Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FROSTY28

Senator Robert Byrd -- "we Stand Passively Mute"

Should we have removed Saddam in 1991? (Explain your answer)  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we have removed Saddam in 1991? (Explain your answer)

    • No, because that fell outside the U.N. madates and the international coalition goal to simply remove him from Kuwait.
      6
    • No, because that would have confirmed Arab/Muslim fears about U.S. imperialism.
      2
    • No, because we then lacked the national will to fight longer and nation-build.
      3
    • No, because Saddam would have likely used WMD's to survive.
      1
    • No, because it was reasonable to believe at the time that Saddam's capacity for aggression had been destroyed.
      1
    • Yes, because our forces were already there and we knew we'd have to remove him at some point.
      11
    • Yes, because the respect of the Arab/Muslim world was not a valid consideration in our actions.
      5
    • Yes, because we should have known that simply removing Iraq from Kuwait and destroying their military was inadequate to contain Iraq.
      5
    • Yes, because Saddam would never have used WMD's against us, no matter what.
      1
    • Yes, because two military deployments are simply too expensive when one would do.
      2


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Jagsbch

Bush's campaign has been a success so far, But it has been at a considerable cost when you consider how nato is in it's worst shape ever.

NATO has been a house of cards for over a decade. But the concept behind it remains healthy. Only the three nations with the most to lose by Saddam leaving power are holding up NATO right now. The power base in Europe is shifting eastward.
Originally posted by Jagsbch But the cost so far I fear is nothing compared to the cost it will have on us if he goes in without the World. As it stands an attack on Iraq to the seeming majority of the Arab Muslims is an attack on the whole Arab and Muslim community.
I'm sorry but what is "the World" to you. Is it the UN? That's a laugh. We have the support of dozens of countries, including I might add a variety of Arab states in the region. Do you see anyone in the Arab world defending Saddam personally (as opposed to defending "continued inspections")? I didn't think so. They hate him as much or more than we do, and it's not lost on them that there is no living person who has been responsible for the slaughter of more Arabs than Saddam. Think about that for a moment.

Originally posted by Jagsbch By the way who supplied Sadumb with his weapons of mass destruction? In the process of cleaning up our mess we are making a bigger one.:doh:
We of course aided him in a fit of rage against the Iranians back in the 1980's. It was stupid and short sighted. However I don't see how that means that "we're making a bigger mess". It sounds like we're cleaning up all of our messes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan

I simply cannot understand why people do not support this war. I can't understand why my fellow Muslims dont support this war. Even if Bush has other reasons for going to Iraq- so be it. We will rid the world of an evil tyrrant who will have the blood of more Muslims on his hands then America ever will.

I personally could care less if Cheney, Bush, Enron, Shell whoever profit from this war or make money. But if I can see 26 million of my Muslim brothers free from tyranny of an evil man I will support this war 100 percent. Is it our job? Mabey not. But if the silent majority of the Middle East decides to stay silent then I will back whoever can get the govt's of Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc outta there and give those people some semblence of rights that our very Quran guranteed them.

Rant over

Well then, perhaps you should familarize yourself with Bush's plan for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and then decide whether or not your "Muslim brothers" will be free from tyranny.

Let me clue you in.

While it's true that Saddam will no longer be in charge, 10,000 of his partners in crime will continue to hold their positions of power and control....well, as much control as the yet to be named U.S. general will give them. This means that Arab Sunnis, who represent 10%-15% of the country's 22 million population, will continue to dominate the political scene over Arab Shiites, who represent approximately 60% to 70% of the population.

Now you ask, what about the Kurds? Well, the plan is to sh!t on them. We're going to allow neighboring Turkish troops to set up a buffer zone that would extend 15 miles into Kurdish territory in northern Iraq. As you can imagine, the Kurds are pretty upset about this and it wouldn't suprise me if they use force to resist this unwelcome occupation.

So my friend SkinsHokieFan, if I were you, I would continue to pray for my "Muslim brothers" because they aren't likely to find themselves in any better position immediately after the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people choose to forget about Senator Byrd is that he spent a good deal of his life as a recruiter, a member, and a grand kleagle in the KKK, and even after he left the Klan he sent them letters of support, saying things like, "the Klan is needed more now than ever." He has also said that he would sooner die a thousand deaths than stand side by side with a (N-word). He has called blacks "mongrels" and the black race an abomination. He has said things so disgusting an inhuman that if he were a Republican he would have been forced to step down long ago. If you think what Trent Lott said was bad (and I do), then you should look at some of the despicable things Byrd has said. It'll make your stomach turn. If Byrd were a Republican he would be considered as bad as David Duke. So put stock in what he says if you wish, but I personally don't feel comfortable having a former influential member of the KKK in the Senate. He doesn't exist to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kurp...you can't have it both ways....you can't beat the administration over the head saying it has no plan for post-war Iraq and then suppose what the consequences will be from this unstated governance structure......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Byrd is correct. The Dems leadership has been completely silent. LEaving only Kennedy and Pelosi to talk. Where are the opinions of the Dem Pres candidates? Only Lieberman and Gephart to an extent have offered their opinions.

If they are so opposed to this war, then satnd up and say so, but do it knowing the risks and do it only if you can offer a solution of your own. therein lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Senator Byrd is a great speaker! But it's too late. The horses have left the barn. There is no turning back now. I fear this war may do much more harm to our countries security than good but we've gotten ourselves into a position where we must make war or future threats will mean nothing.

