War with Iraq

[evmori]

Saddam is a threat to the world because Saddam is only interested in Saddam. He has violated every restriction the UN has placed on him. I heard he has moved weapons to another country in the Middle East. Sounds like he is trying to hide them.

 

Saddam must go for the good of the rest of the world.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Quixote]

Per kwc "The problem that many people are struggling with is the US becoming an agressor nation. We have responded when we have been attacked or one of our allies has been attacked. Think Pearl Harbor, Kuwait, 9/11, etc."

 

Per the Wolfowitz speech," There are also gaps in accounting for such deadly items as 1.5 tons of the nerve gas VX, 550 mustard-filled artillery shells, and 400 biological weapons-capable aerial bombs that the U.N. Special Commission concluded in 1999 -- and this is the U.N.'s conclusion -- Iraq had failed to account for"

 

Do you prefer that we wait till there is evidence of USE of these weapons? Nations either harbor and support terrorists or don't. If we have evidence of Iraq harboring terrorists (i have no doubts that Iraq hasn't), the idea of Al Queda terrorists with access to WMD's scares the you know what out of me.

 

I believe it comes down to we either ACT to prevent further terrorism or we REACT after the terrorist attacks. Yes, it's a fine line, but folks, we're already at war - we have been since 9/11 and will be for quite some time. The only thing is the battlefields shift from country to country and sometimes involve stealth and sometimes not.

[acco40]

Am I the only one who noticed in the State of the Union speech last night that several times Bush made reference to the IRANIAN people when he meant to say Iraqi?

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Quixote,

 

Look, you won't get any argument from me that he is a bad guy and he needs to be removed. He probably has covertly been attempting to re-develop his former WMD capability......regardless of how hard we have made it for him. All I'm saying is it makes me nervous when someone says "trust me"....especially when it is over going to war. "Trust me" doesn't stand up in a court of law. The DA can't just tell the judge and jury to "trust him" that the defendant murdered someone. He has to have proof. I realize that this is different from a court of law, but the "trust me" factor makes me wary. If we know specifics, disclose specifics. Even our intelligence community questions some of the "trust me" talk. Is he in material breach because he has not fully disclosed some things? Yes. Does he have factories pumping out huge inventories of chem, bio and nuke agents and factories building long range bombers and ICBM's? Not that anyone seems to be able to determine. While I doubt that this will happen.....WHAT IF we go in and kick butt, kill Saddam, comb his country with a fine tooth comb and find....nothing? Do we just say, "oops, we were pretty darn sure you were a threat to our national security, but guess not....sorry? I just looked at an internet poll on CNN.com asking "Did President Bush's State of the Union address make the case for military action against Iraq?" It now says 54% yes and 46% no. This is odd, since many people say there is a liberal bias in the media. An hour ago the poll also had an undecided response which has been removed. Earlier it had 8% of respondents voting undecided. It looks like someone at CNN decided to move the undecided column to the yes votes. Earlier, the no votes were winning.

[SR540Beaver]

Acco,

 

He did mean Iran. Iran was named last year as part of the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and North Korea. There was a grassroots movement afoot then and now to return secular democratic control of the government to the people and kick the Islamic mullahs out. I think it was an overture to Iran and the efforts going on there.

[acco40]

But wasn't the reference to "the people" supporting Saddam Hussein? Being at war with Iran for over eight years probably did not edure him tothe Iranian people.

 

Looking at the text of the speech, you are correct, he may have meant Iranian (Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.) But my recollection, however fuzzy, thought he made a reference to "Iranian" more than once althought it only shows up once in the released text.

 

Overall, I thought the speech/address went well. I just wish the childish applause, stand up/sit down right side of the aisle, left side of the aisle silliness would stop.

[SR540Beaver]

Acco,

 

I went to CNN.com's transcript of the speech and did a search for the word Iran. This was the only reference I found:

 

"Different threats require different strategies. In Iran we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction and supports terror.

 

We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom."

