so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[spiceman]

France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
- --Mark Twain



"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
- -- General George S. Patton



"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
- --Norman Schwartzkopf



"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
- --Marge Simpson



"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"
- --Jacques Chirac, President of France



"As far as France is concerned, you're right."
- --Rush Limbaugh,



"The only time France wants us to go to war ! is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee."
- --Regis Philbin



"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
- --P.J O'Rourke (1989)



"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
- --John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona



"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."
- --Conan O'Brien




"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"
- --Jay Leno


"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."
- --David Letterman



How many Frenchmen does it take to change a light bulb? One, he holds the bulb and all of Europe revolves around him.



Next time there's a war in Europe, the loser has to keep France.


Drink more American wine!

[futuro]

Originally posted by Yueh
So if it turns out Iraq DOES happen to have a large amount of VX and anthrax, is the feeling that we should still wait to deal with the issue until Saddam becomes outwardly aggressive?

I have a big problem with this whole "Agressive Saddam" business. He's only ever
1) Attacked Iran (the stronger country at the time), to try to keep his governence intact, with our approval and support. No mention from us when he used gas on Iranians, by the way.
2) Gassed a Kurdish town that was supporting Iran in the war. No mention at the time from us then, either.
3) Invaded Kuwait, perhaps the worst thing he has done, and we and the world community repelled that attack immediately. Also, he didn't use any WMD in that war, against us or anyone else. He lobbed a couple of conventional rockets at Israel. OK, fine.

All these things happened more than 12 years ago.

He's never threatened the US, he's never been implicated in a terrorist attack on the US, his country and military has been weakened almost to the point of impotence, and he hasn't attempted any stupid thing in the last 12 years.

What are we afraid of?

It seems there are two debates going on simultaneously. One is, "Do you go to war before you are attacked?"

That's called "starting a war". Can you imagine telling a cop "He was going to hit me, so I hit him first". "No officer, he didn't say he was going to hit me, I just thought he was".

The other is, "Is Iraq a threat to the US and/or the world?"

I don't think so. I don't think Bush thinks so, either.

The answer to the second question in the international community seems to be a resounding yes.

No, I don't think that's true. I think there is more fear of going againt the wishes of the US. It shames me to say it, but in many cases we're acting like spoiled bullies. The whole "coalitition" has been bought through threats, implied or explicit, and in some cases hard cash. In 1991, we didn't have to do that, we were on much firmer ground.

Given that, it would seem the nice clean policy of "Don't attack until attacked" is a very dangerous moral ground to hold given the potential of these agents to be dispersed.

It boggles my mind to think that people have this idea of Saddam as some kind of suicidal maniac. If anything, he's exhibited a high sense of self-preservation. Any sane, or not too mentally retarded person would know that launching a missle full of anthrax at Israel or the US, or giving terrorists the WMD in this climate of watching everything he does, would be a sure ticket to (insert favorite afterlife myth here).

I don't think there's a real fear of an imminent attack, or even a fear of an attack down the road. Why would he? He'd be crushed if there was any implication that he was involved.

I really think that this is a bullshit war to enrich oil companies, prop up Bush's poll numbers, and take people's minds off the real problems in this country.

And for those of you who think that I'm being cynical aobut our government : No I'm being a realist. Last night's airing of the "Pentagon Papers" movie on FX made me relive and review those documents. It was amazing the depths of deception four presidents stooped to, to engage the US in the Viet Nam war. I lost an Uncle and a cousin in that war, and I'll be damned if I trust our government again when it says that we have to go to war when we haven't been attacked, and no reasonable person can say we're even about to be attacked.

And just to deflame those who will cry "What about 9/11?" , NO ONE has made the case that Iraq was involved AT ALL in that crime. Right now, supposedly AL Queda operatives are in regions of Iraq not even controlled by Saddam, ready to strike out at US troops. They're there to do two things : Attack our troops, and inflame us against Saddam. Al Queda has everything to gain from the US attacking Iraq. They can gain thousands more recruits, and rid the Arab world of the infidel Saddam. Why are we doing this, when we have nothing to gain, and everything to lose?

