Mad Mike Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Feel free to post your comments and reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 The simple, blunt fact of the matter here is we should NEVER have allowed "world" opinion to keep us from sweeping in and wiping out Saddam in 1991. We should have ended this then and there. We had better not let the weakest of the world dictate more appeasement now. It's time for America to lead America and do what it should have had the strength of will to do more than a decade ago. We were put off our path then. We won't be again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 AGREED, we screwed up a decade ago that b@stard should have been taken care of then, now here we are dealing with this $hit again. The future is now take him NOW and be done with it once and for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Going to war for someone else's problems is just Vietnam all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Going to war for someone else's problems is just Vietnam all over again. Well, isn't that a nifty slogan, Code. How about, "Hell, no. We won't go!" too? Or, "No blood for oil." It's sad seeing a person with so little depth of awareness. First, the people of Vietnam wanted to fight. They fought and we killed millions and they kept fighting while we never had the troops in to finish the job. We already have more troops massed in the Middle East than we had at any point in Vietnam. Further, the people of Iraq don't want to fight. They came running out to thank us last time we were there. This time they may be upset, but they won't be so upset they will fight against us. That would be different than Vietnam. Lastly, we aren't going to Iraq because of someone else's problem. We're going to Iraq because of the problems posed to us. So, our will will be greater too. But, hey, don't let me interfere. Keep up the slogans. "Bush is a baby killer." Say that. It works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Going to war for someone else's problems is just Vietnam all over again. Code. Did you miss the Al Qaeda conection? Do you not believe Iraq is supporting them? If not, this damn well *IS* our problem/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama Going to war for someone else's problems is just Vietnam all over again. Not going to war for 'someone else's problems' is World War II all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 History is replete with examples of dictators arming with some countries willing to look the other way because they think it is easier to live with it than to war over it. Our leaders are smart enough to realize that the world will pay a heavy price in the future if the problem is not dealt with in the here and now. I found the Mig 21 footage demonstrating the application of imitation anthrax absolutely chilling. This is a evil regime that must be put down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 I found the Mig 21 footage demonstrating the application of imitation anthrax absolutely chilling. This is a evil regime that must be put down now. Even more chilling is the fact that Al Qaeda was exploring the posible use of crop dusters in the US for the same purpose. Parallel development or the sharing of ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Here's a good read from last week's US News and World Report's op-ed page. It makes a pretty good case. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030210/opinion/10edit.htm This section is particularly unsettling: We have learned only recently, for instance, that there have been over 100 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States since 9/11. The targets have been American embassies on three continents, a military base in Europe, U.S. ships passing through the Straits of Hormuz and of Gibraltar, and our airports and aviation industries. All, blessedly, were thwarted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 the kicker???.....even the Post OpEd page this morning reluctantly owned up to the security and moral imperative of removing Saddam: before Mr Powell's address to the UN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I am fully convinced we need to take them out. Not sure how though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Not going to war for 'someone else's problems' is World War II all over again. I thought Hawaii was part of the United States? It seems like the Germans used U-boats to sink our ships off the Eastern Seaboard before we declared war... That's where the difference is... the US was attacked by foriegn countries. In several posts here in the tailgate, I have read about senarios where Saddam attacks Isreal or attacks Iran or their own citizens... Are they US states? I didn't realize that the US has expanded. I didn't know that we collect taxes from those countries. Last time I checked, our flag still only has 50 stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 If Joe Biden and Alcee Hastings say it's enough, that should be good enough for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I thought Hawaii was part of the United States? It seems like the Germans used U-boats to sink our ships off the Eastern Seaboard before we declared war... That's where the difference is... the US was attacked by foriegn countries. In several posts here in the tailgate, I have read about senarios where Saddam attacks Isreal or attacks Iraq... Are they US states? I didn't realize that the US has expanded. Last time I checked, our flag still only has 50 stars. Code, it strikes me as odd that someone who insists we all look at the deeper layers involved in The War of Northern Agression to determine the True Causes of that conflict would be so eager to oversimplify the causes of World War II in such a manner. Our isolationist policies in the early half of the 20th century allowed other powers to destabilize Europe and Asia to such a degree that the result was full-scale global war. Twice. Only when we took the lead in international politics did the international community stabilize. In fact, the Cold War was the longest period of peace and stability between major world powers in over two thousand years. Our involvement in Vietnam may have been a tragically executed operation, but such missteps in an overall effort to maintain such stability within the international community are a small price to pay to avoid full scale war, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Henry, I agree with you to a degree. I just think there has to be a line between insolationism and fighting everone else's fights. I am not saying that I am totally against war in Iraq. My personal opinion is that if we are going to take action, it should not be an invasion. I have trouble with the loss of american troops. I totally believe that if we are going to take action because of fear that Iraq may attack one of our allies, then we should bomb the hell out of them. In my opinion, troops will be sent in to minimize civilian casualties. I don't agree with that. If those civilians don't understand by now that Saddam is crazy and they have not chose to leave, than they are the enemy as well. Much of what I have read about that part of the world has the civilians 1. supporting Saddam or 2. supporting Saddam out of fear. If the latter is the case, I know in my life, if I was living in fear of our government literally killing me or my family, I would find a way to get to Canada or Mexico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Code, if you disagree with the tactics we may employ in a conflict with Iraq, that's one thing. But we are not talking about 'how' yet. We are still at 'why' which at this point I think is perfectly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Code, if you disagree with the tactics we may employ in a conflict with Iraq, that's one thing. But we are not talking about 'how' yet. We are still at 'why' which at this point I think is perfectly clear. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I just feel very strongly about the possible loss of US troops lives. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 A friend of mine started this petition of sorts in reaction to all those email petitions going around in regard to protesting the potential war in Iraq. I thought some of you might be interested in it and if you are pass it on to others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many of you have probably been forwaded an email calling for "peace" in Iraq. Isn't it sweet? Oh if only we could all just hold hands across the planet, sing Kum-buh-yah, and love each other, why then good ole Saddam would just be left alone and all would be great. Well f.uck me, I can barely hold back my tears of joy! At this rate, I'll find my lucky charms at the end of the rainbow, peace on earth will reign supreme, and Santa Claus will bring me everything I ask for! On the other hand, should you have a slightly more nuanced view of reality, you might want to rethink this childish tripe. If you actually think protecting a sick and murderous dictator who continually flaunts UN security council resolutions, tortures his political opponents, uses poison gas on his own people, and is developing weapons of mass destruction, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, isn't the best strategy the free world could adopt, I urge you to sign this petition. "We, the following, support the United States and Britain (as do Australia, Poland, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the Czech Republic) in their commitment to end Saddam Hussein's murderous, tyrannical regime and bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people." 1. Brock Jones, Toronto, Canada. 2. Gord Aitchison-Drake, Toronto, Canada. 3. Matthew Romanada, Toronto, Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 1. Shaitan Hussien is a THREAT to the security of the USA 2. Shaitan Hussien has continually broken international law The threat MUST be eliminated and as long as the US is decides to be a player in the world, we have some responsibility to ensure that international law is respected. Now, we could debate how best to eliminate the threat but for now war seems the best option. BTW, I'm not sure if Shaitan is spelled right but I believe it is the Arabic word for Satan -- the Prince of Lies. So, I guess I've conveyed my thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Art Well, isn't that a nifty slogan, Code. How about, "Hell, no. We won't go!" too? Or, "No blood for oil." It's sad seeing a person with so little depth of awareness. First, the people of Vietnam wanted to fight. They fought and we killed millions and they kept fighting while we never had the troops in to finish the job. We already have more troops massed in the Middle East than we had at any point in Vietnam. Further, the people of Iraq don't want to fight. They came running out to thank us last time we were there. This time they may be upset, but they won't be so upset they will fight against us. That would be different than Vietnam. Lastly, we aren't going to Iraq because of someone else's problem. We're going to Iraq because of the problems posed to us. So, our will will be greater too. But, hey, don't let me interfere. Keep up the slogans. "Bush is a baby killer." Say that. It works. Art, there's another way to view Code's analogy to Vietnam. Dr. Paul Leary, professor emeritus of political science, University of the Virgin Islands, writes: A recent poll taken by the Knight-Ridder organization found that only one third of the public support a conflict undertaken without the support of the United Nations. Only a bare majority - 52 percent - believe that the President has clearly explained his position. Tens of thousands took to the streets in recent anti-war demonstrations. Influential intellectuals, including Nobel Prize winners, have endorsed advertisements in opposition. In comparison, public support for the initial combat commitments in Vietnam was high and dissent muted. Only after years of failure and exposure of government deceit did public opinion turn around. By the time American involvement ended in 1972, the country was torn apart and the institution of the presidency disgraced. The Watergate burglaries and coverup that brought down President Nixon were rooted in efforts to secure compromising materials on one of the most dangerous opponents of the war in Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. If the military campaign in Iraq is longer and bloodier than anticipated - or if it leads to upheavals in the volatile Middle East - the ingredients are there for a major domestic reaction that will surpass that caused by Vietnam. It is ironic that Secretary of State Powell, who witnessed the disintegration of the U.S. Armed Forces and national respect for them, now must justify a war that has such a slender level of support. After all, one of the