The war on Iraq - Has He Made the Case?

[BewareofNick]

Did anyone watch the speech the other night?

 

I'm still not convinced that the President has made his case that Iraq represents a clear and present danger. There's no doubt that Saddam is a slimy little bastard. He's apparently scared enough to finally allow the UN weapons inspectors back in which is good, but I still don't see how we can justify invading Iraq. We had the motive the means and the support to do so during the Gulf War. That's when we should have done it.

 

I think that it will set a dangerous precedent if we go in there cowboy style with no cause and no support from the international community and will end up causing more problems then it solves.

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest NakedTony]

>I think that it will set a dangerous precedent if we go in there cowboy style with no cause...

 

I recommend that we send in Anthony Holloway and let him fuck things up instead of risking the reputation of Georgie. :+

[Guest elwood]

I'm inclined to agree with you on this,BON.

[+ glutes]

No he has not. And I'm embarassed being an American in this world! Really, who is becoming the rogue nation now?? Saddam is a school yard bully, but to beat the war drums for oil and his ouster is beyond me.

[eastbayguy]

No way is the case made for invading Iraq. A few points:

 

First, I think it is dangerous for the US to act because there might be a danger at some future time.

 

Second, especially with nuclear weapons, the production of fissile material can readily be detected from space. I'm told we are detecting no emissions from Iraq indicating fissile material production.

 

Third, acting unilaterally without UN and Allied support makes us no better than Saddam for invading Kuwait in the first place.

 

--EBG

[BuckyXTC]

Has Bush made the case for invading Iraq? Not that I can see. Will he do it anyway? Probably, with maximum impact planned for the November elections.

 

The television station that broadcast his address to the nation on this topic the other night made an introductory comment that he would be speaking to an "invited audience". And as soon as he entered the room, he was met with raucous cheers, giving the impression that he had done something really significant like curing cancer. In short, what we saw was not a serious and honest speech but a purely political one, "made for television". It was clearly one of those "if you don't have the facts, baffle them with bullshit" enterprises. Looks to me that the guy who keeps wanting to spread democracy around the globe doesn't really believe in it himself, otherwise why would he need to pack the house with a bunch of partisan republican dorks who would cheer anything he said.

 

Politics, not the truth, was the basis for this speech.

[Guest fukamarine]

>I think that it will set a dangerous precedent if we go in

>there cowboy style

 

What else can we expect from a cowboy and one without brains, to boot?

 

It doesn't mattter if he proved it or not, he's goin' there if for no other reason than to make his pappy proud.

 

fukamarine

[Guest elwood]

I don't believe there will be an invasion of Iraq by the US alone in the near future. I feel that the Bush administration has talked itself into a corner on this but that after the elections you will see a gradual winding down of the rhetoric ( which,by the way,will actually make Saddam seem a winner). Iraq may be eventually invaded by a wider coalition,or more hopefully reined in by both Islamic and worldwide pressure.To put the threat in perspective,just look at our "friend",Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons, they have publicly tested delivery missiles for them. They have sponsored terrorism across borders in India for years. They provide sanctuary to Al-Queada and Taliban. Pakistan is an unstable country with military rulers and a significant religious fanatic minority. Very scary. Thanks to India,they will probably be kept in check,but who knows? I feel the so called debate in Congress is a lot of windbags currying favor with the public.The time to go after Saddam was ten years ago and believe me there will be and are other rulers just as brutal and dangerous. But we MUST act in a multi-lateral way.We are NOT the appointed rulers of the world. We can and should raise our voice and point out the dangers and take a leadership role. Our past policies have had many motivations and our alliances depend on many factors.It's not black and white/good and evil. We DO act in our economic interests (oil) and our aversion to dictators,religious fanatics and even nuclear weapons in quite selective.Flag waving, and partriotic fervor can cover a lot of other motives. The USA stands for some great things and has done many things we can be proud of...but the record is not unblemished and we are foolish not to realize that many consider us economically voracious,morally materialistic and secular. This is not all our fault (how we are seen). Religious fanaticism is one of the most disturbing trends of the post World War II era with both Christian and Moslem fundamentalism being most alarming.If EITHER group had their way, free debate would be a thing of the past.As a nation,we really need to think this one through carefully, and any actions need to be taken along with other nations.

[BuckyXTC]

>What else can we expect from a cowboy and one without

>brains, to boot?

>

>It doesn't mattter if he proved it or not, he's goin' there

>if for no other reason than to make his pappy proud.

