Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on January 26, 2003, 03:33:58 PM
-
Are we itching for war or just really stupid?
By Chuck Sigars
Special to The Times
Back in the late 1970s, Steve Martin did a comedy routine in which he reminded the audience that we now live on a different planet.
"Don't you remember?" he'd ask, describing some natural disaster in the recent past that had required the evacuation of all humanity to a more hospitable world. The punch line was something like, "And remember how the government decided it just wasn't going to tell any of the really stupid people.... " And he'd pause, and then say, "Uh oh."
It's just a joke, of course. Even really stupid people, in this age of cable news and the Internet, can find the facts. Even really stupid people can discern truth from fiction, given all the tools at our disposal. Even really stupid people know what's what.
I should warn really stupid people that I'm likely to offend them in the next few paragraphs. Read with caution.
A question in a recent Knight Ridder poll prompted a remarkable response from Americans. It's the kind of response that provokes some to shake their heads or roll their eyes, and probably P.T. Barnum to spin in his grave, wishing he were alive today because he'd just be swimming in money.
The question was this: How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?
Twenty-three percent of respondents said "some." Twenty-one percent said "most." Six percent said "one." So, what do we have for our contestants, Johnny?
Uh oh.
Well, to be fair, this could be considered a "push poll," a trick question with an apparent given fact as its premise. But let's not be fair.
Three thousand Americans died on Sept. 11, 2001. We're told by the president that our country is engaged in a war on terrorism. We are massing American troops in the Middle East for an invasion of Iraq unless Saddam Hussein dies, leaves or proves a negative.
It seems reasonable to wonder what percentage of Americans understand the relationship between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11, what with war and death and all that coming up.
Seventeen.
Thirty-three percent replied "I don't know," and 17 percent gave the correct answer, which, by the way, was "none." (I'm assuming this is news to 83 percent of you. Maybe I'm wrong).
It's also worth pointing out that recent polls show that a solid majority of Americans (around 68 percent) believes that Iraq and al-Qaida have strong and continuing ties, despite virtually no evidence to support this.
So, not only do a majority of Americans think Saddam and Osama are in cahoots, but a vast majority thinks that either there were Iraqis in the planes used on 9/11 or don't know that there weren't. Are we ready for a war or what?
Polls are just snapshots, of course, a quick gauge of the nation's mood, but taken together they can present an interesting syllogism: If a majority of Americans favors U.S. action against Iraq, and a majority mistakenly believes Iraq is linked in some way to the 9/11 attacks, then... what planet is this again?
Jay Leno has a recurring segment on his show where he goes out and asks people on the street questions about history or current events, and he gets some amazingly stupid answers. I've always wondered how long it takes him to find such ignorant people. Now I'm thinking, not long. Or is it just me?
We were stunned and shocked at the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and for a few weeks we were inundated with facts. None of us expected a quiz; few of us remember any of the hijackers' names, and apparently a lot of us are unaware that most of them came from Saudi Arabia.
But why do a majority of Americans sniff an imaginary (or at least unsubstantiated) trail between Baghdad and the twin towers? Are we seeking justification for sliding into a war no one contemplated 18 months ago? Are we just really stupid?
Both. Neither. I don't know. Don't ask me any more questions, Mr. Pollster.
"Facts are stubborn things," John Adams wrote. They can also be overwhelming, and accompanied by hard stuff like numbers and graphs. Maybe there are too many sources of information now. Maybe we're distracted by "Friends" and football.
And maybe the question is moot, and war will happen or it won't and it doesn't matter what we think we know. Maybe the Bush administration will make the case, finally and concisely, about why we fight.
In the meantime, though, I think it's important to be aware that while ignorance can make us laugh, there comes a time when it's just not funny anymore. Let's not forget what it was like 30 years ago, when we all had to pick up and move to a new planet.
Uh oh. That just slipped out. Sorry.
-
saddam loves you, he really does
-
Originally posted by john9001
saddam loves you, he really does
Maybe if we give him more aid he'll like us even more? I say we try and be freinds with him, its more "civilized."