[futuro]

Originally posted by Iam_Walrus
What do you have against the women of Iraq that have been opressed and abused for millenia? Why do they not deserve equality just as women in the "western" world have enjoyed?

It's not for the US to force reforms like this on a country. If we were really so concerned about Arab women's rights, why don't we start in Saudi Arabia, supposedly our friend? I don't see any initiatives from the Bush administration to that effect

By not supporting the liberation of Iraq to democracy, are you saying that you support denial of the liberation of Iraqi women?

I wonder about this "democracy" thing, I really do. Will it be the same kind of "democracy" we established in S.Viet Nam?

That's just one benefit the people of Iraq will enjoy if liberated from the reign of their current dictatorship.

I just think this whole "democracy" arguement is a strawman. After all, we fully support the repressive Islamic monarchy in Saudi Arabia, we fully support the repressive Islamic military government in Pakistan.

How about education of their children? Do you oppose education? Do you oppose democracy? Is it only okay for western cultures to enjoy such comforts and freedoms?

Pakistan has a lower literacy rate (42%) than Iraq (58% Source : CIA World Factbook 2002) , let's attack them and build schools.

What about the freedom of "free speech" that you are currently enjoying? Is it only okay for people from the United States to enjoy the freedom to slander their leadership with unprovable rhetoric about "war for oil?" I know, take a trip to Iraq and protest in the streets about what a bastard Hussein is. I bet you'll make some serious social reform that way...

There's plenty of countries where speaking your mind is a ticket to jail or worse. Since when is Bush so keen on "liberating" them? I'm not too sure that freedom of speech is something Kuwatiis enjoy, is it?

This is just another in the long line of silly excuses for this war.

Sure, the US is lying about the Al Qaida/Iraq terrorist links. We only want to invade because we want oil to continue flowing like it currently seems not to be

Do you have any idea how many lies were told about Viet Nam? The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was drafted months before the faked attack. Just recently, the IAEC deemed the US and British "evidence" that Saddam was trying to procure uranium falsified.
In the last tape purportedly to be from Bin Laden, he referred to Saddam as "infidel", a point totally glossed over by Colin Powell in his attempt to make Bin Laden's statements about "support for the people of Iraq" into some kind of glowing tribute to Saddam.

And for those who claim the "cost of the war will exceed any benefit in oil", just remember, it's the US taxpayers who will be picking up the costs, the profits will go to Bush's oil friends.

It's going to be interesting to see the complete lack of WMD from Iraq when the fighting begins. Will you retract your statements when they start launching, or continue to damn the US for the bullies that we so obviously are?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I've never denied that Iraq has chem or bio weapons. After all, the US gave them to him, and stood by when he used them before. And if he does have them, I'm sure anyone reading this, being beset by a vastly superior force, with certain anilelation ahead, wouldn't hesitate to use those weapons when push comes to shove, if it's the only outside chance to survive.

One question : What do you call the strongest kid on the block, who beats up on one of the weakest kids, simply because he might have a water pistol filled with rubbing alcohol in his pocket and the big kid might get squirted?

And what would you do if you were the weak kid with the squirt gun?

[Yueh]

All these things happened more than 12 years ago.

He's never threatened the US, he's never been implicated in a terrorist attack on the US, his country and military has been weakened almost to the point of impotence, and he hasn't attempted any stupid thing in the last 12 years.

Absolutely true... BUT, we have been running a low level war with Iraq for the last 12 years to keep the Iraqi military weakened. I do agree with you when you say that Saddam is essentially just out to preserve his regime and his country. But, and I know this has been overused lately but it IS relevant, so was Hitler. The question is what will he do when it becomes in his best interest to start selling WMD to terroists to further his goals.

We already know there is absolutely no love lost between Iraq and Israel. What happens when, in the interest of Palestinian liberation, Iraq lobs another missle into Israel that has a significant impact on Israeli lives? That will be the beginning of world war three and it will, against our worst nightmares, be billed as a war between Christians/Jews and Islam.

