I can't stand Frackal, Liberala and Celebrity views anymore.

[lincoln]

Further reference in regard to uninformed people opposing the war:

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=215871

"He described the time after the gulf war as a "..much better Iraq." He then went on to say that he would rather see the death of his brothers and sisters now, then to see his children have to grow up in an Iraq controlled by Saddam. "

 

[fistfullofsteel]

I'll take Regan back over Bush Jr. even with his illness.

 

[circusgirl]

I just don't think Iraq is the problem.

The Saudis are the problem. They are the ones giving al Quaeda the money and backing. Saddam HATES Al Quaeda (they think he's an "infidel", he doesn't want a religious power competing with him for influence).

Saddam is a dickhead, sure. There are lots of dickhead regimes around the world, and part of me wants the US to go in and get rid of the fuckers everywhere and install democracies, but that would a) end up with lots of dead people on both sides and b) not necessarily produce the intended effect. Saddam also knows if he invades somewhere else he will get his ass kicked. He hasn't invaded anywhere since Kuwait.

Saddam, imho, is not a threat at the moment. He is not stupid nor mad, and launching weapons at the US without provocation would result in him getting his country nuked back into the stone age. NOTHING Saddam has in his arsenal can compare with the Us DoD's firepower. And he knows it.

I just don't understand why Bush is getting so worked up. His CIA guys MUST be telling him that the Saudis is where it's at. I don't think the war is going to achieve any strategic advantage, I don't see that Saddam is a threat to western europe or the US. I don't see the point.

 

[lincoln]

I just don't think Iraq is the problem.

The Saudis are the problem. They are the ones giving al Quaeda the money and backing. Saddam HATES Al Quaeda (they think he's an "infidel", he doesn't want a religious power competing with him for influence).

Saddam is a dickhead, sure. There are lots of dickhead regimes around the world, and part of me wants the US to go in and get rid of the fuckers everywhere and install democracies, but that would a) end up with lots of dead people on both sides and b) not necessarily produce the intended effect. Saddam also knows if he invades somewhere else he will get his ass kicked. He hasn't invaded anywhere since Kuwait.

Saddam, imho, is not a threat at the moment. He is not stupid nor mad, and launching weapons at the US without provocation would result in him getting his country nuked back into the stone age. NOTHING Saddam has in his arsenal can compare with the Us DoD's firepower. And he knows it.

I just don't understand why Bush is getting so worked up. His CIA guys MUST be telling him that the Saudis is where it's at. I don't think the war is going to achieve any strategic advantage, I don't see that Saddam is a threat to western europe or the US. I don't see the point.

I agree with you about the Saudis. But this isnt a game of picking out who is the worst. I think N Korea is a far higher threat then anyone.

Saddam needs to be deal with. Bush isnt starting a new fight, all of this was in place 10 years ago. Clinton chose to ignore it.

 

[musclebrains]

Saddam needs to be deal with. Bush isnt starting a new fight, all of this was in place 10 years ago. Clinton chose to ignore it.

Nice try. I believe you inisisted we stick to the facts. It was Chimp Sr. who didn't depose Saddam and now Chimp Jr. is out to vindicate his daddy. Clinton took no position Chimp Sr. didn't. I hardly think he "approved" of any of Saddam's violations of UN agreements.

It is also not engaging in "facts" to accuse everyone who opposes this war of a political agenda to discredit the current administration. In a world where, outside the US, staggering majorities of people oppose this war -- 90 percent in Great Britain, I believe -- it can hardly be assumed that everyone's motive is to discredit Bush or engage in anti-Americanism. In polls in GB, which Tony Blair has acknowledged, the majority oppose Bush's polices but remain staunch supporters of America. Interestingly, the popular majority in Spain -- our other big ally in ths war -- also opposes an invasion.

I agree however that there is little as annoying as a Hollywood actor using the podium of his celebrity for political purposes. If such an action were held in the contempt it deserved, we might never have suffered 8 years with Ronald Reagan.

 

[anythingbutsane]

Nice try. I believe you inisisted we stick to the facts. It was Chimp Sr. who didn't depose Saddam and now Chimp Jr. is out to vindicate his daddy. Clinton took no position Chimp Sr. didn't. I hardly think he "approved" of any of Saddam's violations of UN agreements.

It is also not engaging in "facts" to accuse everyone who opposes this war of a political agenda to discredit the current administration. In a world where, outside the US, staggering majorities of people oppose this war -- 90 percent in Great Britain, I believe -- it can hardly be assumed that everyone's motive is to discredit Bush or engage in anti-Americanism. In polls in GB, which Tony Blair has acknowledged, the majority oppose Bush's polices but remain staunch supporters of America. Interestingly, the popular majority in Spain -- our other big ally in ths war -- also opposes an invasion.

