U.S. vs Iraq

[primetime]

i couldnt decide where to respond to this topic, so forgive me if i started a new topic. i usually dont like to discuss politics, but i have to comment on this situation. i am an American and proud of it. we are the biggest, baddest, nation on this planet. if we wanted to conquer the world, we probably could. however, this situation with Iraq has me thinking another way.....

first of all, doesnt it seem strange that out of nowhere Iraq is "evil" and we must act now? since the Persian Gulf war, Saddam has ALWAYS been trying to create weapons of mass destruction. he has always been kicking out U.N. Inspectors. we know he is covering stuff up. this has gone on for over a decade. why NOW are we talking about destroying Iraq? how come this wasnt brought up when Bush first got elected. why not after 9/11 last year? why NOW? unless there was some new development, WHY is Iraq on top of the list? i think Bush (and i am a republican) is trying to get Americans to forget about the economy and all these corporate scandals. trust me, i am all for kicking Iraq's ass and all, but i think they should do something that justifies an attack. if we have something that shows Iraq is actually building weapons (we know he is, we just need proof). without support (thank you Britian, you always have our back) from ALL our allies, attacking Iraq is not a good idea. if we attack Iraq without some logic, it will be looked at as the same as Iraq attacking Kuwait. we need some solid, JUSTIFIABLE, reason to attack...

what do you think?

 

[Krokus]

Hmm..

I say we kill the bastard. He should have been killed a loooong time ago. What will it take for you guys to understand?? "Ahhhh we need proof!!" So in other words....you might as well say.....I know!! Lets wait until something awful happens!! THEN we will have proof!!

 

[primetime]

like i said, i am all for beating the snot out of Saddam Hussein. but i just dont agree that we should come out of NOWHERE and attack him. again, why not do this last year? why not in February 2001 after Bush was sworn in? my whole problem is why NOW? it is the timing of the whole thing is where i am having trouble. Hussein should have been blown up as soon as he kicked out the UN Inspectors the FIRST time. but Clinton didnt do anything. if Hussein had kicked out inspectors recently and THAT is the reason for war talk, i would wholeheartedly support Bush. but this just seems like a random thing. why not go after China? we all know they are building nukes. why not India-Pakistan? they have weapons of mass destruction. why not Libya? Kadafi is still in power. why not Iran? why Iraq all of the sudden? if they have Al-Qaeda ties, sure, let's go in and blow them to the next millenium.

Krokus, i want Hussein blown into bits as much as the next guy, but to attack for the hell of it? we need a reason.....

 

[Krokus]

Nope.

I think what this guy has done in the past is reason enough. Let his blood spill.

 

[Haltickling]

The war is already on!

According to some sources, British and US bombers have been attacking military targets 38 times this year, e.g. yesterday. Targets were command and communication structures within the No-Fly-Zones in northern and southern Iraq, and the purpose is to render Saddam's forces deaf and blind before the real attack starts.

Around 60.000 troops are ready to invade Iraq by mid-October. I'd call this war. The whole UN resolution move by Bush is just to satisfy Europe, Russia and China.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

I think we (UK) just released a dossier on what Saddam has in terms of weapons of mass destruction, and it sounds pretty convincing, although it doesn't actualy say anything new: It just re-alliterates what has always been suspected. So there's the proof. Now go kick his arse and be done with it....

btw, most of the talk about this has been centered on should we/shouldn't we, but thats not the issue I think for most ppl who are against the attacks: The real worry is, what happens after you get rid of Saddam? What do you think, because I don't have a clue....

 

[shark]

The biggest recent reason for going after Iraq and Hussein is the report of Al-Qaeda terrorists who fled Afghanistan and are now being harbored in Iraq.

 

[primetime]

if Hussein is caught doing anything, even if he is thinking about building a bomb and he is caught, turn Iraq into a parking lot.

i realize that us Americans want to get Saddam Hussein, but the only reason why i am concerned is that i dont want the US to get into a major war because we decided to attack prematurely. we need some Arab Allies and if we attack Iraq without some kind of justification, then there really will be WW III.....

 

[R. Davis]

U.S. v.s. Iraq

As a former U.S. soldier who served in Operation Desert Storm I knew we(meaning the U.S. military) would be back to finish the job with Saddam. Many enlisted and officers felt the same way. Politics and the UN saw to it. I agree with Primetime this sudden war drum beating by Pres. Bush does seem a bit odd. The U.S. should get all the intelligence it can and the support of its allies and the UN. If we have to go in, no half stepping,no maybe,or what could be done instead. Finish the job effectively and quickly.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

the sudden war drum beating

is due to our having found out that iraq (it's leader really) was helping the terrorists. we've gotten info from the al-qida prisoners that they were helped by iraq. this is why he's next on the hit parade.
yes saddam has been pulling his shinanigans for the last 10 years, but you must remember, america was led for 8 of those years by a man who was more interested in finding unusual places for his cigars, than in doing what's right!
steve

 

[leomac]

I agree with areenactor, that was very well put. al-quida did alot of training in Iraq. Also, I don't think this is an all of a sudden move. Since the end of the gulf war, al-quida, who trained in Iraq remember, has declared war on the U.S., has blown up a bomb in the WTC basement, has attacked the USS Cole, has bombed 2 U.S. embassies, and is responsible for the 9/11 carnage. They were also involved in Somalia, and near the beginning of the 1st Clinton term, we uncovered a Saddam plot to assasinate former Pres Bush. He has continually violated UN resolutions and launched missles at Britain and U.S. planes. And, last but not least, during the Monica fiasco, Clinton and the democrats were all talking and passing resolutions about how Saddam must be dealt with immediatly if not sooner. My question is, why do we need more evidence? Do we want to wait for another catastrophe? Why does the democratic party now have cold feet? It seems to me the more the evidence piles up, the less willing we are to do something.

 

[Flatfoot]

Just to give everyone a heads up, I walk around at work, everyday, and I see all of our "green gear" getting painted tan. I will say nothing more, regarding that.

Originally posted by ShiningIce
Yeah and now we're lead by a man who shouldnt have made it past the third grade!! 🙄

Just a little advice, man, you're about to become one of the World's Finest, and when you do, that man will be the highest person in your chain of command. He may have a hard time remembering famous quotes, but regardless of whether you like him or not, you will ultimately answer to him, for he is the Commander in Chief.