If the US sits back and let's this continue indefinitely (and no one else seems to be stepping up) it will eventually come down to a war between Iraq and Israel one way or another and Iraq will be a smouldering pile of ash while the rest of the world goes at it.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Yueh


Absolutely true... BUT, we have been running a low level war with Iraq for the last 12 years to keep the Iraqi military weakened.

And I say, continue that low-cost, low-risk, and so far, highly effective policy. It's a lot cheaper in money and lives than an all-out war for both sides. It's also a lot cheaper for us in an international brownie-points sense, in that he's effectively contained, and we haven't pursued what some people could construe as a war of imperialistic agression.

I do agree with you when you say that Saddam is essentially just out to preserve his regime and his country. But, and I know this has been overused lately but it IS relevant, so was Hitler.

No he wasn't. Hitler was out to conquer Europe, than the world. When I see these "Saddam is Hilter" comparisons, I want to scream. Do people know nothing of history? Hitler was a major-league Hall of Fame dictator, Saddam couldn't get out of single A. If we were ranking dictators in history, Saddam doesn't even come to the Idi Amin level, and barely is in the same class as Qadhafi of Libya.

I still am asking myself the question, if it isn't about oil, what is it about?

The question is what will he do when it becomes in his best interest to start selling WMD to terroists to further his goals.

I think the answer is never. An interesting article at the Foriegn Policy magazine website Unnecessary War contains the following, amongst other salient points.

"Furthermore, giving nuclear weapons to al Qaeda would be extremely risky for Saddam—even if he could do so without being detected—because he would lose all control over when and where they would be used. And Saddam could never be sure the United States would not incinerate him anyway if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the United States with nuclear weapons."

We already know there is absolutely no love lost between Iraq and Israel.

Or Israel and Syria, or Israel and Jordan, or Israel and Saudi Arabia, or Israel and ....
Are we going to attack each and every one of the arab nations just to secure Israel's safety? I really hope not. I really hope that reviving the "peace process" seemingly abandoned by the Bush adminitration could one day bring real peace to the region.

What happens when, in the interest of Palestinian liberation, Iraq lobs another missle into Israel that has a significant impact on Israeli lives? That will be the beginning of world war three and it will, against our worst nightmares, be billed as a war between Christians/Jews and Islam.

I don't think Saddam is all that concerned about Palestinian liberation. I don't think he's going to risk frying his butt over Palestinian question. I think we have more worrisome countries in that department.

As far as the billing for this war is concerned, many arab countries are seeing it as christian versus muslim already. And I think there's a large part of the American public who see it that way too.

If the US sits back and let's this continue indefinitely (and no one else seems to be stepping up) it will eventually come down to a war between Iraq and Israel one way or another and Iraq will be a smouldering pile of ash while the rest of the world goes at it.

I don't see that, for as long as Saddam is likely to be part of that pile of ash, I highly doubt he'd do anything like you are conjecturing.

One more part of the Foreign Policy article :

President Bush’s repeated claim that the threat from Iraq is growing makes little sense in light of Saddam’s past record, and these statements should be viewed as transparent attempts to scare Americans into supporting a war. CIA Director George Tenet flatly contradicted the president in an October 2002 letter to Congress, explaining that Saddam was unlikely to initiate a WMD attack against any U.S. target unless Washington provoked him. Even if Iraq did acquire a larger WMD arsenal, the United States would still retain a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. And if Saddam would only use WMD if the United States threatened his regime, then one wonders why advocates of war are trying to do just that.

[TDES]

Originally posted by futuro
No he wasn't. Hitler was out to conquer Europe, than the world. When I see these "Saddam is Hilter" comparisons, I want to scream. Do people know nothing of history? Hitler was a major-league Hall of Fame dictator, Saddam couldn't get out of single A. If we were ranking dictators in history, Saddam doesn't even come to the Idi Amin level, and barely is in the same class as Qadhafi of Libya.

I still am asking myself the question, if it isn't about oil, what is it about?

History ? How many other countries did Qadhafi invade and occupy ?