I agree however that there is little as annoying as a Hollywood actor using the podium of his celebrity for political purposes. If such an action were held in the contempt it deserved, we might never have suffered 8 years with Ronald Reagan.

i think it is closer to 70% war opposition. maybe 90% bush opposition, of that i do not know. the first i recall with some clarity.

 

[lincoln]

Nice try. I believe you inisisted we stick to the facts. It was Chimp Sr. who didn't depose Saddam and now Chimp Jr. is out to vindicate his daddy. Clinton took no position Chimp Sr. didn't. I hardly think he "approved" of any of Saddam's violations of UN agreements.

It is also not engaging in "facts" to accuse everyone who opposes this war of a political agenda to discredit the current administration. In a world where, outside the US, staggering majorities of people oppose this war -- 90 percent in Great Britain, I believe -- it can hardly be assumed that everyone's motive is to discredit Bush or engage in anti-Americanism. In polls in GB, which Tony Blair has acknowledged, the majority oppose Bush's polices but remain staunch supporters of America. Interestingly, the popular majority in Spain -- our other big ally in ths war -- also opposes an invasion.

I agree however that there is little as annoying as a Hollywood actor using the podium of his celebrity for political purposes. If such an action were held in the contempt it deserved, we might never have suffered 8 years with Ronald Reagan.

That is crap and you know it. To think that one person can take on his own ajenda to finish up business that his dad started is absurd.

The treaty says he is to disarm, he has not. Clinton did nothing but pander to any foreign interest.

I am not against Clinton, I thought he did a lot domestiacally. But his foregin policy was to appease everyone. Including N Korea.

Which is why we are were we are at with both countries.

WHY IS IT THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE FEW THAT OPPOSE THIS AND NOT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE FOR IT?

Germany, France, Belgium are vocal....

Yet no other country offers a solution. Let the inspectors do there work? They can't.

Let me spell this out for the people that read the papers and do not actually research what the inspectors job is.

They are NOT investigators, their job IS NOT to find this stuff. It should all be lined up as they enter the country so they can tell whether it is legal or not legal by the terms set by the UN.

NO ONE HOLDS SADDAM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING.

Except Bush and when this is all over we shall see.

As an American I refuse to care what other countries think of our policies when it comes to our national security.

Pre-emptive war is new and seems barbaric. So is killing 3000 innocent people.

 

[musclebrains]

That is crap and you know it. To think that one person can take on his own ajenda to finish up business that his dad started is absurd.

The treaty says he is to disarm, he has not. Clinton did nothing but pander to any foreign interest.

I am not against Clinton, I thought he did a lot domestiacally. But his foregin policy was to appease everyone. Including N Korea.
I
Which is why we are were we are at with both countries.

WHY IS IT THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE FEW THAT OPPOSE THIS AND NOT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE FOR IT?

Germany, France, Belgium are vocal....

Yet no other country offers a solution. Let the inspectors do there work? They can't.

Let me spell this out for the people that read the papers and do not actually research what the inspectors job is.

They are NOT investigators, their job IS NOT to find this stuff. It should all be lined up as they enter the country so they can tell whether it is legal or not legal by the terms set by the UN.

NO ONE HOLDS SADDAM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING.

Except Bush and when this is all over we shall see.

As an American I refuse to care what other countries think of our policies when it comes to our national security.

Pre-emptive war is new and seems barbaric. So is killing 3000 innocent people.

I did not mean that Bush is simply atoning his father's deficit but he has repeatedly mentioned that Saddam threatened to kill his daddy. I think it's part of his motivation, yes. Or at least it's a good sell in a patriarchal society.

I think you are confusing appeasement and conciliation and don't quite understand that Bush's policy of pre-emption is a radical change in American policy. Even Eisenhower rejected the notion of pre-emptive policy, as has every other adminstration in modernity. Many well educated and experienced people question the validity of a policy that assumes it is not the right of other nations to own nuclear weapons when we do and that as some kind of imperial policy it's our job to stop them before they get too powerful. You are going to have to include an awful lot of intelligent people in your superior assessment of them as purveyors of crap.

The UN holds Saddam accountable. But it is operating under the policy of deterrment, not pre-emption. In that, what is significant is whether Saddam is really a risk, not whether we imagine he is. Look at Pakistan. Should we have invaded them at the point they developed nuclear tech, now that we know they've been trading that tech out to our enemies? Pre-emption assumes that there is someone -- namely the US -- that has a right to trump the policies of another nation. Very Napoleonic.