major tenets of the Powell Doctrine, that he articulated following his Vietnam experience, was that America should never again engage in a major conflict without broad popular approval. The price of power for Powell is to defend a venture in Iraq that goes against all he learned back in the '60s, when he was on the front lines of an historic tragedy. Perhaps we need to revisit the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. In the Constitution, Article I, section 8 lists the powers that Congress - not the president - shall exercise. One of them is "the power to declare war." This provision ensures that the lives and treasure of Americans are spent only when their representatives agree it is necessary. Such a solemn declaration demonstrates that the country is fully prepared to bear the sacrifices required. It also prevents the president alone from involving us in military adventures that inevitably erode our freedom and will be judged by the opinion of mankind - the opinion for which the Declaration of Independence enjoins us to offer a "decent respect." Yet the last time this power was invoked was in 1941, when Congress declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. We have fought bloody wars in places like Korea and Vietnam on the basis of presidential authority and flimsy congressional resolutions. Now we are about to do so again. The results may well justify the foresight of the Constitution in reserving this power to a solemn and formal commitment of the nation as a whole, speaking through Congress, not one man. What is truly frightening is the prospect that even if the war is brief and successful, it will lead to a false confidence in American power. After noting the "unparalleled military strength and great economic influence of the United States," the "National Security Strategy of the United States," issued by the White House in September 2002, makes the following bold declaration: "the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world." This is a very ambitious agenda, and one which requires the rest of humanity to share a faith in the goodness of our motivations and the value of our institutions they may not possess. It also requires the American people to sign up for an endless series of crusades against whatever opponent is defined as the latest member of the axis of evil. Before we go down that road, let's be sure it's what the public wants. Let's revive the congressional power over the declaration of war. That way we will be in a better position to claim that we truly practice democracy at home as we set off on our campaign to extend its blessings throughout the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 I just want to know who the freak is who thinks our evidence was fabricated. Even when I wrote that choice into the poll, I did not think somone would actualy choose it. The choice is simple. Do you believe a ruthless dictator who has used chemical weapons on his own people or our own government. If you choose Sadam, get the f**k out of this country and move to Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 TheKurp, I do agree that we presented our evidence to a body that we did not need to present it to. The evidence should have been presented to congress and then to the UN. Congress, though, will probably not declare war (albiet they may support it) because their too wimpy to claim their constitutional duty. This way, they can judge the constituency their dealing with and say yes, they supported war or no they didn't. Congress hates to make decisions, they just want to get voted back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Art The simple, blunt fact of the matter here is we should NEVER have allowed "world" opinion to keep us from sweeping in and wiping out Saddam in 1991. We should have ended this then and there. We had better not let the weakest of the world dictate more appeasement now. It's time for America to lead America and do what it should have had the strength of will to do more than a decade ago. We were put off our path then. We won't be again. I'm torn on this subject. You might be right in hindsight, but it's debateable. The decisions at the time were of course not made with the benefit of hindsight. I think it's taken us more than 20 years to figure out that there are a large number of Muslim fanatics who think they're at war with us and many in the Middle East who will hate us no matter what we do. It was much earlier in the process at the time of the Gulf War I, and so it made very good sense at that time to stick with our limited mandate: remove Iraq from Kuwait. In hindsight, the fact that we kept our word and didn't also finish off Saddam and his cronies didn't diminish the Islamic hatred for us, and it doesn't seem to have even garnered much respect for us among even our "allies" in the UN. Instead, it's ironically given Saddam the belief that he can survive anything we throw against him and the time to plan for us, and the UN the belief that we should simply kowtow to them. What's ironic to me is that people like Joe Biden on the one hand argue as you do that we should have taken out Saddam 12 years ago, but then seems to ignore that we stayed strictly within the UN mandate at that time when he argues in favor of UN agreement this time around! :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 With due respect to the prof here, I think the number of people supporting war today is a bit higher than he would tend to believe. I think it's 58 percent prior to Powell's speech. Of those people, the number is approximately 85 percent in most cases assuming Powell didn't spike himself during his presentation. But, regardless of the actual "support" for military action against Iraq, the fact is a majority supported it prior to Powell speaking. The effort will be over in a relatively short period of time -- in terms of actual action. This will limit departing supporters. And before we act, we will likely have polls at around 80 percent who'll agree that an attack is justified. Is the public opinion, though, a legitimate comparison to Vietnam. Sure, I guess. But, that's not what Code said. He said we weren't going in for our own interests and rather for someone elses. But, less you think he simply spoke unclearly, he clarified saying, since Iraq can't launch a conventional invasion on us we are protecting others and not ourselves. Strong, strong logic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.