Saddam 1 Qadhafi 0

Look, I'm not arguing for delusions of Hitler, but aren't you being selective in your criticisms.

Oil ? yeah ok .. and Clinton bombing Iraq was wagging the dog over Monica. Tell you what ... why don't you just say you hate Bush and end it there. It would make what really is the root of your point. Not to say your not entitled to your opinion but I would find it safe to assume your foreign policy concerns were much less critical of the past administrations.

I don't have any problem with anyone debating against war, but when it's blatently based on ideology, it really looses its strength. IMHO

[futuro]

Originally posted by TDES


History ? How many other countries did Qadhafi invade and occupy ?

Saddam 1 Qadhafi 0

Okay, you got me there, he's a little above Qadhafi. In any case, Kuwait was still 12 years ago. And he hasn't attempted any more since. Not to defend Saddam, but there is an historical reason for his invading of Kuwait. There is a convoluted and disputed history of Kuwait as an independent state, or a province of Iraq, and given the oil, of course there's going to be disputes. Saddam is not the first ruler of Iraq to assert that Kuwait is historically a province of Iraq, and might not be the last.

Look, I'm not arguing for delusions of Hitler, but aren't you being selective in your criticisms.

About the only parellel I'd concede is that Hitler argued that Austria was a province of Germany, and annexed it, as Saddam tried to do to Kuwait. BUT the big difference is that the world stood by for Hitler's aggression, and didn't for Iraq's. IF the world didn't "liberate" (I use quotes because Kuwait is still a monarchy), Kuwait, and Saddam had used the wealth of the oil to invade other countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc...), then there might be a stronger comparison. However, that did not happen, and there was no indication that Saddam was interested in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Oil ? yeah ok .. and Clinton bombing Iraq was wagging the dog over Monica.

Perhaps so. I'm not defending any president's cowboy actions for any "reason". I'm old fashioned. I think only Congress can declare a war, and we've had three wars and several other military actions since WWII that Congress didn't declare. The founding fathers would be appalled at the power the president exercises these days.

Tell you what ... why don't you just say you hate Bush and end it there. It would make what really is the root of your point. Not to say your not entitled to your opinion but I would find it safe to assume your foreign policy concerns were much less critical of the past administrations.

On the contrary, I wish US presidents would take their finger off the trigger and gain Congress's advice and consent before sending US troops into combat of any kind.

"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits. I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits. And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic ecomonic situation so he can persue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us. As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. I might even like him as a person, as I do many people I disagree with on policy issues.

Hate him? No... Hate his Policies? Yeppers!

You know, personally, I'd be upset more at a president that has presided over a prolonged recession, am unreasonable war, and environmental rape, than a president that presided over a booming economy, a few "cowboy" military attacks, concern about the enviorment and got a blow job in the Oval office. You ant to see hate for a president? Check out the hatred that Clinton got from the neo-cons.

I don't have any problem with anyone debating against war, but when it's blatently based on ideology, it really looses its strength. IMHO

Um, pro-war, or anti-war, it's all based on ideology. What confuses me the most, is that traditional conservatives have always been against the US as the police of the world, and here they are stumping for this war against a country that hasn't hurt us at all.
Also, most traditional conservatives have always been for fiscal responibility vis-a-vis government spending, and yet are all for a tax cut when we already have massive deficits. What is this "neo-conservative" movement, and from what base is it coming from?

[TDES]

Originally posted by futuro
"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits.

Come on .. not this same rhetoric. And Bush is responsible for the burst of the tech bubble and the collapse of the stock market.

This is exactly why I threw out the label of "Bush hater". I understand the perceived notion that who is in office at the time the economy is judged gets saddled with the responsibility, but no one can factually argue that Bush didn't inherit an economic avalanche that was just starting to fall. (and no that doesn't mean I place it solely in Clintons lap either)

I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits.

So here is where it "is" actually about oil. Like it or not, our country lives on it. Either we start using the oil reserves available to us and relax our need for foreign oil, or we have to stay in bed with countries that can provide it.