>

>fukamarine

 

Yes, and think of all the lives that will be lost as a result of Shrub's need to win Daddy's approval.......really sick stuff here.

 

A really telling story about the phony compassion of Bush Lite came from none other than Tucker Carlson, a conservative commentator who interviewed Shrub when he was governor of Texas. With the impending execution of Karla Fay Tucker looming large, Carlson asked then Gov. Bush what Ms. Tucker might wish to say to him regarding clemency. Bush screwed up his face into a pucker and said, "Puhleez don't kill me........."

 

Carlson was horrified and speechless.

 

So much for the oxymoron "compassionate conservative". Bush isn't compassionate, but he is conservative, and he is a moron.

[Guest 7Zach]

His rationale to me is that he announced a Bush doctrine regarding the fight against terrorism. Similar to the doctrine under Monroe that we would not allow any foreign intervention in the Americas, and in force for the most part since then. Kennedy used it to threaten Cuba on the missiles...

If this is correct, then he has linked Iraq to the war on terrorism, and that's the rationale. It's another question to use it against other states, including Pakistan, or China for that matter. We can't necessairly beat China without a huge war, and in terms of Pakistan, we need them more now.

But per the announced doctrine, we will take it where we find it, and I think it is clear that Iraq is part of it. The question is how to handle it, and he thinks a change of regime is required.

As far as the rhetoric of a premptive strike, the us did it in grenada under reagan; probably did so in cuba during the spanish american war; LBJ sent troops into the Dominican Republic. That's all I can remember off the top of my head.

Personally, I think it's going to settle...And I think we have more support in the gulf that is publicly reported. Iran has allowed us airspace - pretty weird, huh? We still have the bases in Saudi, Egypt, Qatar, etc, as well as in that small nation off the west coast of Saudi - Jboutti? I can't remember right now, but used to be French. As well as the use of Pakistan, and Jordan, who stands to benefit I think in terms of Iraqi territory.

To me the additional underlying rationale is the fear of a small nuclear bomb being detonated in an American city, carried in as opposed to a missle. I think this is a real threat, as do others. As far as everything Saddam is doing in testing, I think it is unclear if he is doing it all in his country, or perhaps elsewhere with his personnel, most likely Libya.

There's a lot of rhetoric..

As far as this being all about oil, I will note that the US is beginning to start funneling huge amounts of money to Russia to develop their extensive oil reserves, as well as trying to reach an agreement with Sao Tome in Africa - the latter is complicated by their agreement with Nigeria, but the administration has made huge strides in trying to change from the current one third dependence on Middle eastern oil to others. That to me is the real news in all of this...cuz it seems to me that we're trying to take our business elsewhere, and to hell with the saudis, and their fundamentalists.

[Guest elwood]

The so-called "Bush Doctrine" on terrorism is a good example of selective concern. It is a doctrine against terrorism against us or our allies. Terrorism is taking place all over the world right now and has been for many decades (centuries for that matter). The Pakistanis are heavily invovled in state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. The Iranians have bankrolled Hezbollah, terorism is a tool used in several of the "republics" of the Caucusus (including Chechnya) against Russia.

Inded WE have sponsored terrorism when it has been seen as being in our own interest. We had a significant role in funding and supporting Aphgan terror groups against Russia(which has come back to haunt us).

As for the geopolitics of oil: it is a nightmare.Imagine transferring our oil addiction from a supplier in the Middle East such as Iraq or Saudi Arabia to Russia. Another highly unstable country with LOTS of nuclear weapons(even more than they would have thanks to GWB)When some one blows up one of our" enemies" civilians..we call them freedom fighters. When they shoot at US..they are terrorists. Is terrorism EVER justified? Is it ever ethical to intentionally kill civilians to help further a political cause.? Did New Yorks Irish police and firemen see this when they sent money to help support IRA terrorism in England and Northern Ireland? The term "collateral damage" could be just a euphemism for terrorism. Was Hiroshima mass terrorism? I am actually not saying I have the answer to this...because sometime there are clearly dangerous and monstrous leaders who must be stopped.But it often seems to be a matter of which perspective you take. Indeed,I think Saddam needs to be contained or neutralized..but I just think that one has to consider the MEANS and the long term results not just short term.

[Traveller]

>as well as in

>that small nation off the west coast of Saudi - Jboutti?

 

Djibouti. As in shake Djibouti. It was formerly the French Territory of the Afars and Issas.

 

Later.

 

PS. I trust the Bush Doctor, et al, will take Iraq by Xmas. Entering Baghdad on December 25 could only be topped by entering Mecca and Medina on the same date.

