so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[Cryonic]

If this was something that happened only a year after Desert Storm, ok I could see trying to find a peaceful solution, but he (Saddam) has been defying UN regulations and the cease-fire agreement that was put in place back in 1991-2. That means this SHIT has been happening and being allowed to happen for the past TWELVE YEARS. He's shown that the ONLY thing he respects is FORCE.

Clinton wasn't willing to do it, though he did get us involved in other areas (e.g. Somalia, Yugoslavia, etc...). I personally don't think that those were places we should have sent troops without sending them in full bore. If you are going to use force to do something, don't tie the hands of the people you are sending.

[board Lizard]

but who is allowed to judge between good and bad?

we have the weapons, we decide.

[TDES]

My .02

1) Clinton didn't go to the UN to bomb Serbia.

2) Both had (have) political sub-plots under the guise of war.

3) Were the Serbs an "immanent threat" ?

and to my point ... why the hell weren't any of you debating all this during that time ? It was ok then because our 401k's were artificially inflated to lull us into financial bliss. Which no president deserves credit for it's development or demise.

I'm no card carrying republican (registered Dem actually) but it really bothers me that the nay-sayers pull this crap when it's blatantly obvious that's it's just because they don't "like" dubbya.

Didn't see Sean Penn or mommies in pink touring Serbia either ....

"History not remembered is doomed to repeat itself" or however that Spanish philosopher put it.

The UN is a joke, this whole thing is nothing but proof. And anyone that thinks Russia, France and Germany's objection to war is based on morals needs to stop playing ostrich.

Don't let Wolf Blitzer or Rush Limbaugh teach you politics, do like what is said here every day and search for your news. You'd be surprised what you find (on both sides of the argument)

As far as the war ... like it or not, it's happening. I can't do anything about it other than remember to vote for the people that did what I felt was in my best interest (relative for a politician). I will also pray to the powers that be for the safe return of all of our service people (including my sis) from whatever happens.

That's how I see it ... then again, I could be wrong.

[futuro]

Well, I know that a lot of people are firmly entrenched on either side of this conflict, and mere words aren't going to sway anybody, but since this is still a free country for the time being, I'm weighing in.

Sometimes one has to take a step back from their own views and see what others think of us (The USA).

Many countries and people around the world see us as a country falling into a pattern of world domination, by our military or economic might. We are *not* hated for our freedoms, as some would have you believe, but for our governments actions around the world. Many people think that even if the UN does go along with us, it will only be because of bribery, extortion or threat of force. Check out the deals we have made with a lot of the countries that are "supporting" the Iraq war. Check out the threats of us cutting off aid to countries that don't support the war. You might have to go to foreign news sources, since a lot of this isn't reported in the US media.

We sometimes look like the big bullies on the block and other countries go along out of fear. Our military spending is fully *half* of the world's total. We have bases in dozens of countries,
and can be in any part of the world in force in a matter of weeks. Wouldn't you be scared?

Granted, given the stories about Saddam, he's probably not a nice guy, but really, what has he done since '91? Nothing. His military is 1/10 of what it was, and even if he has chemical or biological weapons, those materials were given to him by *us* in the 1980's to aid his war against Iran. Now, we've been targeting him and bombing his country for twelve years. Wouldn't you want to have some kind of defense against this huge country and it's military? And just to clear up one of the lies being propagated by the media in the US, the inspectors *weren't* kicked out by Saddam, they left becasue WE were going to start bombing in 1998.

Just some food for thought. This whole area the British Empire carved up with no respect for nationalistic or ethnic concerns. From North Africa, to Bosnia, to India, Great Britain screwed up things so badly as it "granted independence" to the nations it created, we're still paying for today and for the foreseeable future. We, as the most powerful country in the world, need to show some compassion and respect fo these people who have been stepped on for many years. We need to be a voice of reason and restraint, to set an example of peace and security to these people. We don't need to show the west is only interested in their problems when oil is involved, and invade when our supply is threatened.

Think how that makes them feel. Think about how *you* would feel. Think about how, when the 13 colonies felt abused and used, we revolted too.

Just think... don't let others do it for you.

[Cryonic]

Just a minor correction, the UK wasn't the only country responsible for how places like Africa were divided up. Most of the European powers were responsible.

[bubbahlicious]

Originally posted by TDES
My .02

1) Clinton didn't go to the UN to bomb Serbia.

2) Both had (have) political sub-plots under the guise of war.