 

He did mean his third leg of the "Axis of Evil"....Iran.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Here is a column written today by Pat Buchanan, one of the most stuanch right-wing conservatives around. The Republican party was so moderate in his eyes that he left it and went independent. It is an interesting read.

 

Is George W. Bush an Imperialist

 

Though Iraq does not threaten us, has not attacked us, cannot defeat us, and does not want war with us, the United States is about to invade and occupy that country. If we do, it will be the first purely imperial war in our history, a war launched to reshape the domestic politics and foreign policy of another nation to conform to our own.

 

A war to convert Iraq into a vassal state in the Middle East is something the War Party has sought for a decade. Sept. 11 gave it the opening to foist its agenda on an outraged and untutored president..........

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30739

 

 

[Quixote]

kwc - i hear you and understand what you're saying, but there are KNOWN weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was to have destroyed and according to their report to the UN, they haven't. It is not a case of going in, kickin' butt and not finding anything. If they aren't there, show the inspectors the documentation and paper trail indicating their destruction. Iraq refuses to do that - WHY? the only conceivable reason is that they have NOT destroyed the weapons that the UN KNOWS they have.

 

Is it possible that there is a "smoking gun", but to reveal the source to the world would endanger those sources? President Bush indicated last night that classified information exists that would lead the average american to support action being taken.

 

I guess that classified information should be revealed to us because we can't trust our own President.

 

That's not what classified information means, but i don't want to spark another dictionary debate.

 

acco - my wife agrees with your comments regarding the stand up / sit down clap, clap, clap stuff.

 

p.s. Buchannan is an isolationist in his views IMHO.(This message has been edited by Quixote)

[NJCubScouter]

Pat Buchanan is hardly your typical right-wing conservative. He really has his own "wing." He is not a typical isolationist either.

 

His opposition to Desert Storm II is not surprising, considering that he was just about the only "conservative" to oppose Desert Storm I. Nor are his motivations in opposing war with Iraq in any way related to those of the "peace protesters," or to those of us who question whether the war is a good idea, but who if we did invade, would wave the flag (at least at first) and hope for an easy victory and a rapid withdrawal.

 

To find out what Buchanan's motivations are, I think all you have to do is read the article. Look at all the references to Israel and Ariel Sharon. He believes that the motivating force behind the war is Israel and its supporters in this country. (That would include me, so I guess the fact that I don't necessarily support the war doesn't help his argument.) His famous quote about Desert Storm I was something like, the only people supporting the war are Israelis and their "amen corner" in the United States. What do you think, all you out there who supported Desert Storm I? Did you support it because it would help Israel? Buchanan thinks that that was your (our) motivation.

 

And while we're at it, what is the real ideology behind Buchanan's views? Let's see: He thinks Israel is controlling U.S. foreign policy (a proposition that would come as a great surprise to the government of Israel, which has endured constant, public criticism from the U.S. government for its dealings with the Palestinians.) He criticizes Israel and its supporters in this country every chance he gets. He is clearly pro-Palestinian at the expense of Israel (read the article.) He opposed the prosecution of Nazi war criminals by the U.S. government. He encouraged Ronald Reagan to honor the graves of Nazi SS soldiers in Bittburg, Germany (remember that? That was Buchanan's doing.) And on top of all that, he has written articles claiming that certain portions of the Holocaust did not occur.

 

Add it all together, and it's pretty clear to me.

 

Oh, and he hates gay people, too. Just thought I'd throw that in.

[acco40]

Except for his sister.

[littlebillie]

it boils down to the shoot-out at high noon.

 

the good guy doesn't go for his gun first - but he doesn't wait for the bad guy to fire first, either.

 

the hero's not waiting to see the villain's smoking gun, just a demonstration of reasonable intent.

 

i think most of the anti-war folks might shift if they see SH going for his gun - at that point, no one's going to say wait for him to fire.

 

and THAT is where it stops being simple...

