codeorama Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Art 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 . I agree totally that the majority of US citizens will not support a prolonged military action against Iraq. It would be another Vietnam.... What I mean LITERALLY for Art's benefit is that Unless Iraq attacks us, most people will view this war as the US trying to help other countries, the same way we tried with Vietnam... I am not saying that we should wait until we are attacked so that public support is on our side (like Pearl Harbor), I'm just stating a fact, that's how it is, not necessarily my opinion, but that's how it is. I also stand behind the fact that if we go in against Iraq, it is mostly, not all, but mostly to support Iraq's neighbors. Many of the other posts around here have all but said that as well. Again, terrorism can happen with or without Iraq and Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama I am not saying that we should wait until we are attacked so that public support is on our side (like Pearl Harbor), I'm just stating a fact, that's how it is, not necessarily my opinion, but that's how it is. We have been attacked, and Iraq supports, to a certain extent, those who attacked us. Iraq also provides the possibility of an extensive WMD attack on this country by terrorists or Iraqi intelligence. We cannot allow any country to threaten us like this and our government would be irresponsible if it doesn't address the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Blazers21 We have been attacked, and Iraq supports, to a certain extent, those who attacked us. Iraq also provides the possibility of an extensive WMD attack on this country by terrorists or Iraqi intelligence. We cannot allow any country to threaten us like this and our government would be irresponsible if it doesn't address the issue. This has already been touched on, but to say again, some people do not see a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Without that direct link, there have been no attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama This has already been touched on, but to say again, some people do not see a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Without that direct link, there have been no attacks. Again you ignore facts. Sadam DID order the assasination of former President Bush. A fact corroberated by Clinton. He is now knowingly harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. That makes him an accomplice after the fact. If I go murder somone and you later take me into your home knowing I am a murderer, YOU ARE AN ACCOMPLICE. Get it? Damn, I feel like I'm talking to a rock. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by codeorama This has already been touched on, but to say again, some people do not see a direct link between Saddam and 9/11. Without that direct link, there have been no attacks. I agree, there may not be a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. That does not change the fact that there is conclusive evidence that Iraq supports international terrorism. Iraq may not have directly attacked us, but their allies have. Since Iraq is continuing support for terrorists, that's enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Mad Mike Sadam DID order the assasination of former President Bush. A fact corroberated by Clinton. If the assassination had been successfully carried out and linked directly to Iraqi intelligence, what do you think Clinton would have done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Blazers21 If the assassination had been successfully carried out and linked directly to Iraqi intelligence, what do you think Clinton would have done? A) It WAS linked directly to Iraqi inteligence. This is fact and not debateable. To answer your question, The same theing he should have done with the failed attempt. LEVEL EVERY ONE OF SADAM"S PALACES IN ONE MAJOR AIR STRIKE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I happen to believe that Saddam and al Qaeda have struck an uneasy truce and cooperate with each other to a degree to maintain that truce and to work against their common enemies, the U.S. and Israel. Does this make them the best of friends or allies? No. Does this mean that Iraq must have known about, or worse, been directly involved in supporting the 9/11 attacks? No. Do these things really matter in the final analysis regarding action in Iraq. No again. The Bush doctrine, which I fully support, reads, "We make no distinction between international terrorist organiztions and the regimes which harbor them." Iraq harbors such a regime, and even aids them outside their own borders with technological know-how and raw materials for chemical weapons. Where's the mystery here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by redman I happen to believe that Saddam and al Qaeda have struck an uneasy truce and cooperate with each other to a degree to maintain that truce and to work against their common enemies, the U.S. and Israel. Does this make them the best of friends or allies? No. Does this mean that Iraq must have known about, or worse, been directly involved in supporting the 9/11 attacks? No. Do these things really matter in the final analysis regarding action in Iraq. No again. The Bush doctrine, which I fully support, reads, "We make no distinction between international terrorist organiztions and the regimes which harbor them." Iraq harbors such a regime, and even aids them outside their own borders with technological know-how and raw materials for chemical weapons. Where's the mystery here? Well said redman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Mad Mike A) It WAS linked directly to Iraqi inteligence. This is fact and not debateable. To answer your question, The same theing he should have done with the failed attempt. LEVEL EVERY ONE OF SADAM"S PALACES IN ONE MAJOR AIR STRIKE. A) I know that it was conclusively linked to Iraq. I meant that if it was successful, then the Kuwaitis would not have foiled it and Iraqi intelligence might have gotten away clean. More than just the palaces should have been taken out, IMO. It would have been war - even Clinton could not have evaded war with a few missiles. Saddam is truly mad if he could not see that success in the assassination would mean the end of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Saddam is truly mad if he could not see that success in the assassination would mean the end of him. A very good point. The same was said by somone in an interview yesterday. He had to know it would mean we would go to war, this time to take him out for good. The crazyness of this should be aparent to even the most simple minded. He was willing to face our full wrath to take out one man, why would he feel different about attacking the US covertly with chem., Bio., or Nukes? And believe me when I say take out his palaces I mean him as well. Clinton was and is a p#ssy. History will record him as the worst president this nation has ever known. Somalia, the embassy bombings, the Cole, the first WTC attack, on and on and Clinton did NOTHING of any value to end the threat when we had the chance. His response to everything was a cruise missle here and there. Whoppty freekin doo. I guess he was too busy sending love notes to a chubby intern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Saddam's not mad in the literal sense, just very misinformed about the workings of the world around him, and especially regarding the West. He also has a hero complex that is typical of many Arabs in that he sees glory in his own death if he is fighting for something that he sees as being a Great Cause, in this case against the [insert favorite negative adjective HERE] United States. He sees himself as the modern day version of the fabled Saladin, the Arabic conqueror / liberator of Jerusalem during the Crusades. As for Clinton, I detest him and the 8-year charade that was his presidency as much as the next guy in our "vast right-wing conspiracy" . However I believe that the assasination of a President on foreign soil would have moved even him to action. As a nation we simply can't put up with that, and he would have had his military advisors and the general public in his face about acting decisively in the face of the murder of their former Commander in Chief. That's too big of an affront to the standing of the U.S. in the world to simply ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 We have been at war with Iraq since 91. In my mind it never ended. He has not lived up to his surrender treaty. What really ticks me off is we waited 12 years. In 95 when they admitted they had WMD stockpiled and were actively producing it. Clinton should had led a coalition of the willing. I stand here wondering how this action at that point in time would have changed the future. Would 9/11 happened on 9/11 if at all. What would our economy be like now given all the changes in variables? Would Bush have been elected? I watched Clinton on Cnn last night and I almost puked. If he had acted then I believe we would be in a much better position to negotiate with North Korea. Am I the only one who thinks about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 The real C$%T is Hillary. She had the audacity to say that her and Bubba told Bush to watch out for Al Queda the day they left the white house. Well no sh!t. If your hubby had done ANYTHING about it in the first place, we'd avoid alot of the problems. I hate her. If she died a miserable painful death, I'd throw a kegger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 We should have sent Hillary to Iraq to deal with Saddam. After hours of looking at her face and hearing her voice and then waiting for the translation he would have shot himself.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 :twitch::twitch: :twitch: remind me not to piss you off........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.