-
An Al-Queda cell is found operating from a bedsit in Hackney, North London - and the British Governments sends 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
Traces of Ricin, a highly toxic poison, are found in the bedsit in Hackney, North London - and the British Governments sends 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
The members of the cell operating from a bedsit in Hackney, North London are all Algerians - and the British Governments sends 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
Every month, thousands of illegal immigrants sneak into Britain aboard ferries and through the Chunnel, overwhich we have no control. Many are from countries such as Algeria and some of these people were operating an Al-Queda cell from a bedsit in Hackney, North London - and the British Governments sends 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
The Finsbury Park Mosque is raided and forged passports, forged credit cards, CS gas is discovered. Through this Mosque, the 'Shoe-bomber' passed, but there is no Iraqi link - and the British Governments sends 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
Tomorrow, a dirty bomb is exploded in Manchester redering the city unlivable for decades - fortunately the British goverment had sent 2 aircraft carriers, a nuclear sub, 10 support ships and 1/3 of it's regular army to the Gulf.
-
Twenty-three percent of respondents said "some." Twenty-one percent said "most." Six percent said "one."
[/b]
So what is he trying to prove? That americans are stupid?
-
i dont support a war with iraq at all
i'm not a peace loving hippie either. i'm more gung ho military then most people i know
but to me our beloved pres is just picking a fight. and it pisses me off. this is exactly why i voted for gore.
-
Here ya go, Useful Idiots:
Quote:
"Le Chutzpah
Don’t call the French principled.
By Jonah Goldberg
On Wednesday, French president Jacques Chirac declared: "As far as we are concerned, war always means failure and therefore everything must be done to avoid war."
Not only does this encapsulate French military philosophy to a T (or is that a "Ç"?), it summarizes the full extent of the mainstream antiwar movement's "argument." This shouldn't be news to anybody by now, but just to clarify: If you go into every situation saying there's absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers. Or, in the case of the French, you might spend your afternoon rounding up Jews to send to Germany, but you get the point.
I'm sorry to pick on those two titans of what Don Rumsfeld calls "Old Europe," especially considering the fact that all of official Germany and France are banging their spoons on their high chairs about this (entirely accurate) description. Indeed, the bleating from the Euros over Rummy's reference to Das Alte Europa virtually mutes by comparison the kerfuffle here in the U.S. when a German official compared our sitting president to Hitler; or when, a few years ago, former French defense minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement said America was dedicated to "the organized cretinization of our people." I'm sorry, Monsieur Chevenement, but from where I'm sitting, any cretinization going on in France has been purely self-inflicted.
Consider for a moment the current French position — and, no, I don't mean prone. This week they announced that containment works. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared, "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process."
Well, if France knows for "a fact," then France also knows for a fact that Iraq has such weapons programs. After all, you can't block or freeze what doesn't exist (if you don't find this logic compelling, go right now and tell your wife that your longstanding efforts to bed Filipino hookers have been "largely blocked, even frozen" by her constant inspections into your bank account and that she therefore has no reason to take a more aggressive posture towards you. Then, see what happens).
So, if France knows for "a fact" that these programs exist, then it knows for a fact that Iraq lied in its weapons declaration. Because, you see, the Iraqis themselves insist they have no weapons programs to halt. In short, France wants to keep inspections going because that's the best way to keep Iraq in a permanent state of non-compliance. I could have sworn that when the U.N. said Iraq had one last chance to cooperate with the U.N., it didn't mean it had one last chance to make the U.N. look stupid by playing keep-away.
Imagine your kid has been playing with matches. You confront him. He puts his hands behind his back. You say, Let me see what's in your hands. He says no. You insist. He shows you one hand. You say, Let me see the other. He returns the first behind his back and shows you the other one. You demand to see the other hand. He says no. He plays the same game for a while. Then he hides the matches in his pants. And so on. According to the great minds of Old Europe, a smart and sophisticated father would keep playing this game indefinitely, while a boorish (i.e., an American) father would say, "Listen, kid. If you don't stop this B.S. — and right now — it'll take UNMOVIC a year just to find my boot in your ass."
