his brutal nature and desires.
Our embargoes and restrictions have caused considerable suffering on the average Iraqi. That is a shame. But the responsibility for this lies with the Iraqi regime. Nothing would please the US more than a peaceful, fairly moderate regime in Iraq that was willing and able to trade openly on the free market. There’s no need for them to be US toadies; there’s no reason for them to lose their sovereignty in any way. There is ample reason for them to join their place in the ‘civilized’ world and they can do so and keep their culture, traditions, religion etc.
The impediment to this is Saddam and his brutal regime; not the US, Israel or anyone else. This guy will stop at nothing to satisfy his ego and desires. I am convinced that he would gladly sacrifice his people to do so. They are the victims.
Now the problem with the situation is that peace today is warm and comfortable, and it is really hard to move from the status quo, when you are warm and comfortable. Instead, we tend to wait until we are cold and uncomfortable, before we change the status quo. The problem with this is that the transition is very dangerous when a madman is at play. The price to be paid for becoming cold and uncomfortable could be extremely high.
To me this is like a police analogy….prevention is great, we reduce crime, we make the streets safe. Then we start questioning why we spend so much on the police. We erode their budget. Crime goes up. We start screaming for more police.
The action that the US is considering is preventative. By its very nature, you cannot be certain of the outcome or your return on this investment. At some point, you have to make judgement calls. There will always be sound arguments on both sides. Believe me, I do not dismiss your logic out of hand. It is relevant and should be considered.
But…it’s 11 years later and the same wacko is still in charge and shows no sign of mercy for his own people. At the same time, he continues to pursue WMD quests. We are playing with fire. Sooner or later he will succeed in his quest. It will then instantly be too late for us to do anything. Preventive maintenance is just that…before it breaks down.
Why does no one else join the party? Because they are still warm and comfortable. They know what is the status quo and they know how to deal with that. They are afraid of changing that equation. I doubt any of the European leaders actually wants Saddam in power. Likely they all want Saddam out of power. But, it’s messy business and the outcome is uncertain. So, it is much easier to wait until tommorrow. You know this line of thought…
When they came in the night for the Catholics, I said nothing, as I am not Catholic. When they came the next night for the unionists, I said nothing, as I am not a unionist. When they came the next night for the academics, I said nothing, as I am not an academic. When they came on the last night for me, there was no one left to say anything.
I submit that with the exception of the US, we are saying nothing.
Imagine if Bush had not said anything at all in the past year about Iraq. Would we be better off? I submit that you have to keep the pressure on the madmen of the world, and sooner or later, you have to act. Perhaps the question is not why act today…but rather, why NOT act today? What exactly do we expect to change if we say and do nothing?
Anyway, enough of my rant. I do acknowledge your points and there is merit in them. But, it’s high time to get tough and sometimes leadership means that you move first and without total group consensus.
SUD
Good Post!
Suggested Topics