Remember extremism in ANY form (religious, environmental, ideological) is ALWAYS bad. There always has to be compromise and not everyone will be happy. Yes Bush should be restrained from letting his friends put oil rigs all over the country, but at the same time the need to supply ourselves with oil isn't going to be magically fixed by hydrogen powered cars.

And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic economic situation so he can pursue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us.

He's not exactly ignoring the domestic economy, he's presented a solution that many (including myself) disagree with. And don't think for a second that the rebound that will undoubtedly follow the war won't be conveniently timed for elections. (ok, so even I subscribe to some conspiracy theory)

Questionable war ? Saddam has continuously violated the '93 Cease Fire agreement following the Gulf war and every UN resolution after that. The UN totally shot itself in the foot by not enforcing 1441. Regardless of the wording, they all knew what the intentions were and if they weren't going to follow it through, they shouldn't have voted for it. I'll respect your opinion as to the validity of the war, but I'll offer that the Taliban government never attacked us, Saddam never attacked us in the Gulf war, and yet history has shown those as "just wars".

As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. I might even like him as a person, as I do many people I disagree with on policy issues.

I just can't help but think that if Clinton would have proposed this war, under the guise of taking out Saddam and liberating the horribly oppressed Iraqi people, that a lot of the protest we see in "this" country wouldn't have happened.

What confuses me the most, is that traditional conservatives have always been against the US as the police of the world, and here they are stumping for this war against a country that hasn't hurt us at all.

What confuses me is why was is okie-dokie to bomb Serbia to protect people from "genocide" and yet doing something similar to a dictator who's doing the same thing (not to mention the UN violations) is unthinkable and immoral.

I use typical right-wing rhetoric against your points, to make a point in itself. Most of the anti-war arguments I hear are basically "I hate (dislike) Bush, and here's a great reason to spout off about it".

None the less, I disagree, but I respect the opinion.

[cryptorad]

Futuro...

You've saved me from a lot of typing. I can unequivocally say that you are spewing Democratic / Liberal standard boilerplate. So, while I could dig up and counter with plain old Republican / Conservative boilerplate I won't bother filling up this forum with the same drivel you can read everyday, anywhere in the press. While I believe many of the things they say, and I know some of your comments are wrong, there is no need for that level of verbal sparring here. It has no point.

I will take issue with one of your points, since it's not really a political issue other then politics are the probable source of your comment and it's desired implication that Bush spent the country into deficit. I hope that I can get you to at least think about it, since it seems that you 'missed' a lot of what has happened in the United States as far as costs and budgets go lately, and provide some points to ponder for you so can consider that in your ‘futuro’ decisions.

Originally posted by futuro


On the contrary, I wish US presidents would take their finger off the trigger and gain Congress's advice and consent before sending US troops into combat of any kind.

"Hate" Bush? I don't know about that. I certainly don't like many of his policies. I don't like how he turned $200 billion plus surpluses into $300 billion plus deficits. I don't like how he wants to compromise environmental concerns for corporate America's profits. And I certainly don't like his ignoring the domestic ecomonic situation so he can persue a questionable war against a country that hasn't attacked us. As a matter of fact, I'd like 3 hours with him alone, to talk some sense into him. [/B]

First the fact of a 300 billion dollar deficit. Can you find a 'non Democratic' reference for that figure? Clinton quoted the 300 billion deficit in his debates, he arranged with Bob Dole, which themselves make me laugh. Bill is absolutely partisan, and I actually respect that, but he is also a frequent liar. Not someone accused of lying, like Powell and Bush, but a proven liar who for some reason isn't in jail for lying to a Grand Jury. I guess that's politics. I think you can figure what he says is at best half true.

But.. for sake of argument lets assume 300 billion dollars is actually THE current budgetary deficit. Where could that have come from you ask? Please consider the following before you ask something like that again. These were mostly headlining stories in the US you must have missed.

1) Massive US military cuts. It costs money to rebuid an army. Too bad we're missing priceless experience and talent from the first gulf war we can't get back at any price but, that is a Clinton legacy. Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now. By the way.. did I say massive? Least we had a temporary budget surplus. And hell.. that got Billy elected a second time. His first election was courtesy of Ross Perot of course. (Sorry.. shameless partisan dig there).

