@Deviant:Scripter:

In my opinion, I think it’s long overdue that America stops being so passive against these attacks on our freedom. …
America needs to take the offensive against threats to our freedom!

There is a difference between attacks and threats. you can reply with violence against a violent attack. You can reply threatening to being threatened. If you attack while being threatened, you are the aggressor, unless you can prove without doubt that an attack on you was inevitable and would have happened soon. Up to now, no proof of that has been given out (just as Powell says, maybe you should try to convince your allies by showing them your “evidence”).

There is absolutely no reason to sit and wait until we get attacked again, to take action. Saddam is an IRRESPONSIBLE DICTATOR who possesses VERY POWERFUL and DEADLY weaponry. Such a person IS a threat to our safety (both directly and indirectly), regardless of what the liberals care to argue.

George W. is an irresponsible President. Such a person is a threat to the safety, rights and freedoms of everyone who is not american.
ratify Kyoto for mankinds sake!
Still, noone goes out and says: if you don’t stop that, we will come and kill you…… and i know how you would react if someone did!

@TG:

Iraq is not attacking America’s freedom. Also there are many Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc. who do not like America. This does not make these people threats to America, regardless of the potential weapons they possess.

Hmmm… and I wonder why? Tell me, why are we going after Iraq than the other countries that simply don’t like us? Could it be because Saddam harbors and contributes money and weapons to terrorist and extremist?

like it or not, many other nations do the same thing. Perhaps not at the level of government, but at some level they do. And you’re being very naive to think that Iraq’s gov’t is the only one doing this. America’s allies in the middle east i’m certain do not have the cleanest of hands in this matter.

To follow your reasoning, why stop at Iraq? There are too many other nations with a grudge against the US and the ability to do something about it. Even Canada has many reasons to begrudge the US and we have excellent access to American political etc. venues . . . it would be well for the US to eliminate this potential threat North of the border

Yep, those Canadians are dastardly ones - invading other countries, publicly voicing the destruction of Israel, and starving and gassing their own people. That sounds about right. :roll:

Did Iraq not get appropriately punished for this 10 years ago? How often must its citizens be punished for this? (As was argued earlier, regardless of the kindly American’s attempts to not kill them in an invasion, war inflicts misery on a country’s populace regardless of how they feel about the west.)
Should we not invade Germany and Japan? After all, they did invade other countries, and you can be certain that Germany would not only voice the destruction of Israel, they would be the only country to try and accomplish this.
Agreeing with F_alk on this one. A pre-emptive strike is kind of a nice idea in a way - prevents nasty things from happening for the next couple of years. Until the Iraqi’s are pissed off enough to act rather than jaw.

like it or not, many other nations do the same thing. Perhaps not at the level of government, but at some level they do. And you’re being very naive to think that Iraq’s gov’t is the only one doing this.

So the level of extent doesn’t play a matter here? It seems like there is no distinction made nor is there the idea that Iraq will be the only likely target. The naivety comes from the fact that we would be powerless to stop it.

Did Iraq not get appropriately punished for this 10 years ago? How often must its citizens be punished for this? (As was argued earlier, regardless of the kindly American’s attempts to not kill them in an invasion, war inflicts misery on a country’s populace regardless of how they feel about the west.)

If you ask me Iraqi people got much more than it deserved. And it just isn’t the “victor’s” fault but also Saddam himself. How often must its citizens be punished for this?

Saddam is not worth attacking. There are far worse places to be afraid of. North Korea, some Canadians, China.

Those terrorist cells there sure are dastardly!

And there WILL be a very large number of casualties this time. We’re not going to see open tank clashes in the desert. Saddam has dug in outside and inside of Bagdad. Its going to be a war of Street fighting. Imagine the battle of Stalingrad. He’s going to use civilians as shields, and make a damn good show of doing it. And when the time is ripe, he’ll unleash those weapons. He’s gonna do every damn thing he can do to survive.

