Topic awaiting preservation: should the USA attack Iraq II (Page 2 of 2)

Bush wants to attack Iraq to get more Republicans re-elected in November.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because he doesn't want anyone focusing on the economy.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because of oil and finishing his father's work.
Bush wants to attack Iraq because it will boost his approval rating.
Bush doesn't really have any evidence, he's lying.

The *only* reason we should attack is if Iraq can directly attack the continental United States. No other reason is justified.

Is that a fair summation of your position?

Yeah, let's try to keep this thread clean, ok? Sets a bad example for...newcomers...we all know who I mean..and others are watching...

I am for removing Saddam, as I said before. I have also posted my stipulations for it. I am against Mr. Bush leading the charge, though. I get the feeling that he wants to do it out of personal reasons. That's a scary thought, because as President, he can't (and shouldn't) afford to let his personal feelings affect his judgement. As representative of the people (and one of the most powerful men in the world), to do so, is irresponsible. And dangerous.

Also, with the exception of Colin Powel (whom I greatly respect), Mr. Bush has 'surrounded' himself with advisors and 'inside' men (and women) I don't particularly either like, or trust.

Personally, the press conference, where Henry Kissinger spoke...I thought was very impresive and well-thought out. A very interesting man...

So, indeed, let's keep it clean, ok?

Bugimus - Sure that's a pretty fair summation. As I said before, I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but I know exactly where that leads to.

Bush has evidence but can't show the United States citizens.
Bush has evidence but can't show the United Nations.
Bush has evidence but can't show Congress.
We should attack Iraq because they've been in wars before.

Is that a pretty fair summation of your position?

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, if you can tell me honestly that's what you've come away with after reading all my posts, then sure, it's fair enough.

Bugimus if you can dispute my claims by all means do. All I'm asking of you is to post the evidence Bush has as to why we need to go into Iraq. Is it really asking too much for Bush to share some of his 'evidence' with either Congress, the United Nations, or citizens of the United States? Why are you so willing to go along with him on anything when he's giving you no insentive to?

-Jestah
Cell 277

Jestah, what evidence would you need to be convinced that we should attack Iraq? Tell me what it would take and I'll let you know whether I think that evidence has either been given or whether I think it's likely to be true.

[edit] On a side note, I am not usually surprised by most news reports but today I nearly choked on my VanillaCoke. Apparently Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg have both come out in favor of moving against Iraq. That's a pretty unpopular position to take in their industry. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 10-06-2002).]

HOT of the presses...

The real reason for war.

'Hussein had sex with Barbara Bush back in the 80's and George Jr. is pretty pissed about it.'

Ooooppppps

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 10-07-2002).]

I think what you need to understand, Jestah, is this. While Bush may or may not have information about Iraq or may be going into this war for the wrong reasons... I still think that we need to remove Saddam from power. There is enough existing evidence to condone the actions the United States is proposing. You have yet to refute that fact. You're hinging you're entire arguement on whether or not we have new evidence to support this attack. That isn't the issue here, we don't need the evidence. We are still at war with Iraq. The Congressional act of war in 1991 hasn't been recinded. That makes this an escalation of our ongoing war.

What Bush is doing right now isn't even necessary. He could escalate the military actions in Iraq without consulting Congress. He is consulting Congress and letting the world know what he's planning, well beforehand to cover his ass, basically. But, I will conceed this point, this is where your issue of timing has some merit. He doesn't have to do this publicly, or at all. So he is drawing focus to the issue of Iraq and thusly away from everything else. So yeah, he might be doing this for the wrong reasons or the right reasons with a separate agenda involved but that doesn't mean that action against Iraq shouldn't be taken. Even if I have to put up with another four years of Bush Jr. because of it(God Forbid).

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

I find this pretty pertinant to the topic. I never knew that Mr. Lincoln wrote such a letter...interesting...

Though I am for removing Saddam...as I said before, I am not for Mr. Bush doing it...and certainly not for 'rushing' the thing...I think we should first consider all the consequences...and make sure we have a solid plan.

Now this concerns me...

I don't like the fact that somethings being hidden here from the public. What could the Bush administration, along with the oil companies, be hiding from the US? That a General Order has been issued...the first time in history...bad stuff. Really bad stuff. Maybe that Enron scandal goes all the way up to the white house...what better way to 'head' that off, then with a war? Scary stuff...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-08-2002).]

Today, Congress began a three-day debate on authorizing President Bush to use force to disarm Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Well, in three more days we will see what is decided.

-^^-
--::--
\___/

Supposedly by the end of today we should know what they decide.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

well the House has granted it, but we all knew that was going to happen.

and now... so has the Senate.
But we all knew that was going to happen, too.

Well...now comes the 'dangerous' stage...will the UN give the 'go ahead'...or not? I am very convinced (and now after all the 'gum-flapping'), that the US must do something...to do nothing now, sends a very dangerous statement. Either it will be an internationally sanctioned thing, or the US will 'go it alone' (with possibly a few allies...). I don't particularly like the idea of the US doing it against the will of the UN...*sigh*

Hmmm...the iminence of War...not something that sits lightly...

I just hope we are prepared for heavy chemical warfare.
The military that will be fighting this war report we are not --> here.