It is not "American" to refuse to think about what the people of other nations think. This is a global community, after all, which is why we enter disarmament treaties in the first place. We are thinking a lot about the people of other nations, anyway, and what they should be doing, aren't we? Indeed, we're prepared to "liberate" them and and hand them a copy of the Constitution, according to Bush's speech yesterday. I'm sure the Iraqis will be dancing in the streets when they get their copy of the Constitution.

 

[lincoln]

I did not mean that Bush is simply atoning his father's deficit but he has repeatedly mentioned that Saddam threatened to kill his daddy. I think it's part of his motivation, yes. Or at least it's a good sell in a patriarchal society.

I think you are confusing appeasement and conciliation and don't quite understand that Bush's policy of pre-emption is a radical change in American policy. Even Eisenhower rejected the notion of pre-emptive policy, as has every other adminstration in modernity. Many well educated and experienced people question the validity of a policy that assumes it is not the right of other nations to own nuclear weapons when we do and that as some kind of imperial policy it's our job to stop them before they get too powerful. You are going to have to include an awful lot of intelligent people in your superior assessment of them as purveyors of crap.

The UN holds Saddam accountable. But it is operating under the policy of deterrment, not pre-emption. In that, what is significant is whether Saddam is really a risk, not whether we imagine he is. Look at Pakistan. Should we have invaded them at the point they developed nuclear tech, now that we know they've been trading that tech out to our enemies? Pre-emption assumes that there is someone -- namely the US -- that has a right to trump the policies of another nation. Very Napoleonic.

It is not "American" to refuse to think about what the people of other nations think. This is a global community, after all, which is why we enter disarmament treaties in the first place. We are thinking a lot about the people of other nations, anyway, and what they should be doing, aren't we? Indeed, we're prepared to "liberate" them and and hand them a copy of the Constitution, according to Bush's speech yesterday. I'm sure the Iraqis will be dancing in the streets when they get their copy of the Constitution.

I agree with part of this. Eisenhower was in a different day and age.

The Un is supposed to hold Iraq accountable. But they have failed and it looks like they have no intention on changing that failure.

They set rules and deadlines and then do not act upon the blatant disregard by Saddam.

Pakistan hasnt started three wars in 25 years. That is a fact. Another fact is that when the Gulf War was over Saddam signed a treaty. A treaty that he HAS NOT held himself to.

So your point about us walking around the world deciding who has what is a good one.

But at this time we are not doing anything outside of what SADDAM himself signed in 1991.

This fact is so easily overlooked in an effort to make Bush look like a tyrant.

He did not attack Kuwait in 1990.

He did not sign a treaty to disarm.

He did not violate that treaty as well as UN resolutions.

It is time we look at this. Your thoughts?

And as far as a world view. When it comes to global warming. Yes. I have a world view.

When it comes to my family and friends safety. I COULDNT CARE LESS WHAT ANY OTHER COUNTRY HAS TO SAY.

Other countries have in the past and will in the future hate us out of jealousy. I am ok with that.

 

[musclebrains]

I agree with part of this. Eisenhower was in a different day and age.

The Un is supposed to hold Iraq accountable. But they have failed and it looks like they have no intention on changing that failure.

They set rules and deadlines and then do not act upon the blatant disregard by Saddam.

Pakistan hasnt started three wars in 25 years. That is a fact. Another fact is that when the Gulf War was over Saddam signed a treaty. A treaty that he HAS NOT held himself to.

So your point about us walking around the world deciding who has what is a good one.

But at this time we are not doing anything outside of what SADDAM himself signed in 1991.

This fact is so easily overlooked in an effort to make Bush look like a tyrant.

He did not attack Kuwait in 1990.

He did not sign a treaty to disarm.

He did not violate that treaty as well as UN resolutions.

It is time we look at this. Your thoughts?

And as far as a world view. When it comes to global warming. Yes. I have a world view.

When it comes to my family and friends safety. I COULDNT CARE LESS WHAT ANY OTHER COUNTRY HAS TO SAY.

Other countries have in the past and will in the future hate us out of jealousy. I am ok with that.

If the UN does not enforce disarmament by Iraq, why is it AMerica's job to, in the absence of any demonstrated threat to our national security? By the way, exactly what are Saddam's violations of the UN treaty that threaten our national security?

Oh, so nuclear technology is okay if the nation has not engaged in aggression against other nations IN THE PAST. Good luck with that one, bubba. This makes pre-emption even more interesting.

Um, no, the Eisenhower age was not very different. That was just after we nuked Japan -- let's not forget we are the only nation ever to actually use nuclear weapons -- and in the middle of the Cold War when Russia and China were supposedly in a race to annihilate democracy. A pre-emptive strike made as much sense then as it does now. Indeed, if anyone deserved a pre-emptive strike on the basis of actual use of nuclear weapons, it would have been America. It's an insane policy.