Well, color me doltish because we know Saddam Hussein has tons of chemical and biological weapons he's hiding behind his back. President Bush — another alleged dolt — was right when he said this feels like the replay of a bad movie. What's so insulting is that the French and the Germans seem to expect us to take their arguments seriously.
And what's so disappointing is that so many Americans are taking them seriously. Wading through the internal contradictions and verbal mobius strips of the peace-at-all-costs idiocy spouted by our domestic mau-maus of the antiwar argy-bargy has me feeling like one of those muppets whose eyes bounce around independently of each other.
For example, there's the crowd that insists there's no proof that Saddam Hussein has nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons — while simultaneously arguing that we shouldn't disarm Saddam because he might use those weapons on us in retaliation. "Don't shoot! He's unarmed! And if you do he might shoot back" is an argument fit for a world where clocks melt, hands draw each other, and people take Barbra Streisand seriously.
I don't want to rehash all of the same old tired antiwar arguments, but just to be quick: If we wanted Saddam's oil we could have taken it in 1991 when we won the first Gulf War. For that matter, if we were the oil-hungry empire these buffoons keep saying we are, we could have taken Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's while we were at it. Or — if we wanted so badly to get Iraq's oil to flow through America's "Big Oil" — we could simply agree with Saddam that we'll lift the sanctions if he gives us the oil contracts. He's indicated more than once that that would be fine with him.
And if we're responsible for "creating" the monster that is Saddam Hussein, our moral obligation isn't to let him continue torturing and killing, it's to fix the problem by getting rid of him. If war is "always" a failure, than we failed when we stopped Hitler and the Holocaust. It was a failure when the slaves were freed and it was a failure when America broke from England. And — if you're of a lefty bent — it was also a failure when the Bolsheviks beat the White Russians and it was a failure when Castro pushed Batista's troops to the sea.
But, as the German who was tired of fighting said, let's get back to the French. President Chirac now favors containment, as does the editor of The Nation — a magazine which now more than ever reads like it was poorly translated from Le Monde's reject pile. What's so funny is that these are the very quarters from which the bleating over the cruelty of containment has been loudest (see my syndicated column on France). France, to the head-bobbing approval of the American Left, has been arguing for years that sanctions should go. The French bailed out of our enforcement of the no-fly zones years ago. Throughout much of the 1990s their mouths have been running like a piece of Brie left on top of your TV set about the devastating impact sanctions have had on Iraqi children.
And just to set the record straight: The sanctions regime has improved the health of all Iraqi children not under Saddam Hussein's thumb. In the Kurdish North — where American and British, but not French, planes prevent mass slaughter — there is no mass starvation or child-health crisis. Saddam, and not sanctions, has killed hundreds of thousands of children in order to score propaganda points, which have in turn been manfully presented to the world community by Mr. Chirac in exchange for fat oil contracts. In effect, the French (and Russians) do not want a war-for-oil because the current peace-for-oil allows them to collect billions from the corpses of dead Iraqi children.
So when the French now say they are in favor of sanctions and continued inspections, they merely mean they are in favor of preventing the U.S. from changing the status quo and depriving the French of blood money. One would not normally associate the word "chutzpah" with a country so hostile to its Jews, but there you have it.
But there is a positive moral to this story. The irony is that the very fact that so many members of the peace-at-any-cost school now favor sanctions proves that the threat of violence has its uses. After all, if Bush weren't threatening war, the French, The Nation, et al., would still be crying about the need to repeal the sanctions rather than the need to stiffen them up. So malleable are their convictions, you almost get the sense that if Bush were to threaten genocide these people would champion "mere" war as an acceptable alternative.
But Bush need not make such threats to put some steel in the Gallic spine. Should it look like Bush will go to war without U.N. approval, France will jettison its principles like so much ballast and sail right along in the American armada's wake, so as not to miss out entirely on the new division of Iraq's petroleum pie. And that's the point. Here in America, France's useful idiots — as Lenin would surely call them — believe the French are staking out their position on the basis of principle. These Americans are, frankly, fools. Just because you're principled in your opposition to war hardly means that everyone who makes your case does so for your reasons. You may think the U.S. needs U.N. approval and, because France says the same thing, you think they agree with you. But the French spout this righteous drivel because they want to hamstring American influence to their advantage. After all, they virtually never seek U.N. Security Council approval for their own military nannying of their basket-case former African colonies...
continued...........