[ad rian]

How does all of this affect the price, availability and quality of escorts?

[jackhammer91406]

just pray that the "will be a reality soon" war doesn't cause us to go back to the draft system as in Viet Nam. Then all the pretty young escorts will only be available in Canada

Jack

[Guest Dan]

>How does all of this affect the price, availability and

>quality of escorts?

 

For that my friend, you have check out the CNN message boards. :+

[Guest Dan]

>>How does all of this affect the price, availability and

>>quality of escorts?

>

>For that my friend, you have check out the CNN message

>boards. :+

 

I know, I know! I left out the word "to," so all you ex-English teachers don't get your panties all bunched up!

[Guest Chazzz69]

At the present time I do not believe that the President has made the case for any attack on Iraq. My feeling is that our foreign policy should be what is in the interest of the United States, plain and simple.

 

Is it in our strategic interest to attack or is it in the interest of other countries that we take out their rivals when they cannot? I mean Israel in this case and please don't start hurling the slings and arrows here, I am not anti Semetic, I just question the level of influence this country has over our policy in the Middle East.

 

But on the reverse side of this coin, what if Iraq has a weapon that can go live in less than 12 months and actually uses the damn thing? Suppose he takes out Tel Aviv or finds a way to deliver it to the US? What then would we be saying about our President? More than likely he would be forced from office for FAILURE to take pre emptive action. Catch 22 if ever there was one.

 

Chazzz69

[Guest Dan]

>At the present time I do not believe that the President has

>made the case for any attack on Iraq. My feeling is that

>our foreign policy should be what is in the interest of the

>United States, plain and simple.

>

>Is it in our strategic interest to attack or is it in the

>interest of other countries that we take out their rivals

>when they cannot? I mean Israel in this case and please

>don't start hurling the slings and arrows here, I am not

>anti Semetic, I just question the level of influence this

>country has over our policy in the Middle East.

>

>But on the reverse side of this coin, what if Iraq has a

>weapon that can go live in less than 12 months and actually

>uses the damn thing? Suppose he takes out Tel Aviv or finds

>a way to deliver it to the US? What then would we be saying

>about our President? More than likely he would be forced

>from office for FAILURE to take pre emptive action. Catch

>22 if ever there was one.

>

>Chazzz69

 

Wasn't it Churchill who wanted to take Hitler out early on?

 

On a more current basis, Israel was almost universally condemned back in the early when it bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. Aren't we glad now that the Israelis had the chutzpah to do it?

[+ Lucky]

How does this affect the price of escorts? Big time! They will all be off to war! Availability will dry up! We will have to settle for pix of studs in uniform with their cocks hanging out!

Then, after we lose, we will have to wear Arab clothing and it will be a drag until Abercrombie & Fitch redesign it!

[Guest Chazzz69]

>Wasn't it Churchill who wanted to take Hitler out early on?

 

Yes, and people said he was out of touch and did not have a clue about the situation in Germany.

>

>On a more current basis, Israel was almost universally

>condemned back in the early when it bombed Iraq's nuclear

>reactor. Aren't we glad now that the Israelis had the

>chutzpah to do it?

 

As I recall it was 1981 or 1982. Our country then escalated working with Iraq since they were fighting the Irainans. Not sure if my facts are correct here but I do recall an ABC News story from the mid 1980's that Israel actually provided some assistance to Iran since it kept Iraq occupied.

 

Chazzz69

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Horror of Horrors

 

>How does this affect the price of escorts? Big time! They

>will all be off to war! Availability will dry up! We will

>have to settle for pix of studs in uniform with their cocks

>hanging out!

>Then, after we lose, we will have to wear Arab clothing and

>it will be a drag until Abercrombie & Fitch redesign it!

 

Actually, it will be all the very young, as is traditionally the case, who will go off to war. Leaving this site and it's clients to the ancient and old escorts.... in their 30s.

[bluenix]

>Did anyone watch the speech the other night?

 

I find that, barring a national emergency, I cannot watch or listen to the man.

 

I know we're hardly renowned for our foreign policy, but this administration's incoherence on that front is a national embarrassment. That's mostly what makes watching him so painful: all that staunch sincerity when he's contradicting himself.

 

Otherwise, what elwood said.

 

Let's see, what else.

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-46.jpg

[ad rian]

>On a more current basis, Israel was almost universally

>condemned back in the early when it bombed Iraq's nuclear

>reactor. Aren't we glad now that the Israelis had the

>chutzpah to do it?