I can neither confirm or deny this as the general battle plans have not been laid out yet. It can be a simple Insertion method using special units operatives and intelligence or a massive war, it hasn’t been said yet. As for Stalingrad - tell me, what was the bridge of technology from then until now? As for number of casualities, Saddam said this about the Gulf War - looks liked we proved him wrong.

However, if he provokes us, he has less time to prepare. Less ammunition to stockpile, less time to build trenches. Less time to train his troops in streetfighting. However, that time may never come, if we’re smart.

Not exactly sure what is meant by this. Usually the provoker brings his own bite to go with his park (ex WWII).

71% of the British population is against their involvement in our attack of Iraq. Only 12% are for it, the rest undecided. There goes our biggest Ally.

Tell me, has push yet made his case to the British population and spoke to them in formal address?

Saudi Arabia will only let us use their Air Bases for enforcing the current No Fly Zones, and nothing else. Russia will lend us no help here, mainly their help would be in information gathering and diplomacy. No help is coming from Germany or France obviously. Kuwait won’t let us use their air bases, and only use their territory for defensive action. Turkey is gone until being admitted to the EU, they want their German and French support.

Intelligence members have already planned around Saudi Arabia. Russia’s support is doubtful as they are expected to sign a economic treaty with Iraq. However, Kuwait is willing though cautious, so I’m not exactly where you got that information from. [No friend of Saddam Kuwait has expressed reservations about a U.S. attack but would likely help in the event of military action. There already are thousands U.S. Army soldiers are based in Camp Doha near Kuwait City]. Sporadic talks have occured with Turkey off and one - though it is still early to tell. However this more has to do with the future of the Kurds than the European Union.

[Blair has been supportive but cautious
French President Jacques Chirac has said that any military action against Iraq be decided by the U.N. Security Council.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called on the White House to consult fully with allies on its plans.]

So we’re going to operate this entire war off an Aircraft carrier or three. That limits what we can do by a lot. That means its going to be a ground war. How are we going to get troops in there? An amphibious invasion from Afganistan and Bahrain? Marching through the deserts of Jorden? From the mountains of Turkey? All of which stretch supply lines and give Saddam a huge heads up. We’re not talking the Taliban here, Saddam has the best military in the Persian Gulf. Most of it American.

Chances are the Americans will not be operating from an “Aircraft carrier or three.” An amphibious invasion from Bahrain with the 4,000 troops stationed there might work or at least tie up resources in Iraqi as the Marines did in the previous action.

Lets do something that matters. How about establishing a full on democracy in Egypt and Jorden. How about aiding the starving people in Ethiopia? How about working on issues that matter, not political issues.

Oh, but that would mean foreign intervention and the world hates that. We do help feed the people in Africa so that is an issue that does matter.

Dick Cheney gave a speech a few days ago. Probably more hard on Iraq than Bush’s speeches, he openly said diplomacy has ended. Although I don’t think this is an offical statement, Bush has long stopped thinking of diplomatic solutions. All of the people who went to Iraq in 91 are opposed to the war. Even Colin Powell is

Probably more hardlined than anything - I wouldn’t expect this yet to be counted as an official statement. I do think that these talks will help. Today, Sept. 3rd, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz was willing to talk about the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq.

A recent poll by Newsweek showed 51% of Americans are opposed to an attack on Iraq. Let me quote our favorite host of the daily show.

Really?

Newsweek
Should America launch a ground invasion of Iraq?

• 38827 responses
  Yes. Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and must be stopped
  41%
  No. it would put too many lives at risk
  27%
  Maybe. But only with the support of other nations
  32%

Also, within the last six months, the ABC News-Washington Post Poll showed 72 percent supporting a U.S. invasion of Iraq. The FOX News-Opinion Dynamics Poll also has 72 percent supporting it. The least support for an attack comes from an NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll showing only 57 percent in favor of attacking Iraq.

@Yanny:

Saddam is not worth attacking. There are far worse places to be afraid of. North Korea, some Canadians, China.

Yes, actually I do think Saddam is worth attacking. Granted, there may be worse situations out there. Saddam, however, is the easiest of these targets to begin with.