3) Were the Serbs an "immanent threat" ?

and to my point ... why the hell weren't any of you debating all this during that time ? It was ok then because our 401k's were artificially inflated to lull us into financial bliss. Which no president deserves credit for it's development or demise.

We went into Serbia because Milosovich was engaging in blatant ethnic cleansing (genocide).

Clinton was probably reacting to criticims that he acted too late, and with far too little force, to prevent a near-genocide in Africa (April 1994, when the Rwandan Hutu militias exterminated 500,000 ethnic Tutsi). But regardless of over-compensation, some sort of quick action was ethically required in Kosovo.

Consider an analogy. When a bully is beating up a smaller kid in a playground, an ethically responsible third party adult does not pause to consider if that bully is an 'iminent threat' to him or his own familly before taking action. Nor does he first petition the local PTA or school board before stepping in to keep the smaller kid from getting beaten to a bloody pulp.

I just looked into the history of the conflict (granted from the perspective of the NATO allies - http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm) My sense is that the UN would have continued to advocate half-hearted, and futile, measures, with no military muscle to back them up. Milosovich would have continued with his racist, Nazi-esque atrocities to the current day.

It is clear that our imperative in the former Yugoslavia was morally justified. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/307221.stm) Perhaps our execution was flawed - but it was far better than simply letting the extermination of an entire population take place.

To my informed opinion, there is no such ethical clarity for an action in Iraq. There's been a question on my mind for a very long time - why are George Bush and Dick Cheney so obsessed with Iraq? (Aside from the fact that George Jr. is the son of the last US President to attack Iraq, a President who ultimately failed to oust Hussein from power...).

The best logical conclusion I can draw: Iraq is the world's second largest producer of oil, yet oddly enough, Iraq only currently provides the US with 2% of our oil imports. The Bushes are an old-money, Texas oil family. Cheney is similarly tied to the oil industry. These people rose to power drilling for, importing, and selling oil. How can these facts NOT raise questions about the motivation of an attempted regime change in Iraq?

I know it's hard to keep a sense of perspective when discussing politics. But to me, there is a very clear, ethical reason why we went after Milosovich. That clarity is sorely lacking in today's situation.

[Iam_Walrus]

To my informed opinion, there is no such ethical clarity for an action in Iraq.

So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning? This madman has already proven that he's a danger to his own people, let alone the rest of the world, but you don't think someone needs to put a stop to him?

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.

How informed are you? You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US, but to what end? Do you wish to feel the chemical or nuclear burn in your neck of the woods because we didn't take out a proven menace? A menace to those within and without of his country? At what point do you decide to support your president and country - before or after the unreasonable nutball in Iraq causes harm to the domestic US?

Honestly, and I mean honestly answer this for just yourself - if Gore was in office, would you be more receptive to this issue of international threat?

Take political affiliations and shove them in your ass. I was livid when Bush(1) didn't take care of business and make sure Hussein was dead. To me, that was the only acceptable solution. As far as I'm concerned, we should have let the Israeli's put a hole in that bastard's head when they were planning on taking him out. But that's over and done. I didn't like Clinton and I didn't like the Serbian issue, but I understood why he had to make the tough decision to send our boys over and stop the outrage that was happening there. I tell you, I still can't stand Clinton to this day, but I supported my president in doing what humanity required of him to do. That was the one thing that Clinton did right in his eight years in office, at least according to my views.

Bush is now trying to correct his daddy's mistake and is showing valor in the face of a very tough issue. The liberals will take any chance to slash at him, but he's being something that this country has not legitimately had for two decades - a decisive leader.

Let me load you up with some ammo for your flamethrowers - I am a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat. I am for minimal social programs and a strong national defense (WHY? Well, we Americans tend to piss everyone off...). I am pro-life and I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights" as I find the special rights that the term actually equates to fundementally unconstitutional. I am pro-gun since the criminals have an ample supply, there's no reason that the law-abiding citizenry should be kept from firing back. And to throw a wrench into those who are in a liberal, frothing frenzy, I am pro-legalization of drugs. I figure that if the gov't controls and regulates the drugs in America as it does with booze/cigs, we could have such a vast intake of "sin tax" revenues that we could lower taxes for all of us that don't use that crap.

Do I support Bush in his push for "War in Iraq?" Fuck yeah! Would I have supported Gore in the same? Fuck yeah! The political slant of our domestic leadership has no bearing whatsoever on the global threat that a lunatic with weapons of mass-destruction constitutes to the world at large.

[high_jeeves]

You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US.

Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat.

I got to here, and laughed.. this is clearly not an objective response... I mean, you clearly make political decisions with your eyes, not with your brain... You vote based 100% on the party, and 0% on the issues...

I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights"

So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?

So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning?

You cant just say "hey, you were bad 12 years ago, we kill you now.." I was 100% behind Bush 1 in the first war with Iraq (I voted for him over Clinton in his re-election bid)... he did very bad things, and had to be punished for him... I wish Bush 1 had the balls to get the whole job done then.. but, THAT WAS 12 YEARS AGO! Its too late to make decisions based on those facts..

As for the weapons... show me proof that he has, or is making those weapons.. can't? Well, thats because we have only been inspecting for a very short period of time...

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.

Actually, I do think the fool wont use it, unless we attack.. even the most republic members of the administration dont think he will commit a first strike...

If we are going to start attacking the countries of every leader we dont like, we are in for a VERY long time.. Cuba, N. Korea, China, Most of Africa, Most of South America...

As a side note, if you dont bring anything to this discussion other than a repetition of the latest presedential talking points, just provide us with a link to read...

--Jeeves

[bubbahlicious]

Originally posted by Iam_Walrus


So this dictator and bully who, twelve years ago, took over a small, but rich country, used bio-chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people, and who has yet to abide by the UN's dictates and who currently has been attempting to produce more illegal weapons (weapons that are outlawed by the Geneva Convention) is just an OK guy by your reckoning? This madman has already proven that he's a danger to his own people, let alone the rest of the world, but you don't think someone needs to put a stop to him?

I never said Hussein was an 'OK guy' by my reckoning. But I question your assumptions from the start. Show me the proof that he's 'attempting to produce illegal weapons'. Iraq just agreed to allow U2 spy-craft fly over thier airspace. The inspectors just reported that they have free access everywhere, and yet they cannot find a shred of evidence that Iraq is producing said weapons.

So he puts a nuclear or even bio-chemical warhead on an inter-continental delivery system - you think this fool won't use it? He has already proven that he'll use such weaponry intra-continentally.

Back up your claims please. A link, some facts, SOMETHING. You're doing a great job imagining scenarios, but as far as I can tell, you're operating off innuendos spoon-fed to you by the Administration.

How informed are you? You're obviously informed of the current liberal slanderous side of any domestic issue in the US, but to what end?

Slander...? That's a pretty strong accusation. What did I say that was slanderous? Please stop sidestepping, and address the points I raised.

Do you wish to feel the chemical or nuclear burn in your neck of the woods because we didn't take out a proven menace? A menace to those within and without of his country? At what point do you decide to support your president and country - before or after the unreasonable nutball in Iraq causes harm to the domestic US?

Again, there is ZERO evidence of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda. More fear and war mongering is all I hear from you. I support my president when he does things which make sense. Duh.

Honestly, and I mean honestly answer this for just yourself - if Gore was in office, would you be more receptive to this issue of international threat?

Gore would never have pulled this kind of stunt. He's not a spoiled little brat/failed businessman. I respect people who can speak intelligently, argue the facts, and back up thier claims.

Take political affiliations and shove them in your ass.

Right back at you, fucktard. Stop spewing back what you hear from your daddy, and start backing up your riddiculous claims, or go home. I never said a fucking thing about political party affiliations. But thanks for bringing up my ass. 'Cause it's just about as relevant to this thread as the rest of your rantings.

I was livid when Bush(1) didn't take care of business and make sure Hussein was dead. To me, that was the only acceptable solution. As far as I'm concerned, we should have let the Israeli's put a hole in that bastard's head when they were planning on taking him out. But that's over and done. I didn't like Clinton and I didn't like the Serbian issue, but I understood why he had to make the tough decision to send our boys over and stop the outrage that was happening there. I tell you, I still can't stand Clinton to this day, but I supported my president in doing what humanity required of him to do. That was the one thing that Clinton did right in his eight years in office, at least according to my views.

Bush Sr. didn't take care of business back in '91? Are you joking yourself? All he did was take care of business. More specifically, the big oil business.

Do you realize that we went into Kuwait, and put a monarch back in power? Kuwait is a goddam kingdom, not a Democracy. Why do you think we did that? Because Hussein is a threat to the free world? No. It's because Bush Sr. didn't want BP, Exxon, Texaco, and Shell to loose distribution rights to Kuwaiti oil. Bush Sr. didn't go after Hussein, because he got what he needed. He took care of 'business'.