-
continued..........
"...France is doing what it thinks is best for France — not the world, not America, not humanity, but France. If that involves screwing America, they'll do it. If that involves leaping to America's defense at the last minute like the cartoon dog who's got the big dog at his side, they'll do that too. If you are a dedicated opponent of an American war, fine. It's perfectly defensible to be rooting for France's success at the U.N.
But if France's righteous bloviating against war makes them your Dashboard Saint of International Integrity, it's either because you are sand-poundingly ignorant of how the world works or it's because you think France's self-interest is more important than America's. If the former applies to you, read a book. If it's the latter, maybe you should move there along with Alec Baldwin, Robert Altman, and the rest of the crowd who promised to leave a long time ago. But whatever you do, don't call France's position principled, because that just insults us both."
The terms "France" and "Leftist-Liberal" are interchangeable.......
Cabby
-
Give us your opinion on the "Stupid President Tricks" thread...or are you too scared of it?
-
weazel loves saddam, he really does
-
I dare you. :p
Originally posted by john9001
weazel loves saddam, he really does
-
weazel , your right there , it is a stupid thread
-
War is diddlyin' great!
Damn, but am I going to get in alot of CNN watchin'!
Do you think we'll see more bomb cam footage??
I hope so! The kids getting blown up is going to be so sweet!!
-
ohmygod thrawn , you think saddam killing kids is "going to be great" ??.....you are sick
-
Look up John, you might see something going overhead.
-
Originally posted by john9001
ohmygod thrawn , you think saddam killing kids is "going to be great" ??.....you are sick
Just what I would expect from an unpatriotic terrorist-lover! :mad:
-
Okay, I'll stop the sarcasm for a moment. Anyone who wants wars should be taken out and shot like a mad dog. War is diddlying toejamty anyway you cut it. Yes, sometimes they have to be fought, but that doesn't mean anyone should want one. People dying is generally a crappy thing, regardless if it's Iraqis doing it or Americans.
-
What Thawn said.
Steve, only 17% of Americans got the correct answer...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Okay, I'll stop the sarcasm for a moment. Anyone who wants wars should be taken out and shot like a mad dog. War is diddlying toejamty anyway you cut it. Yes, sometimes they have to be fought, but that doesn't mean anyone should want one. People dying is generally a crappy thing, regardless if it's Iraqis doing it or Americans.
No sane person wants conflict. Anyone who states that they like or want war is either stupid or has never been in one... but sometimes battles need to be fought in order to aviod a war.
2 cents.
-
I think a fair question is, "If September 11th never happened, would we be in the same situation with Iraq?"
Why, or why not?
eskimo
-
This war we're about to start is about two things:-
1. Oil
2. Strategic position
First the oil......
From Cabby44's post - ...If we wanted Saddam's oil we could have taken it in 1991 when we won the first Gulf War. For that matter, if we were the oil-hungry empire these buffoons keep saying we are, we could have taken Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's while we were at it....
Probably the stupidest piece of writing I've seen on this yet. The Gulf war ending as it did was a political decision and probably a wrong one - live and learn.
Kuwait and Saudi oil is already under Western control. The power base of those countries is maintained by western military hardware and contract support. The ruling powers need that continuing support - we get what we want.
We DON'T have control over the biggest reserves - Iraq - and the ruler is a loose cannon. Control of the oil through the back door is what we need - remove the existing regime and insert a freindly one and tie it to Western military support to maintain the power base.
Now the strategic position.
Look at this map:
(http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middleeast_ref01.jpg)
Look at what borders Iraq ..... Syria to the West and Iran to the East.
Now Israel (a good freind of the West) has always had "issues" with Syria - Golan Heights etc - now how will Israeli bargaining power be changed with a US/UK military presence along Syria's longest border ??
Now Iran - one of the "axis of evil" - but look ..... take Iraq and you have Western forces to the west, Western forces to the east in Afghanistan and Western forces to the south in Oman and Saudi ..... opens the options somewhat.