@Yanni:

And there WILL be a very large number of casualties this time. We’re not going to see open tank clashes in the desert. Saddam has dug in outside and inside of Bagdad. Its going to be a war of Street fighting. Imagine the battle of Stalingrad. He’s going to use civilians as shields, and make a damn good show of doing it. And when the time is ripe, he’ll unleash those weapons. He’s gonna do every damn thing he can do to survive.

This is true.

@Yanni:

However, if he provokes us, he has less time to prepare. Less ammunition to stockpile, less time to build trenches. Less time to train his troops in streetfighting. However, that time may never come, if we’re smart.

He won’t provoke us…that’s the worse thing he can do.

@Yanni:

How about letting those weapons inspectors in, completely free to explore where they want. Saddam could embarress the US by not letting US inspectors in, but letting the UN ones in. Hell, he could not even consult the US in the deal, and gain national support in doing it.

Weapons inspectors can’t do SHIT against Iraq now. It’s too late. Saddam has completely mobilized his weapons platforms and weapons labs. I small container of chemical weapons can wipe out millions…good luck trying to find something like that in a country the size of Iraq.

@Yanni:

71% of the British population is against their involvement in our attack of Iraq. Only 12% are for it, the rest undecided. There goes our biggest Ally.

Saudi Arabia will only let us use their Air Bases for enforcing the current No Fly Zones, and nothing else. Russia will lend us no help here, mainly their help would be in information gathering and diplomacy. No help is coming from Germany or France obviously. Kuwait won’t let us use their air bases, and only use their territory for defensive action. Turkey is gone until being admitted to the EU, they want their German and French support.

The only country with us today, all out like in 1991, is Bahrain. I don’t think we’re gonna get much done out of there.

Not that they’re much of a strategic advantage, but Israel has pledged it’s full support in a campaign against Iraq. Furthermore, this is the same situation that Bush Sr. faced during his Desert Storm campaign. When the time came, however, and he laid out the facts and started mobilizing troops, our usual allies stood behind us. I’m confident they’ll do so again.

He won’t provoke us…that’s the worse thing he can do.

Sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by this either.

Sadam’s military is less powerful than when we fought him during the gulf war.

Besides, we can drop bombs much more accurately and thus do more damage with fewer tons.

Then why the hell are we attacking him?

It’s called a “pre-emptive” strike. :-?

We did it before, we can do it again. You can’t just make Mustard gas on the back of a truck. Nuclear weapons plants will be easy to detect.

Of course we can do it again. That’s a given. I would argue, however, that the UN weapons inspectors didn’t do much to dissuade Saddam. It’ll be harder to find the factories, becuase they’re build underneath schools and churches. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a lot more than some weapons inspectors can handle. We need to use brute force if we want to really find out what Saddam’s hiding. Besides, even if Saddam does let inspectors in (very unlikely), he’d be the one to dictate where they could and couldn’t go. It’s not as if they have free reign to explore. :-?

Sorry, but I don’t know what you mean by this either.

What I mean is, that if Saddam provoked us in some direct way (eg. launching missiles at Israel) then it would make our case all the much stronger.

IMHO Saddam should have been taken out 10 years ago. All those bleeding heart liberals put a stop to that, know look at the affairs today.

America is righty sensitive since 9/11 and they don’t want an encore.

I read this in the paper today:
Quote
" Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the world and must be stopped"
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It seems that Amercia does have backing.
Canada will follow soon, to spite what our twisted lip Prime Minister says.

I read this in the paper today:
Quote
" Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the world and must be stopped"
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It seems that Amercia does have backing.
Canada will follow soon, to spite what our twisted lip Prime Minister says.

It’ll take time. I don’t think Bush needs military support (a lesson learned: coordinating foreign troops isn’t very easy), so much as the approval (from the UN and close “Allies”). The future of Iraq lies in Bush’s address, time will tell.

C-I-T-Y-F-I-G-H-T-I-N-G, Saddam will use Civilian shields, and generally there will be casualties from bombing mistakes. If we kill tens of thousands of Iraqis again, we’re gonna have a damn hard time occupying the country when we’re done.