 

Do you really think that there can be a stable equilibrium in that part of the world if Israel, the only country in the world to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa, posesses a nuclear monopoly. I regret to tell you that is just not a serious proposition. Let Israel fight its own wars, but personally I want no part of a war for the country thsat sold nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to apartheid South Africa. It is a pity that people are prepared to sacrifice other people's escorts to war without having a balanced debate.

[Guest Not2Kinky4me]

Elwood and others have made some really fine points however Id like to add a simple dimension to it.

 

I think most of us here are in agreement that the US Government can not possibly impart to us all of the pertinent intelligence and classified information that exists to support Iraq's military buildup.

 

I also believe most of us agree, at least those of you who have followed the regime in Iraq, that Saadam does have weapons of mass destruction such as Chemical, Biological and apparently Nuclear.

 

Are we in agreement that had the Gulf War not taken place, Iraq would own Kuwait and God knows who else? We first yelled but then got used to gas above $1.50 a gallon but suppose it jumps to $3 if Iraq conquers its neighbors and has its way? You'll scream then.

 

Clearly Iraq has demostrated its unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions regarding inspections. Do you think this should go without consequence?

 

I think most of us condemned our Nation (Clinton and Bush Administrations, INS, FAA, FBI, CIA etc) for its passiveness and failure to corroborate and do more to prevent the 9-11 Travesty. I know most reasonable people believe the US Government should have done more in the face of these threats, and we now expect the US to proactively protect us especially on our Homeland.

 

The US Government is not Bush alone. He has a myriad of advisors in D.C. and from all various central intellegence agencies and other Countries. Britain is not just siding with George because our countries are old friends. This is not small time politics that may occur between yourself and others. This is serious stuff at hand. I would hope that our US society would put the darn politics aside and trust our Nation a bit more especially after the horrific debacle we experienced here in the Northeast.

 

I watched the WTC towers being built. I worked in them and closely nearby. I still can not phathom how people of hate could fly our hijacked civilian jets with US passengers at 400 mph into 2 downtown city towers full of innocent people representative of all creed, ethnicities, sexual orientation and race.

 

I hope in time people know when to set politics aside, listen and trust our government when they assert there is a threat to be contained.

 

I would also hope many of you realize a war with Iraq is not likely to be the type where ground troops invade and harm citizens. We simply do what we did in the Gulf War, and when we were in Kosovo - we strike from the air, and only those targets for which we know have weapons of mass destruction and labs. ( I bet many of you didnt even know we occassionally flew by and dropped on few on Iraq when we were in Bosnia etc).

 

Maybe some of you need to review the films of when our Men went to Kuwait and spent nearly a year in thick dark black smoke and 140 degree+ temperatures on thousands of Kuwait desert acres where Iraqis planted mines - and these US citizens had to extinguish and cap the Kuwait Oil wells that Iraq blew up into perpetual towering fireballs. YOUR JAWS WOULD DROP TO YOUR BALLS. Find the film if you dare. I believe Discovery aired it last year. It was a living hell. You'll be behind our Nation once you are informed.

 

If you dont deal with Iraq's wrath now, it will become incredibly unmanageable and maybe too late to contain in the future.

 

I am going to trust my Government on this one. I suggest in the name those 2800+ souls who were murdered at the Pentagon, in the PA field and the World Trade Center Towers, that we unite - remain united and act on behalf of ourselves, our friends and loved ones because no one else will if we dont.

[phage]

Nicely said and I agree with almost all of it.

 

>I would also hope many of you realize a war with Iraq is not

>likely to be the type where ground troops invade and harm

>citizens. We simply do what we did in the Gulf War

 

I think this is the only thing you’ve got wrong. It won’t be the same war. Taking the desert is the easy part. You can do that from the air and at a distance. But taking cities and rooting out Saddam is a whole different thing. Unless you are willing to accept tremendous civilian casualties, you can’t just bomb everything in sight. You have to go in with ground troops and that will get bloody. That’s why they stopped last time. Because it was going to get ugly.

 

>If you dont deal with Iraq's wrath now, it will become

>incredibly unmanageable and maybe too late to contain in the

>future.

 

This is the crux of the matter. I certainly don’t trust the government as much as you seem to, and don’t trust any individual politician as far as I can throw him, but I do believe that collectively they are trying to do the right thing.

 

Being the richest and most powerful country in the world has certain obligations and certain privileges. I believe we are obligated to try to protect our friends. I also believe we have the right to act in our own self-interest without the blessings of other countries or the UN.

 

Unfortunately, I’m convinced that we need to take it to them before they bring it to us.