Bush is now trying to correct his daddy's mistake and is showing valor in the face of a very tough issue. The liberals will take any chance to slash at him, but he's being something that this country has not legitimately had for two decades - a decisive leader.

Decisiveness is only a desireable trait when you act on informed decisions. Sorry, the guy decisively lost 3 fortunes in the oil industry (none of it his own money) before he finally got lucky buying two percent of a baseball team. There's a line between decisive and impulsive.

Let me load you up with some ammo for your flamethrowers - I am a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Come to think of it, I vote against every democrat on the ballet unless the democrat is the only one on the ballet - then I just don't vote that seat. I am for minimal social programs and a strong national defense (WHY? Well, we Americans tend to piss everyone off...). I am pro-life and I am whole-heartedly against "gay rights" as I find the special rights that the term actually equates to fundementally unconstitutional. I am pro-gun since the criminals have an ample supply, there's no reason that the law-abiding citizenry should be kept from firing back.

You make my case better than any words of mine could. You're blindly supporting everything you've been spoonfed since day 1, and are making no attempt to validate any of your assertions (except the gun thing - you seem to be advocating throwing out rule of law and a justice system, in favor of vigilanteeism. While this attitude is truly ludicrous, at least you made some feeble attempt at backing up something you said. Bravo!).

And to throw a wrench into those who are in a liberal, frothing frenzy, I am pro-legalization of drugs. I figure that if the gov't controls and regulates the drugs in America as it does with booze/cigs, we could have such a vast intake of "sin tax" revenues that we could lower taxes for all of us that don't use that crap.

The only person who seems to be in a frothing frenzy is you, my friend, with your vitriolic attacks on liberals and Democrats. However, I agree with you about the drug issue. We've been going the wrong direction on that issue for half a century now.

Do I support Bush in his push for "War in Iraq?" Fuck yeah! Would I have supported Gore in the same? Fuck yeah! The political slant of our domestic leadership has no bearing whatsoever on the global threat that a lunatic with weapons of mass-destruction constitutes to the world at large.

And when did I ever bring up the political party slant of anything? Go back to my post, and actually take the time to read what I said. If you have something other than rants and unsubstantiated claims, come back and we can have a meaningful discussion. As it is, you've contributed very little to this topic, while forcing me to spend a lot of time typing responses to the kind of garbage that too often goes unchallanged.

This thread was relatively civil until just now. Comments like your 'shove it up your ass' and accusing people of slander and whatnot are a surefire way to turn an interesting conversation into a flame-fest. But I guess that's the best some can hope for, when they don't have the facts on their side.

As an aside, I want to say for the record that I have nothing but sympathy and respect for our soldiers in the field. They are doing their jobs, and are doing the best they can to make our country safe and prosperous. I have far less respect for some politicians, but don't lump me in with a perceived group who would abandon our soldiers. This is an imperfect world, and sometimes it's our military might that safeguards us from peril. Like I said before, I supported the action in Kosovo because it was the right thing to do. Just because I question our President's motives, don't doubt my patriotism. I love my country, I love my freedoms. I consider this the greatest nation on earth. I just want truth, logic, and compassion (as opposed to preying on people's fears) to drive our foreign policy decisions.

[board Lizard]

So, you are a bigot, too? People are people.. as long as they arent hurting anyone else, or breaking any laws, what right do YOU have to judge them?

He has EVERY, let me repeat that: EVERY right to judge them and express his views. What right does he have to do so? It's called the first amendment and it allows him to express his opinions.. just like you have the right to call him a bigot. Way to be ironic. I like how quickly people forget the others have the same rights they do.

I wish Bush 1 had the balls to get the whole job done then

Bush 1 was going to but the Middle Eastern governments begged him not to because it would seriously destabilize Iraq and the entire region at the time. Way to be informed on your world history. Idiot.

As for the weapons... show me proof that he has, or is making those weapons.. can't? Well, thats because we have only been inspecting for a very short period of time...

Actually the proof was in in UN reports from the late 90s in which it was confirmed that Iraq was in possession of VX Gas, Anthrax, and Muster Gas. Iraq itself has admitted to having 3.9 tons of VX Gas. (Don’t believe me? Look it up.) The inspectors are NOT.. I repeat.. NOT there to find the VX gas, they are there to confirm that it has been destroyed, otherwise they would be called scavenger hunters and not inspectors. The only way they can do that is for Iraq to present evidence that this has happened, as of the time I post this they have not. Therefore are in material breech of 1441 and that grants the U.S. the ability to strike. And if your still in doubt I refer you to Blix's last update in which he informed the world that Iraq had rockets that exceeded the allowed limits set forth by the UN, and that is just a quick example.