2) War on terrorism. We ARE at war. Troops in Afghanistan and the like. Aid to allies to fight terrorism. New York City devastated. How much of the current budget was slated to rebuild the pentagon do you think? Yeah.. that's probably a deficit too.

3) Airlines. I will remind you that our airline industry was in trouble PRIOR to Sept. 11th. Now.. it's utterly in chaos. The government is paying fo that now. Or, we are actually. I think it's better then letting it collapse. Air travel is actually one of the symbols of our American freedom.

4) Education. Bush signed into law the largest education spending bill EVER. You must have missed Ted Kennedy absolutely swooning with happiness during that time frame. Yeap.. it was unbudgeted. Go Figure.

5) Department of Homeland Security. This never existed before. So No, it wasn't budgeted. This cost a few bucks to set up. I am quite aware many of the departments already existed, but the total cost of a Department, due to infratstructure, is far larger then the sum of the cost of parts. Personally, I think the reason the Dem's are so upset about Homeland Security spending is that the Republicans are horning in on their territory by creating deficits and government jobs.

6) Economic downturn. Our economy was starting to fall off the 'false' high of the Clinton era before Bush ever took office. I'm not blaming the false high on Clinton. It just happened while he was in office. I don't think Billy really did anything except ride the wave, myself. That was probably a good decision. Now that the facts are starting to be revealed we discover that some of the largest of those 'roaring 90's' were nothing more then faked balance sheets. Fortunately some of those responsible are going to jail but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is down now. We are losing tons of tax revenue from this huge downturn where we now insist that figures are reported factually and actually. Alot harder to do business telling the truth apparently.

Let's recap. War, economic downturn, military rebuilding, increased costs, increased aid, much much larger budget. I'm sure I missed quite a few but that should at least get you started so you can start thinking enough to look for basic information before making such wide sweeping statements like the one I quoted above. None of this was hidden from the US public. In fact, I think it was rather blatantly obvious.

I'm sorry you missed out on all of that. It was a helluva ride for the last few years. Maybe you can pick up and carry on from here and it'll make more sense to you now.



j/k .. don't take it personal.

[Mr. Suspicious]

Crypto, you're a very misinformed person. France does not have oil stakes in Iraq, it's the US that has them, and quite honnestly, it sure looks like the US oil companies (via their good friend George) don't think the oil has been flowing their direction fast or in great enough quantities in the last decade.

Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now.

look at the CIA fact files... read the numbers... Iraq only has 14 milj inhabitants... counting in children, women and old people. Current force of the US in the Gulf is 250.000 in Kuwait alone. That's one fully trained soldier vs. every 56 women, children and aged men holding pots and pans and a military force, less equiped, armed and trained then the average US citizen in his home on a saturday eve.

Please don't fabricate up things, nor believe everything you are being told in the media. The US is prepping for war, this means: propaganda, propaganda and again propaganda.

Unlike what people want to make you believe, France isn't your enemy, Europe isn't your enemy, "all those who aren't with you unconditionally, aren't against you", and there is no such a thing as pure "evil".

[Alwayslost]

I disagree with your statement of "Pure Evil" Saddam is the embodiment of Pure Evil. He killed his first man at the age of 13, and rules his country with the Worst of terror methods. There is no political or religious drive for him, only the total domination of every one and thing that he can.

Interesting article from MSNBC: MSN Article

On the subject of where the Oil is going, Keep in mind that the figures you quote above are all DURING the Sanctions, and those are export figures where the oil is being traded for Food and medical supplies.

If Iraq went Dry or stopped selling oil all together, We would be largely unaffected. The majority (about 60%) of our oil comes from Kuait and Saudi arabia, the rest is scattered and domestic.

[TDES]

Originally posted by Mr. Suspicious
France does not have oil stakes in Iraq

Not true..

