I believe the U.S should care about what euro's think

[Cherlie]

The world feeeling towards U.S is at a all time low.

We have seen cracks at the U.N

You have North Korea and Iran with Nukes or trying to get nukes.

Becoming enermies with Germany and France is not a good idea too.

I agree we need to take out Saddam but don't be too "we are the best" or it will come and bite you in the arse.

Same with my beloved England.

Maybe take out North Korea first?

comments

CB

[Dowding]

Anti-American communist, with us or with them, homosexual, liberal, studmuffingot, traitor, saddam lover.

I'm just saving some people the bother to post. They'll probably mention how the Iraqi people need saving, like suddenly after 30 years it's a moral issue.

[Cherlie]

not interested in Iraqi people........

Get Saddam and that young kim whatever out!

then work on the English Crikcet team ot FINALLY beat those darn aussies:D

CB

[Batz]

The fact that Iraqis live in terror is and has never been the main reason the us is looking to depose Suddam.

Suddam, if you believe the arguement, is a real threat to the us. After what the us went through on 9/11 lotsa of Americans dont want their government sitting around waiting for something worse.

These people really believe that Suddam would give aid to terrorists if not checked.

But on top of that Suddam can be made an example of so that these other governments who have supported terrorists will think twice. It sends a clear message that if you diddly with us we will diddly you 10 times worse.

This is along the same lines as the cold wars "assured mutual destruction".

Now part of the propaganda / media war revolves around demonizing Suddam. Its fair game to point to his record towards his own people and toward his neighbors.

We arent going after Suddam because he is "mean" to his subjects but because he reprents a potential threat that the US is not willing to allow to blossom.

Now there are really respectful decent folks who dissagree with the idea of "preventative action". They point to containment and how it worked during the cold war. They also think that the "fear" and pressure we put on these types of regimes is enough to stop them from acting with these terrorists to deliver wmd against US citizens.

The only real way to enure this doesnt happen is to take out these guys out before they are in a position to do so.

It may sound "Israeli like" (and maybe why Bush has avoided the pal israel situation) but it has support in our government and from a good portion of Americans.

All the "war for oil" "Bush is wargmonger hypocrit who lets other innocents die and is lying about his concern for the Iraqi public" etc

are BS red herrings that have no reality on real life.

[Monk]

Why?

[ra]

Maybe take out North Korea first?

Maybe let the US decide how to handle its own defense?  France and Germany should take out NK while the US is handling Hussein.

[Sandman]

Oh yeah... I'm sure NK feels threatened enough by France and Germany to lob a missile west.

[GRUNHERZ]

Hi Cherlie

One thing that i noticed in your post is the idea that maybe we take care of north korea first.  I think this is an intersting point you made and it illustrates someting that is very dangerous and stupid common to euro thinking. And that is delaying the immediate, real as in next two weeks, action.  What you are trying to do here is delay useful action, by saying go to north korea you are just trying to postpone any decision point for months and months and months.  The europeans have so single mindedly wound themselves up in this iraq thing thing that you wouldnt care how it ends even if the usa simply moves its "agression" somewhere else.  And I think thats silly. You arent against the USA acting you are aginst it acting in iraq. Plus look what kinds of bussiness connections the French and german shave with north korea as opposed to their substantial fininacial stock in iraq.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh yeah... I'm sure NK feels threatened enough by France and Germany to lob a missile west.

Is that their strategy to prevent an islamic extremist nuke in paris or berlin too?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Batz
All the "war for oil" "Bush is wargmonger hypocrit who lets other innocents die and is lying about his concern for the Iraqi public" etc

are BS red herrings that have no reality on real life.

Which is okay, because all of the, "Saddam might sell weapons to terrorists" or "Saddam supports Al-Qaeda" or "Saddam might have a nuke" is also a bunch of red herring BS.

We're at risk. We will always be at risk. Removing Hussein isn't going to reduce that risk, IMHO.

But hell... removing Hussein is great news for Israel... and that is definitely not a BS red herring.

[blitz]

Why should US government listen to Europe?  They listen not even to the pope or their own churches.


http://www.n-tv.de/3146645.html

Slowly i begin to think the Anti-Christ is here



Regards Blitz




America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

[Batz]

You can make a decent arguement based on containment over the "Bush Doctrine". You can make a decent arguement over whether or not Saddam is stupid enough to provide terrorist with wmd (the first person we would hit would be him). But all the conspiracy left wing Euro trash roadkill is just that, roadkill.

Removing Saddam has little to do with Israel, more left wing tripe. Removing Saddam will benefit a lot of folks but we wont remove Saddam for Israel any more then we would to steal his oil.

Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would  use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.

We are at risk from standard terrorists and always will be. But the real WMD need the backing of a state to develope. A terrorist group cant put together a nuke in cave in afghanistan.

There is still the threat from chemicals and biologocial weapons but to get these weaponized to degree at which they threaten many thousands requires more the a cave as well.

This is about putting governments who would support terrorist on notice. The US is shifting from containment to the Bush Doctrine, what better way to demonstrate their resolve then going after Saddam?

I dont support the invasion of Iraq because I think he is well contained.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Batz
Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would  use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.

Really? How many Iraqi citizens were on the aircraft of 911?

If the U.S. wants to send a clear message... pull out of Saudi and hold Israel accountable as well for their breach of U.N. resolutions.

[Batz]

What does that have to do with anything? We arent going to war against the Iraqi people any more then we did against afghanis.

Where the terrorist come from is irrelevant. We have American terrorist right here.

The entire Saudi population wasnt on those planes either.

If the U.S. wants to send a clear message... pull out of Saudi and hold Israel accountable as well for their breach of U.N. resolutions.

Israel is not a threat to the US and good  number of folks in the US could give a fek about the UN.

Pull out of Saudi? Are we an occupying force in Saudi?

more diversionary left wing bs ........

[Sandman]

More dodging the question from the right...

Originally posted by Batz
Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would  use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.

How? Saddam has not used terrorist groups or WMD against the U.S.

The message for the rest of the world is that if the U.S. gets smacked, we will strike the most convenient third world tyrant we can find and fabricate reasons to do so.