As Colin Powell said, this is about disarmament.. its not a massive scavenger hunt. Its only a matter of time before these weapons end up in even worse hands and then we are really in trouble. Just look at the N Korea conflict we are having now.. they have Nuclear weapons, why? Because they were allowed to go unchecked for so long (during the Clinton administration I might add) and now negotiations are very difficult because of the bomb. Are we going to allow Saddam to same amount of time to develop it before we stand up and say stop? I hope not or we are really screwed. If your opposed to having our troops fight him now because of fear of losing U.S. soldiers then you should really be scared of having them fight him when he has a nuclear weapon because as soon as he realizes he is going to lose the war he will use every type of weapon at his disposal including a nuclear one if allowed to develop it.

And to those people out there that doubt he wants a nuclear weapon or is unwilling to develop one.. I thank God that not everyone in this world is as naive as you are.

[cryptorad]

Saddam's own son in law defected.. with proof of several of Saddam's illegal weapons programs. Programs he DEVELOPED.. and progressed WITH UN INSPECTORS IN COUNTRY!!! The UN inspectors were totally oblivious to it. The UN inspectors have always said they can't find anything if Iraq doesn't help them. So you point to an absence of an overwhelming pile of evidence and say that there is no reason because the inspectors found little. Forget any of the other facts and even the fact that the INSPECTORS today are STILL finding things. Not much.. but they are finding them. But the evidence that Iraq is HIDING THINGS.. is undeniable.

Like the rockets he developed that have JUST the right targeting and range to hit Israel. Things they only found because we SPOONFED (one of your favorite terms) the information to the UN inspectors. Hitting Israel with WMD is a claim he HAS made. Fight me.. I'll bomb Israel (in an attempt to involve the whole middle east). Same as N. Korea.. sanction me.. I'll bomb Japan (in an attempt to involve the whole SE asia). See any PATTERNS HERE?? How single minded and partisan do you have to be to ignore evidence like that?

Yeah.. we went into Kuwait cause of OIL bubba.

/sarcasm on
Saddam's invasion, murder and rape of a country didn't have anything to do with it. The UN and the rest of the world ASKING US TO DO IT.. didn't have anything to do with it. It was all about oil. Damn.. we're glad we got that oil back into someone else's hands. BTW.. FRANCE owns alot of the rights to Iraq's oil. They were part of the payment for the nuclear reactor and nuclear training Iraq received from France in the 80's.
/sarcasm off

If you fail to see a pattern after 12 years of historical proof.. then I feel you will never be convinced. Fine.. fortunately.. you are a minority.

Statements that Bush is fixing 'Daddies' mistake are rather an interesting contrast, and a bit of a self made trap, for the nae saying partisan spinners.

Bush 1 wanted nothing more then to go into Baghdad. The UN and much world opinion stopped him from doing it. So.. Bush's mistake was to listen to people who were wrong. IE.. UN and billboard carrying peace protestors. An interesting question is will Bush 2 make the same mistake by listening to the huge noise being created by the same people again 11 years later? I hope not.


It's a bad situation.. but the reality is the reality. Putting your head in the sand and wishing it to go away is not going to work. Nor is it what made this country great .. or bought our freedom. In fact.. it sounds a HELLUVA lot like the way these same countries, and people, treated the Hitler situation. And today these people DARE to put swatiskas on US flags. You cannot imagine how MUCH that pisses me off. Disgracing the memory of thousands of US soldiers buried on European battlefields because the complacency of these same countries led them to TOTAL DOMINATION AND HUMILIATING DEFEAT. And most of them are lining up accusing us of aggression. And remember.. another few months of delay and HITLER woulda been using the bomb too.

I guess most of the Europeans would look good goose stepping around today. They'd probably have lighter hair too and bluer eyes. Think about it for a minute.. a few month delay = Germany wins. I suppose you'd rather see history repeat itself?? Of course this time.. we can actually really see him use Nuke's.. if we just wait a LEEETLE bit longer.

You say there isn't enough evidence for my claim. I counter.. you don't know enough about how these things work to assess the evidence you've been given. Or you haven't informed yourself enough on all of the evidence to effect that opinion. Either way... your path is a dangerous path. I choose not to follow it. Peace at any cost is NOT the best alternative to all situations. I have some professional credentials to back up my claim.