Time Magazine (not exactly a right wing pro-war outlet) reported French and Russian oil contracts. (in addition to MANY other non-oil trades)

and there is no such a thing as pure "evil"

Ummmm ..... guess that depends on your definition of evil huh ?

Let's use this one (Webster)

Main Entry: evil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High

1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a man of evil reputation>

So there's no such thing as pure evil ?

Tell that to those 2 kids found in that basement in NJ, or the 3 found dead in Texas yesterday.

Did Hitler / Pol Pot do work with local 4-H clubs in their off hours or something ?

War / No war / foriegn policy agruments totally aside. I don't see how anyone cannot see Saddam as a purely evil person.

Oh thats right ... if it weren't for "dubbya" NONE of this ever would have happened. Trade Center would still be standing, I'd still have my 401K and the world would be in perfect harmony.

Funny ... for such a malicious, backwards country ass prick, I bet he gets out of office without being impeached ....

I surely didn't vote for the guy and don't keep his picture over my mantle .. but jesus this "bush is the root of all that is wrong in the world" is the lamest argument. Must be utterly blissfull believing that so many of the worlds woes fall on man.

Sorry for the rant .. wasn't entirely directed at you Mr. S.

[board Lizard]

Crypto, you're a very misinformed person. France does not have oil stakes in Iraq

dumbest.
comment.
yet.

[futuro]

Originally posted by TDES

Come on .. not this same rhetoric. And Bush is responsible for the burst of the tech bubble and the collapse of the stock market.

This is exactly why I threw out the label of "Bush hater". I understand the perceived notion that who is in office at the time the economy is judged gets saddled with the responsibility, but no one can factually argue that Bush didn't inherit an economic avalanche that was just starting to fall. (and no that doesn't mean I place it solely in Clintons lap either0

OK, fine. The economy was starting to fall apart. But with respect to the deficits, Bush did that all by himself with his tax cuts and increased spending. Here we were, finally starting to pay the bills for the excesses of the Reagan/Bush years, and W. has to go and put us firmly back in a puddle of red ink, with no end in sight. Perhaps you like that almost 20% of your tax money is going just to pay the interest on that debt, but I certainly don't.

So here is where it "is" actually about oil. Like it or not, our country lives on it. Either we start using the oil reserves available to us and relax our need for foreign oil, or we have to stay in bed with countries that can provide it.

Remember extremism in ANY form (religious, environmental, ideological) is ALWAYS bad. There always has to be compromise and not everyone will be happy. Yes Bush should be restrained from letting his friends put oil rigs all over the country, but at the same time the need to supply ourselves with oil isn't going to be magically fixed by hydrogen powered cars.

It's not just the Anwar thing, Bush has tried to roll back the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. And who do you think benefits from these rollbacks? Not the people of the US, but the absentee owners of those dirty plants. Also, in a little known move, he's opened up pristine national forests to clean-cutting. Let's flatten all the forests! Perhaps you haven't heard of all this, since the Administration has been trying to keep your mind on Iraq.

He's not exactly ignoring the domestic economy, he's presented a solution that many (including myself) disagree with. And don't think for a second that the rebound that will undoubtedly follow the war won't be conveniently timed for elections. (ok, so even I subscribe to some conspiracy theory)

I'm glad you disagree with it. it will lead to more and more deficits as far as the eye can see. And I don't think that the eonomy will rebound after the war thar I hope isn't coming. After all, it didn't rebound after the Gulf War, and that's what cost GHW Bush his second term.

Questionable war ? Saddam has continuously violated the '93 Cease Fire agreement following the Gulf war and every UN resolution after that. The UN totally shot itself in the foot by not enforcing 1441. Regardless of the wording, they all knew what the intentions were and if they weren't going to follow it through, they shouldn't have voted for it. I'll respect your opinion as to the validity of the war, but I'll offer that the Taliban government never attacked us, Saddam never attacked us in the Gulf war, and yet history has shown those as "just wars".

History has yet to judge the total ramifications from either action. At this same amount of time after WWI, people were saing stuff about no more war, we won the last vistory, and other foolish stuff, yet history reveals that the very manner in which WWI ended planted the seeds of WWII.