This administration has made one foreign policy mistake after another and is now backed into a corner by a two bit dictator. That being said it's time to stop the debate(like there was any, shame on the democrats) and come together and try to make this war turn out OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Calling out specific countries in the SOTU speech last year. This served no purpose other than to piss off the crazies in those countries. Probably making matters much worse than they are now.

2. Making all of the noise about acting on Iraq without any UN involvement. This just made the countries that think they are still world powers upset and pushed them from our position. (ie France and Germany)

3. The entire regime change retoric was counter productive. Just do it, if it's what you have in mind. Don't talk about it (to whip up your voters in a off year election, maybe?)

Right after September 11th we had world opinion on our side at levels never before seen in the history of our nation. We've managed to turn that around faster than we lost the surplus.

That all being said, we are all Americans and there will be a war in Iraq so we have to stop the discussion and come together or it may be an even worse outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that every one of those examples arent mistakes at all.

How loud would you be howling if Bush had simply gone in and done it without a dialogue?

The Axis of Evil is exactly that. Do you think they are all of a sudden hating the US because Bush called them names?

Bush has the backing of close to 50 nations now. Germany France and Russia get stay out if they want. BUt what's going to happen is that once is over, they will want to have a pat in the post-saddam set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would replace the word Bush with "United States" since Bush isn't actually going to be fighting anything and isn't really making these choices alone.

To say the UK backs Bush would be changed to Blair backs Bush. The UK backs the U.S.. Lets not give 1 person too much credit for the lot of much smarter people who work around him. Powell. Rums, the V.P..

however, the U.S. has so many Nation's backing her right now that eventually the few big dogs at the UN need to get steamrolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

I would argue that every one of those examples arent mistakes at all.

How loud would you be howling if Bush had simply gone in and done it without a dialogue?

The Axis of Evil is exactly that. Do you think they are all of a sudden hating the US because Bush called them names?

Bush has the backing of close to 50 nations now. Germany France and Russia get stay out if they want. BUt what's going to happen is that once is over, they will want to have a pat in the post-saddam set up.

Kilmer,

I respect your opinion but I stand buy those things as mistakes. Most times it does matter "how" you do something. Diplomacy is clearly not the strong suit of this administration.

I will tell you one thing, North Korea wouldn't not be doing all of this sabre rattling if Bush didn't call them out last year in the SOTU. We would still know what they were doing and they may or may not have known that we knew(wow what a sentence).

I stand behind my President now because I am an American! The time for second guessing will come later, but rest assured it will come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

His speach has nothing to do with why NK is "sabre rattling"

They are running out of food and oil (heating) because Kim.. gives the US supplies to his military and elite. They are sabre rattling in hopes that we will give them more. IT would have happened even if Bush hadn't called them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JackC and others-

take a look at this page for various links detailing North Korea's long history of brinksmanship and apparently erratic behavior, all of which has been designed to get things that they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redman,

Thanks for the link.

Kilmer and Redman,

Even if what you say is true don't you think we might try to take advantage of what they need to create a safer Korea? I know we aren't going to start a war with China sitting there. It seems to me our current administration gets out smarted by these little evil nations.

How we went from the world position we were in right after 9/11 to now where we must piss everyone off to do the right thing is beyond me.

Have a safe weekend...see ya next week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JackC

Even if what you say is true don't you think we might try to take advantage of what they need to create a safer Korea? I know we aren't going to start a war with China sitting there. It seems to me our current administration gets out smarted by these little evil nations.

So far, I fail to see how we've been outsmarted by anyone. What have we done to harm ourselves in the way we've so far handled North Korea? What has Iraq done to outsmart us (other than continuing to sucessfully hide weapons and dupe various members of the UN into thinking they're cooperating)? Did the Taliban outsmart us by being destroyed in Afghanistan?

As far as North Korea goes, appeasement is not the answer. It inevitably leads to failure with any regime that has aggressive intentions. There hasn't been a full-fledged war on the Korean Peninsula in 50 years - despite the fact that no peace treaty was ever signed - because we've maintained the largest constant military presence in the world along that border and have made it clear to the NK's throughout that time that we'd wipe them from the map if they attacked again. Nevertheless, the most fundamental tenet of their political and military doctrine remains their conquest of South Korea as a way of unifying that peninsula.

That's simply not a regime that you appease or make concessions to in the face of threats. That spells the road to ruin because it gives them false confidence, by having them believe that they're the ones dealing from a position of strength, and you're the ones dealing from a position of weakness. And that's precisely the kind of misguided belief that would delude the NK regime into attacking South Korea or Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the main post.

Byrd is right because one of the functions of a senate is to debate and be our representatives in Washington. They werent sent there to be yes-men (or women) they were sent there to represent. When more than half the country doesnt want miliary action without the UN then they have to speak up.

Bush's mistake isnt that he is after Sadam. the he!! with Sadam. Bush's mistake is he is ignoring everything else and going after Sadam.

Al Quaida is still active. OBL is still out there. The economy is going to Heck in a handbasket, the deficit is rising, NK is having another temper tantrum....meanwhile we're preoccupied with nothing else but Iraq. When was the last time before this crisis was developed by the administration any of you even thought of Sadam as an immediate threat

His priorities are screwed up. Iraq may or may not be a threat of some sort...noone knows really. but we have other problems that need to be addressed first and they are being ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.