[BOrg]

It's the economy stupid. There is going to be an invasion of Iraq. President Bush has no choice at this point. The US has deployed troops and that costs money. ( allow me to remind you that there was no income tax in the United States before the Civil War) Bush has cut taxes and that costs money. The economy is in the shitter and the only plunger he can find is more tax cuts, and that costs money. So he has to justify the cost to the american people, who he promised that he wouldn't run the budget in the red unless there were a national emergency or in a time of war. It would seem that he has found both.

[high_jeeves]

just like you have the right to call him a bigot.

Actually, I call him a bigot, because he is one... from the dictionary:

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

When your views are such that you beleive that other people dont deserve the same rights you do, I wouldnt start brining to constitution into the discussion...

Way to be informed on your world history. Idiot.

Yay! Way to start with the personal attacks... I can now safely ignore everything you post..

I am quite familiar with my world history.. the countries in the region had concerts about destabalizing the region... just like they did with Afghanistan.. didnt seem to stop us then (which is a good thing..) How about N. Korea? This is a country with Nukes, that we KNOW can reach the west coast and alaska... oh, and they have broken ALL of the weapons proliferation treaties that have had with the US and international community.. but, no oil? no problem!

I dont understand how so many people can talk about the american thing to do, and the patriotic way to act, when with respect to our foriegn policy we throw away one of the things we always throw in the worlds face: democracy. I mean, if we are just going to ignore the UN and NATO when they dont agree with us, isnt it a little hypocrytical of us to expect other countries to abide by their rules?

I think this topic has made me stray a bit from my original point, because of some of the amazing vitriol coming from some people in this discussion. Besides the childish name calling popping up recently, the amount of anger generated here because somebody doesnt agree with you, is somewhat disturbing..

In any case, here is what I said in my first post in this topic:

Is Saddam a bad guy? Hell yeah.

Do I think he should be captured/killed? Hell yeah.

Should we be doing it when large portions of the country and most of world doesnt think so? Arguable..

As you can see, I'm not arguing that we SHOULDNT go after saddam.. I'm arguing that the precedent we set by ignoring the internation organizations that WE use to bully other countries isnt good... I pretty much think that the UN is a waste of time, BUT we cant use it when it suits us, and ignore it when it doesnt.. that makes us nothing but a bunch of hypocrytes...

--Jeeves

[TDES]

Link to UN Resolution 1441

The problem here is that Dubbya went to the UN (unlike BC) and the above resolution was written voted upon 15-0 by the security council. The resolution calls for Iraq to disarm voluntarily or be forced to. Inspections are only to determine if they are. The (by the inspector admissions) they are not. "Sort of" or "Sometimes" were not conditions for the disarmament.

Not even France and Germany argue that S.H. has WMD's, they only argue against force as a means to secure disarmament. If Iraq doesn't have WMD, then Cheney didn't know about Enron.

We didn't use the UN and then get mad when things didn't go our way. We used the UN and then got mad when the some members of the security council wanted to change the rules of 1441. (ironically the same member(s) for whom oil IS the primary concern)

France and Germany should have vetoed the resolution back then.

Instead, now we've shown countries like North Korea (and Iran)you can divide the UN with threat of force issues. There's no point standing up as a group and saying do this or else ... when "else" means appeasement.

People are always going to hate us because we are the strongest (only) superpower. There's no foreign policy that is EVER going to change that..

[high_jeeves]

There's no point standing up as a group and saying do this or else ... when "else" means appeasement.

So, instead, we should stand up as a group, say "do something or else.. and by the way, we arent gonna give you a chance to prove you did something..."

The inspectors want more time... give them more time, or pass a second resolution which is more specific in terms of time frame... 1441 is extremely vague on timeframe..

My argument has been, and will continue to be, on Iraq, and other foriegn affairs issues, that if we are going to something, it needs to be done right... So many of the recent issues we are having in the middle east are our own doing (We armed and/or trained BOTH of our current major middle east enemies).. Perhaps if we would go about things in a more thoughtful appropriate manner now, and in the future, we would have fewer problems results from them..

People are always going to hate us because we are the strongest (only) superpower. There's no foreign policy that is EVER going to change that..

I actually disagree with this.. but, regardless of my disagreement, do you feel that this is enough of a reason to ignore the fact that people hate us because of some of the decisions we make? Perhaps we should consider giving more thought to how our decisions affect the world, and the future of our own country...

--Jeeves