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

Good analogy. However (and perhaps we don't disagree here...I'm not sure...its not clear by your post), I think there is plenty of evidence that Sadam Hussein is "going for his gun". As President Bush noted the other night, we know this -

 

He's employed an evil military-like police who tortures innocent children in front of their parents to gain confessions and cooperation of the same.

 

He refuses to account for thousands of weapons (missiles, biological and chemical, etc.).

 

We have defectors (scientists) who have testified that Hussein had created mobile labs to develop chemical and biological weapons. He's already shown a willingness to use these weapons, even on his own people.

 

Iraq entertains friendly relations with terrorists who are intent on doing us harm. The same terrorist group that killed over 3,000 Americans less than two years ago.

 

The list goes on...and I'm sure there are things that President Bush cannot say because it could put intelligence people and/or future operations at risk.

 

Just how evil and dangerous does Sadam Hussein have to prove himself to be before we act militarily?

 

Are we going to repeat the same mistakes of WWII? Adolph Hitler created an evil empire and it was right that we waged war against him and his regime. Sadam Hussein is doing his best to imitate Hitler in the Middle East. If we sit back and watch, what can we say about our collective character?

 

We were fearful?

We were selfish?

We were foolish?

 

Wise doesn't seem appropriate.

 

If we allow him to get any closer to that gun, we may be sacrificing thousands of lives (perhaps millions if he obtains a nuclear bomb).

[NJCubScouter]

One of my problems with this is, our actions have not matched our rhetoric. President Bush has been talking about Iraq and its threat to our nation since shortly after 9/11/01. He received authorization to do something months ago. And, Rooster, you're right, we don't know all of the evidence that our government has, but that only makes it more curious that we haven't done anything yet.

 

When I say that, I don't mean that we should have sent ground forces in already. We have taken military action against Iraq several times since the end of ground action in 1991, with not a single soldier or marine sent into battle. We have sent bombers and missiles, none of which take nearly as much time to deploy as has passed since President Bush first said we were going after Saddam Hussein. We could have been bombing anything that looks like it might be useful in making weapons, and basically wiped out his entire defensive capability. That is what we did before we sent in ground forces in Desert Storm. Why haven't we done that? And I'm not necessarily saying that we should have; what I am saying is that the fact that we haven't, makes me wonder whether the president really thinks we need to.

[NJCubScouter]

And still nobody has even tried to explain how it is that Iraq got to the top of the "danger" list, or the "terrorism" list. North Korea has nuclear weapons, we know because they've said so. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and terrorists, including al Qaeda. Now, I know that the terrorists are mainly in portions of Pakistan that actually are not controlled by the central government, but doesn't that fact make people a little nervous? I also know that General Musharraf is our good buddy now, but I think it would take him about 30 seconds to not be our good buddy anymore if he decided it was in his personal interest. And, let's see, what's that country where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from? A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans believe they were mostly from Iraq. That means that the current administration has done a pretty good job selling this war to the public, because the fact is that none of them were from Iraq. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, but if we really looked we would probably find good evidence that the Saudi monarchy gives all kinds of money to terrorists. We know that they finance Palestinian terrorists. I hear a lot of talk about "links," but our government seems to ignore the "links" between Saudi Arabia and terrorism. Could it have something to do with the direct business involvement by Father Bush in Saudi Arabia? I know, I know, a Republican could never possibly have any motivation other than what's best for the country. I just thought I'd ask.

 

And what about the Palestinian terrorists and other Arab terrorists in and around Syria and Lebanon? Their groups killed Americans long before we ever had any argument with Saddam Hussein. What are we doing about them? I mean, other than telling Israel that they should be negotiating with the terrorist-in-chief, Yasser Arafat.

 

And what about terrorists in Indonesia? Or the Phillipines? There are terrorists all over the world -- and countries with nuclear weapons -- and countries that have invaded neighbors -- and countries with mad-man dictators. Iraq is not the only one, and again, they are not at the top of the list.

 

I would just like to see a little consistency in our policy before that policy is used as a justification to send our young people into a war.