Be realistic about this - as 10Bears and Dowding have said there is NO evidence of any connection between Alqueda and Iraq or any likelyhood of such connection. The supposed danger is that weapons of mass destruction would be manufactured in Iraq to be passed to terrorists in Alqueda for use - the delivery mechanism if you like. BUT THERE IS NO LINK. If the capability and connection is there it was there prior to 9-11 so why hijack planes ?? Why haven't they been used already?? Why are they manufacturing Ricin in flats in London?? It makes no sense
If we want to go to war about control of critical resources and real estate then at least lets be honest about it.
Sparks
-
Qupte:
"Anyone who wants wars should be taken out and shot like a mad dog. "
Ummm, that's what we intend to do.......
Sparks:
Thanks for the map. I had never seen one before. BTW, what's your opinion on who shot JFK???
C.
-
lol it was me
-
Very good post sparks.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
No sane person wants conflict. Anyone who states that they like or want war is either stupid or has never been in one... but sometimes battles need to be fought in order to aviod a war.
2 cents.
Dubya sure seems to want one. He's busily trying to justify an action he's about to take.
-
War is peace, eh Cabby.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Dubya sure seems to want one. He's busily trying to justify an action he's about to take.
"Sometimes a battle needs to be fought in order to aviod a war."
-
Get 'em Cabby - I agree with you 100%
It's funny how most of the people whining and protesting the war are the ones who will sit comfortably in their living rooms far from any battlefield. I will be deploying shortly to the Middle East and fully support President Bush and believe in what he is doing. Some of you (10bears) have no clue what's going on in that region. So just sit back in you easy chair and let us do our job. If you had an ounce of patriotism in you, you'd show some support for your country instead of trying to second guess the President.
Also 10bears,
Who said this was about the hijackers? Invading Iraq has nothing to do with where the hijackers came from. It's to cool a hot spot in the world in order to stabilize the region and the world for future generations. Yes, sometimes you have to fight and people (quite possibly myself included) may die in order to accomplish this, but you need to wake up and face reality. Peace comes at a cost - "Freedom isn't free"
-
Originally posted by WpnX
Get 'em Cabby - I agree with you 100%
It's funny how most of the people whining and protesting the war are the ones who will sit comfortably in their living rooms far from any battlefield. I will be deploying shortly to the Middle East and fully support President Bush and believe in what he is doing. Some of you (10bears) have no clue what's going on in that region. So just sit back in you easy chair and let us do our job. If you had an ounce of patriotism in you, you'd show some support for your country instead of trying to second guess the President.
Also 10bears,
Who said this was about the hijackers? Invading Iraq has nothing to do with where the hijackers came from. It's to cool a hot spot in the world in order to stabilize the region and the world for future generations. Yes, sometimes you have to fight and people (quite possibly myself included) may die in order to accomplish this, but you need to wake up and face reality. Peace comes at a cost - "Freedom isn't free"
Let's see... you support the president... good for you... after all, it's something you swore to do during your oath of enlistment.
My enlistment ended over ten years ago. I prefer my easy chair. I think the president's actions are going to put us in harm's way for the rest of our lives.
Good luck to you... and I do mean good luck with complete sincerity. Stand by your word and stand by your oath. It is without question the right thing for you to do. Hopefully, you return to your family safe and sound, because if you were my son and you didn't return, I'm pretty sure my bitterness at George W. Bush would last the rest of my life.
-
WpnX..
44MAG
former USMC
-
Originally posted by WpnX
It's to cool a hot spot in the world in order to stabilize the region and the world for future generations. Yes, sometimes you have to fight and people (quite possibly myself included) may die in order to accomplish this, but you need to wake up and face reality. Peace comes at a cost - "Freedom isn't free"
"Stabilize the world for U.S. future generation", and "U.S. Freedom"
This is one of the reasons why some of the wannabe power nations (like France), are against this war.
Let them have a piece of the cake and they will give you support.
Sad, cynic, but true.
Dont foul yourself with "fight for freedom", "U.S. is in danger", it's just economic, and (how sad!!) 9-11, has been a good starting point to have all the U.S. people willing to sacrifice their lives to let the big oil company grab the fields in Iraq, put a US-friendly government (who care if will behave worst of Saddam on the citizens?), and enlarge the control of the world by the U.S.