About the UNSC resolutions, shouldn't we finish old business first, before we start on newer business? There's a small matter of Turkish and Greek troops in Cyprus that has violated UNSC resolutions for many years longer than Iraq has. I don't see anyone crying about the poor opressed people of Cyprus, do you? Oh yeah, they don't have any oil, why should we care? Many of these types of "justifications" for Bush's war on Iraq pretend they exist in a vacuum, and that Iraq and Saddam are the only ones in the world doing these bad things. They're not. They're just the only ones doing these bad things that have oil under their feet.

I just can't help but think that if Clinton would have proposed this war, under the guise of taking out Saddam and liberating the horribly oppressed Iraqi people, that a lot of the protest we see in "this" country wouldn't have happened.

Since this is a situation that didn't happen, that can't happen, it's kind of useless for me to even address it, since anything I say is just a baselss as what you said. If I said that I would be protesting it just the same, you'd say "No you, wouldn't" and we could argue for centuries (given excellent health) about it. And neither of us would ever be able to prove each other wrong.

What confuses me is why was is okie-dokie to bomb Serbia to protect people from "genocide" and yet doing something similar to a dictator who's doing the same thing (not to mention the UN violations) is unthinkable and immoral.

Not that I supported the US going to Serbia, but you're mixing your tenses badly. The Serbia thing was ongoing at the time. Saddam hasn't done anything WMD-wise to anyone in over 12 years, and when he was doing it, the US didn't bat an eye at the time. If it was so appalling that he did that, why didn't Reagan or Bush take him out at the time instead of waiting 12 years for Little George to do it?

I use typical right-wing rhetoric against your points, to make a point in itself. Most of the anti-war arguments I hear are basically "I hate (dislike) Bush, and here's a great reason to spout off about it".

None the less, I disagree, but I respect the opinion.

No, you're missing the point. Most of the anti-war arguements are "I hate Bush's policies, and here's another example of it". I can genuinely say that I hate noone. I dislike several people (ok, several million), but that doesn't stop me from working with, or talking to them. A current radio talk show host, who shall remain nameless lest someone RUSH to judgement, refers to the Junior Senator from New York and her husband using all kinds of hateful terms. If anything, you'll find more hatred of the Clinton's than hatred of Bush.

And thank you for the respect, it seems to be missing in today's political environment. Some people (on both sides) seem to lack the ability to accept that intelligent, well-informed people can come to a different conclusion than them.

[gremlinz]

Ok I am going to ring in here. I will not present facts for two reasons.

1. I don't think there are facts any more. Every document, report and commentary I am sure has some lean (not sure of spelling) to it one way or the other. So for any one to say on this forum that such and such is fact, with out have doing the research themselves, is deluding themselves. For every fact you state even with the source stated I can find a source that states the exact opposite if I or anyone else looks hard enough. There are no facts out here, only accepted bullshit.

2. I am not here to start a debate, I am just using this forum to vent my oponion on this matter.

To my opinion: I have enjoyed reading the rebuttals that have been posted on here and I think it is great that people can pull a factoid from one source or another. But I have yet to see anything thing thst can not be disputed. Nor have i seen anything concrete that means we should go to war. Kill Osama Bin Laden yes, defeat hitler yes, i saw reasons for that. This UN sactions thing to me is no different then a gang saying this is our neighborhood and if you come in here you have to pay the toll. Governments can not go around making up the rules for every one to play by. It does not work that way. Is Saddam a bad person, depends. He is a very bad person when you compare him to our values and our morales. I would say down right close to the anti-christ. My question to you all is who are to judge him. You a probally thinking i am a jesus freak which I am not. I just don't think we should kill thousands of people b/c one guy is being an ass. If we really want him dead, all it takes is one guy, one sniper rifle, shoot him, bang he dead. Don't kill innocent people to do it, it makes us worse then him. I have always thought the united states was supposed to help protect the little kid on the block from bullies. Who is going to protect the little kids now that we have become the bullies?

Flame
Rebuke or Rebute not sure
Enjoy
I hope I reached at least one person.