Gulf War Syndrome II - The Revival.

In theaters next year.



-^^-
--::--
\___/

Yeah, my greatest concern is our boys and girls in uniform. I take it that it will start with massive air raids...but at some time or other (unless they get Saddam with airpower...), they'll have to send in the troops. I personally don't think they will get Saddam alive...

*sigh*

I wonder how the 'home front' is going to view this...could be, that there will be massive protests against the war...I sincerely hope that the Generals have worked out a sound plan...and that it goes rather quickly.

I am rather concerned about how the international community will react. I can't shake the feeling that we are somehow at a deciding point in world history...especially where the US is concerned. I believe this is the first time we have attacked a land without warlike provoking from the other side. This is a hard line to cross...we are in the role of the aggressor (esp. without the approval of the UN). Sure, there was Vietnam...but they were at war with the French before we stepped in (and royally kicked the French out...). And Somalia? Well, there was also war there, before we 'stepped in', as well. But in this case? Hmmm...

Guess I won't be able to use the argument that we have never attacked another country after this...*sad*

Let's just hope our boys and girls in uniform get home in one piece...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-11-2002).]

We've led plenty of pre-emptive or otherwise "publicly unprovoked" (meaning they didn't actively engage us or our allies in war) attacks on other countries and their leaders (Panama & Noriega, Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba, Raids on Libya & Qadaffi), but I'd say none of this magnitude (full-out war), unless you go way back to when we seized our entire Southwest from Mexico.

This time, however, our problem won't end with a strike played out simply to capture or kill one person but to oust an entire regime... (weapons shmeapons, our problem won't end until Saddam and his regime are gone.)
I don't find it sad.

i hafta put my 2 cents in here...and this is just my opinion...and keep in mind in don't know every lil detail about all of the governments involved to really be able to form a seriously educated opinion...this is just a 'jo-blow' kinda opinion. ( i mean, i am origionally from montana, so the redneck side of me is going to show in this post lol)

i think that no matter what happens, the U.S. is screwed. we get hollered at for not policing the world and keeping everyone safe, fed, clothed, employed etc...yet we're the asses when something bad happens and we didn't do enough, quick enough and let the world know that this bad thing was going to happen..example: a reporter here in australia is blaming the u.s. for the bombing in bali. it's just...from what i can see...if something is not done about saddam now....the rest of the world will be squawkin when he blows some country up. i'm not a republician...but i do agree with what bush is doing. i DO think that there's ulterior (sp?) motives there...and i'm sure we'll never know what they are and i don't like that aspect...but if it's goin to help get the job done...then by all means, go for it. also, in one of the above posts someone said that the u.s. was the only country with weapons of mass destruction....have you forgotten that pakastan and india and perched on their buttons right now?? it's not that the u.s. is saying that NO ONE can have them, they are saying that saddam in particular cannot have them...which i agree with. i also agree with gd...
ok...that's all...thanx for listenin

i think yes there are other factors in play here, lacuna.
But I'm like most people who dismiss the idea that it is ALL a big conspiracy for oil, for money, for power, for influence, for political gain.

The fact is, I'm sure a portion of all of those things are in play at the same time as the main goal, which is eliminating a global threat in Saddam. Which, I believe is the right thing to do AND the main objective, not a side bonus.

Did we have to do it now? No. In fact it would've been better to play this card earlier, but Bush's administration pulled off a brilliant political manuever against the Democratic party by playing the card before November elections.

Another bonus of going after Iraq now is the fact that we'll now have presence in two countries that border Iran, the biggest evil in the axis of evil, after Iraq.

And oil could be another bonus, but I'm not of the opinion the oil lobby runs Washington. If a Saddam-less new regime in Iraq allows us to export more oil than current exports from Iraq, then good. That allows us to rely less and less on the Saudi Arabian government who has shown themselves to be much less of an ally as of late.

So you see I think plenty of reasons are factored into going after Iraq, but eliminating the global threat is the most pressing.

So where are things sitting currently? Things have been pretty quiet as far as news goes with everthing happening with the *ahem* 'sniper'.

And Welcome, Lacuna. Hope to see you around some more.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 10-16-2002).]

I think that one by one the world's countries are starting to agree that force may be required in Iraq. I think once France and Russia can guarantee their oil interests, they'll either abstain or vote for action in the security council. For them, I believe it *is* only about oil... for us it's partly oil and partly other things.

Welcome, Lacuna

quote:

---

"Our leader President SADDAM HUSSEIN, may God preserve him and look after him, has won 100 percent of the votes of eligible voters."

--Saddam's top deputy IZZAT IBRAHIM, reading official election results. Saddam was the only candidate.

---

AP

Just thought this was kind of funny.


~Insert sig here~

You know what has that beat? The headlines on the Los Angeles Times the day after the election:

The World; For Iraqis, Vote for Hussein Is an Exercise in Democracy
[HOME EDITION] Michael Slackman; The Los Angeles Times; Oct 15, 2002; pg. A.1

Can you imagine what it must be like for someone who actaully voted against him? Democracy, um yeah, ok, whatever.

is it the air in california or what?
maybe it's a statewide contact high from Tijuana.