It's a big problem for me?
No, I live in a US-puppet nation, whealthy, almost rich, I can play computer games, buy cars, and live a nice materialistic life.
If only that bitter sensation in my mouth while looking the third world people starve to death will disappears.
I have to adopt this beautiful mantra....
"who cares, who cares, who cares..........."
-
Good luck wpnx.
I posted this separate from the above post, because one thing is the big things that are over our head, another thing is the little people like you, me and those Iraqi soldiers, that pay the consequences.
Try to avoid "collateral damage", if you can.
-
"Stabilize the world for U.S. future generation", and "U.S. Freedom"
This is one of the reasons why some of the wannabe power nations (like France), are against this war.
Let them have a piece of the cake and they will give you support.
" COLONEL
Whose
side are you on, son?
JOKER
Our side, sir.
COLONEL
Don't you love your country?
JOKER
Yes,
sir.
COLONEL
Then how about getting with the program?
Why don't you jump on the team and come
on in for the big win?
JOKER
Yes, sir!
COLONEL
Son, all I've ever asked
of my marines is that
they obey my orders as they would the word
of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese,
because inside every
gook there is an
American trying to get out. It's a hardball
world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until
this peace craze blows
over.
JOKER
Aye-aye, sir.
-
Good post, Sparks – as one would expect from a Brit. :D
I’m beginning to have mixed feelings about this forthcoming conflict. I want the outcome, but no-one likes a war. I DO believe there are some links between Saddam and al Qa’eda – for one thing it was widely reported that Saddam donated US$25,000 to each of the families of the al Qa’eda 911 suicide pilots. Chances are that he’s providing other funding, and why wouldn’t he? He must be pretty pissed off with the sanctions against him and wants to hurt the US in any way that he can after what happened in 1991.
The big mistake was not finishing the job in 1991. Pop Bush was forced to stop the Gulf war by UN mandate. The Bush family does not like the UN; in his biography, Pop Bush describes the UN as “another light that failed”.
People who say that Saddam “is not a threat to world peace” are forgetting that he is already in breach of what – 33 out of 37 UN resolutions? He kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998 and has been playing cat and mouse with the UN/US ever since the Gulf War ended. Forget about oil, and forget about 911 – the US is justified in taking action because of the UN Resolution breach alone. We forget this because the war was a long time ago, and fell out of the news.
After 911, Dubya declared war on terror – not just al Qa’eda. And let’s not forget the scale of the atrocity committed against the world – which just happened to be in the US, but could have been another plane flying through one of the clock faces of Big Ben in London. Indeed, a cell was discovered trying to hijack a British plane on that day, but was thwarted because of closure of the airspace. Dubya always maintained that his declaration of war was not just against the Taliban, but against any other terror threats. Given that Saddam has provided funding to al Qa’eda, and has imported equipment needed for building nuclear weapons, he deserves what he’s about to get. Oh yes! Saddam bought nuclear centrifuges for refinement of plutonium to 70% purity. A nuke reactor needs fuel at only 3% purity, so when he says it was for reactors, we know he’s talking bollocks.
Let’s also not forget that deterrence works. Remember how the people of some Islamic states were dancing in the streets after 911? Remember how Pakistanis were naming their new born sons Osama to honour their new hero? Remember the riots when the US decided to act against the Taliban in Afghanistan? That all stopped when swift US military action in Afghanistan achieved in three weeks what the Russians had failed to do in ten years, and the Taliban was all but destroyed. There was no dancing in the streets of Islamabad that day – lol.
By attacking Saddam, the US will be enforcing existing UN resolutions after years of neglect during the Clinton presidency. Any funding to al Qa’eda or any other terrorist group will be cut off. Better a small war now, than a big war later and the chance of more and greater atrocities before we have that bigger war.
Well, that’s the long version, and it’s only my opinion. Here’s the short version of why we should topple Saddam: The guy’s a c**t.