We’ll see.

@Mr:

IMHO Saddam should have been taken out 10 years ago. All those bleeding heart liberals put a stop to that, know look at the affairs today.

America is righty sensitive since 9/11 and they don’t want an encore.

I read this in the paper today:
Quote
" Saddam Hussein poses a grave threat to the world and must be stopped"
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It seems that Amercia does have backing.
Canada will follow soon, to spite what our twisted lip Prime Minister says.

well, Cretien appears to be waiting for a definitive statement one way or the other from Bush regarding war with Iraq before he commits to a position. What a freak.

Is it just me or does anyone else have a sinking feeling that Saddam won’t even be in Baghdad when we attack! I have a feeling we’ll be going on a man-hunt remiscent of Osama Bin Laden.

D:S,
Yup! He’ll take HIS $ and move to some secure compound in remote Africa. I think the jungle would give his Elite elite guard better cover, but they are used to fighting in the desert.

Well, now I here on the news that Italy, Spain, Brunei(we are already building airfields here) and a few other countries are supporting a joint effort. Britain has been on board since day one. France and Germany are going slow since they have a large Muslim minority and want to avoid backlash as long as possible. The US accepts the responsibility to lead this time, as we did in Persian Gulf War I. I wish to thank Great Britain for leading patiently during WWI. The US was isolationist until July 8. 1941, but we had great teachers(GB, Winnie and Monty).
THANX - Xi

“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer
which we use to crush the enemy.” - Mao Zedong :)

Well, now I here on the news that Italy, Spain, Brunei(we are already building airfields here) and a few other countries are supporting a joint effort. Britain has been on board since day one. France and Germany are going slow since they have a large Muslim minority and want to avoid backlash as long as possible.

We’ll see… much of the senate is still divided. Once Bush gives his speech to the UN, then we’ll see if the wheels will turn.

“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer
which we use to crush the enemy.” - Mao Zedong

Mao was never a communist! :o Mao may haved allied himself with the peasantry, but never with the workers. When Mao’s peasant armies arrived at the cities, and the workers spontaneously occupied the factories and greeted Mao’s armies with red flags, Mao gave the order that these demonstrations should be suppressed and the workers were shot.

Initially, Mao did not intend to expropriate the Chinese capitalists. His perspectives for the Chinese revolution were outlined in a pamphlet called “New democracy” in which he wrote that the socialist revolution was not on the order of the day in China, and that the only development that could take place was a mixed economy, i.e. capitalism. This was the classical “two stage” Menshevik theory which had been adopted by the Stalinist bureaucracy and had led to the defeat of the Chinese revolution in 1925-27.

I’m just quoting him. My lil Red Book is not very worn. :)

"Communism has never come to power in a country
that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.

• John F. Kennedy, Speech, July 3, 1963, to NATO.

According to the news (CBSorNBC) Saddam is offering $5000 for any Palestinian who has their house demolished by Israel. I think Israel should take him up on it . . . And TEAR THEM ALL DOWN! Then clear the rubble so that the Palestinians have a great start on a nice new home. :lol:
Beat Saddie at his own game and spend his $ in the process. :P
He’ll never pay it, but he’ll get lotsa credit for the offer. - Xi

“The clock of communism has stopped striking. But its
concrete building has not yet come crashing down. For
that reason, instead of freeing ourselves, we must try
to save ourselves from being crushed by its rubble.”

• Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian novelist.
  “How We Must Rebuild Russia,” opening sentence of essay,
  published in Soviet Union’s biggest-selling daily newspaper,
  Komosomolskaya Pravda (Sept. 18, 1990).

I’m just quoting him. My lil Red Book is not very worn

If you can’t even back up those quotes, then don’t. I only assume that in using quotes, you share the same value based assumptions.

"Communism has never come to power in a country
that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.

• John F. Kennedy, Speech, July 3, 1963, to NATO.

False! Please, get your facts straight!