-
That all stopped when swift US military action in Afghanistan achieved in three weeks what the Russians had failed to do in ten years, and the Taliban was all but destroyed. There was no dancing in the streets of Islamabad that day – lol.
That's because the previous day, many of the wiser warlords had switched sides... again...
The Russian and US objectives were very different. One was the subjugation of an entire nation, the other was the toppling of a regime chiefly made up of non-Afghanis and patently simpler task.
Bin Laden is still alive. Al-Queda is still kicking. Afghanistan was far from decisive - it was a beginning.
-
When was the last time GWB used the Saddam - Osama link as justification for and invasion of Iraq? (never mind Abu Nidal).
Who thinks Saddam Hussein is going to dissarm (more importantly "not use") WMD against say... Iran or Isreal if we pack up and leave the region?
Who thinks a certain other goof who's initials are William Jefferson Clinton dealt with the situation in Iraq properly? (and please, don't even start with the GW41 shoulda argument... Truth is true, he "should have" however he did exactly what he said he would while the "other guy" had 8yrs to do something.
Just wondering. I just don't see ~any~ of the current anti-war arguments as anything other than underlying anti-Bush statements.
Hey... you'll notice, I'm allot more pissed off at Slick-Willy and GW41 over this whole thing as I "could" have been stuck in this stinking desert 10 years ago when we had the momentum rather than now facing who know's what crap that madman has had time to set in place (how many of those undeclared weapons deliveries to the middle east actually got through eh? Yemen my ass!).
Rather than squeak about what is probably going to happen, how about someone come up with a better solution and post it here? This beating a dead horse routine is getting old and we're all fairly comfy with who likes Bush and who doesn't, lets debate something worthwhile. How "should" this thing be done?
-
I trust Collin Powell...Now that he's jumped on the "must invade Iraq" bandwagon,I am convinced that it is all a big bluff...An attempt to topple Saddam from within by making invasion seem inevitable.
If it works,Bush is brilliant.
If he invades,he's a bastard.
-
Cabby - glad you liked the map. If you think it was not required just ask the next ten people you come across where Iraq is exactly and what countries border it - I bet they will say 2 - Kuwait and Israel. People are way more ignorant than anyone can imagine :( .
As for being anti-Bush - quite frankly I believe he is irrelevant. He simply does not have the intelligence or stature to handle this situation alone. It is not a case of not liking him or thinking he personally is driving this - I simply don't believe he is any more than a figure head.
Cabby - if you think oil isn't driving this along with the strategic location just look at these figures:-
Oil reserves as of Jan 2001 in BILLIONS of barrels:-
#1 Saudi Arabia 261.7 US/UK protected
#3 United Arab Emirates 97.8 US/UK protected
#4 Kuwait 96.5 US/UK protected
#? USA 22.0
#? UK 5.0
Now
#2 Iraq 112.5
#6 Iran 89.7
These 5 countries have over half , yes half, the WORLDS oil supply...... tell me Iran isn't next :rolleyes:
I have never said this war isn't necessary - just lets be honest about what its about before we ask our family members to get killed.
Cabby you may like to joke about 'conspiracy theory' mentallity but IMHO you are being totally niave about the power locked up in that dessert. Imagine the world influence available to the countries who controlled the worlds last crude oil stocks
People tend to forget that these leaders we have are people just like us - not divine beings sent to guide us. They are corruptable and manageable like anyone else.
WpnX - I wish you god speed and good luck and hope you come back safe. I must admit to agreeing with you on one point only though - you are going to stabilise the region ..... to our advantage.
Most of the people I work with have contracted at some time or the other in Saudi - usually contract support to the Saudi mililtary. The common point they all make is Saudi is more fundamental than any other Arab state - including Iraq. However we continue to treat them as our friend because the Saudi Royal family is in the West's pocket.
If weapons of mass destruction was the real aim here then we would be talking to Iraq more and shipping out to the N Korean border. If you want to see the long term risk to world peace look waaaay East. We should be a lot more scared of a technologically advanced China and Korea than a half arsed regime in Iraq. Hussein thinks about today and tomorrow - the chinese think about 50 years from now.
Sparks
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Are we itching for war or just really stupid?
Probably both.