|
|
melissa_x
Adventuring Hero
Tiffany Taylor
|
posted September 01, 2002 05:17 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Attack Iraq?
There is this country that has;
1. Used weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians,
2. Attacked a weaker nation in a bid to grab land and
3. Is now a mortal threat to the survival of a sovereign nation.
What should be done about it?
Before you answer consider this;
1. In 1945 the United States was the country that used two weapons of mass destruction on Japan killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. (1) Today we maintain a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons.
The chemical weapons Iraq used on the curds were given to them by the US during Iraqs war with Iran.(2)
2. The United States attacked it's weaker third world neighbor Mexico in 1846 resulting in the annexation of land, this area later became the U.S. states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. (3)
3. We are threatening to attack, invade and conquer Iraq which is a sovereign nation. Iraq has not directly or even indirectly attacked the United States. In 1991 we attacked Iraq to liberate Kuwait from a brutal occupation by Iraq, but now Kuwait is even against the US plans to attack Iraq.
"Much of the senior uniformed military opposes going to war any time soon, a stance that is provoking frustration among civilian officials in the Pentagon and in the White House -
Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet are reported to be posing skeptical questions about a military campaign and what happens after Saddam is gone,"
So with our own military and intelligence leaders not behind this attack and the utter lack of compelling evidence that Iraq is preparing or planning an attack on the United States, I ask you this....
Are you prepared to see young American men and women come home in body bags over Iraq?
Has the President made a good enough case for the attack to satisfy you that this would be worth your losing your son, daughter , mother or father over? Do you want Billions of your hard earned dollars to go into this campaign instead of into funding schools, better roads, police, fire and other social services?
I say lets find Ben Laddin and all Al Quida First! Lets kill all those snow terrorists first and then if there's some, any proof that Iraq is planning to attack us then let's take care of them.
What do you say?
Footnotes:
(1) Why we dropped the bomb; http://www.dannen.com/decision/
(2) Chemical weapons http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm
(3) Info on Mexican-American War http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-A...warconsequences
__________________
____________
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
posted September 01, 2002 06:01 AM |
|
|
OK, the sniper kills Sadam, but after he will certainly be killed by Sadam´s guards.
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:04 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 1 Sep 2002
|
Melissa,
I think you have some very strong points.
I don't think Bush has made a strong enough case as of yet. But I do believe that a strong case will be made if we do ever replace Saddam (or should I say I hope).
Also I do know that the White House seems to hint that Saddam has been sponsoring/supporting terrorists...so if that is true....he actually has been directly trying to harm the USA. Cheney has made some pretty strong statements about the danger that is lurking...I tend to believe the guy, but I would like them to inform us more about what they know.
but I think we may be incorrect if we use the reasoning..."Iraq hasn't directly attacked USA so we shouldn't attack". To the best of my knowledge…Hitler didn't attack us either...but I think we entered that war far too late to the peril of far too many lives being snuffed out.
Also it should be noted that one of Clinton’s attacks on Iraq was in response to a reported assassination attempt ordered by Saddam on former President Bush’s life…so if that is correct Saddam has most definitely been a direct threat to the USA.
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:10 AM |
|
|
Good Post
I have one nitpick though. US didn't liberate Kuwait because Iraq 'brutally invaded it'. The reason is that Kuwait is USA's major oil supplier. And if Kuwait was to become Iraq's territory, USA could say goodbye to their source of oil.
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:26 AM |
|
|
Btw melissa thanks for the link http://www.historyguy.com/Mexican-A...warconsequences.
it is very interesting.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 08:23 AM |
|
|
One more thought as I research the issue more deeply.
I think an “attack on Iraq” is a common misnomer. The president continually refers to it as a regime change. An attack on Iraq would require that the population of Iraq supports Saddam. The fact is most people of Iraq find him quite deplorable. I think there is a big difference between a regime change of Saddam, which the people of the country most likely want, and an attack on Iraq. Granted there will unfortunately be innocent casualties…but I would wager this is a price the people of Iraq would accept as Saddam has already callously murdered thousands upon thousands of his own people.
One article I found interesting by BBS is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100529.stm
Btw can't figure out how to make that a hyperlink here? Any suggestions cause when I right click "hyperlink" does not seem to appear
|
|
melissa_x
Adventuring Hero
Tiffany Taylor
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 09:57 AM |
|
|
to post link u need [url] and [/url] on ur tags
Why did Iraq all of a sudden become a problem when a Bush stepped in the Whitehouse? There was no threat when it was Clinton.
Hmmm could it be that it might be a way to get the news stories and the nations attention off of all the corporate theft issues like Enron and Worldcom?
Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Saddam tryed to kill Bush jr's daddy during the Clinton administration?
My kindest interpretation is that maybe the President knows about some pending Iraqi attack on the US and can't tell us for security reasons?
I think there are more dangerous countries for the US to worry about. 15 of the 19 terrorists from 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia where the totalitarian kingdom supports radical Islamist groups that preach the destruction of America. According to Rumsfield theres still "thousands" of trained terrorsts out there, some here in the US plotting ways of killing you and me!
____________
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
posted September 01, 2002 10:31 AM |
|
|
The only reason that USA want to attack Iraq is to gain its oil resources. All arabian counries dont want this war because when Iraq that will be ruled by loyal to US government will come to oil world market prices will decrease as much as US want. All other "reasons" is trash talk. US want to attack in near future because after Iraq will gain nuclear weapon it will be untouchable. US never cared about death of innocent civilians , examples are bombing cities in Afganistan and Serbia. The most ugly thing that US attacking only countries that cant defend vs modern airplanes, if country has effective weapons vs US air force or nuclear weapons, there can happened any terrible things and US will be blind to it, example : china.
____________
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 11:57 AM |
|
|
i cant imagine myself in a body bag lol... i dont think that usa privates will suffer from this war as always turkish army ''in front line'' will suffer lol... we never forget cowardice in korea we will never forget broken promises in golf war ... turkish economy sucks now because of gulf war and because of ambargo to iraq(petrol pipes pass from here)... and now these days some chimpanzees from usa gouvernement comes to meet our 80 years old president to get promises in aid to strike vs iraq... they are trading youngmans blood they are trading my blood!!! (im in army this december )
i think if turkey attack to iraq it must be for a own reason(kurdish clans, other terror stuff etc..) if we enter the war to help usa causes and to get some $ only i ll feel like a muppet lol... the funny part is that usa gave weapons to iraq and now UN want to send specialists to search bio weapons.
and about ladin and el kaide.... i dont care ... its not me who give them weapons and power
|
|
CraigHack
Known Hero
Have fantasies, will travel...
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 08:47 PM |
|
|
Good thread Mel!
I dont think the "Rest of the World" will support an "Iraq attack" at this point and we cant do it alone. There may be a future time when the world wishes we HAD done it tho unfortunately.
OBL and remaining Al Quaida leaders are now in Iraq according to all intelligence sources and this can not be good for the future of Iraq.
On the other hand...
Countries that sold war materials to Iraq before the last "Iraq attack" are reporting that there are no purchases at this time. That almost eliminates ANY support for a US attack.
Most of the US military leadership and congress are recommending that we do not do this!
I agree that it is a leftover Bush-Republican desire to take care of the Iraqi problem just as the "Star Wars" project is a leftover Reagan-Republican wish. Most of us dont think we need Star Wars either!
My best assessment is.... It aint gonna happen unless Iraq does something that puts the rest of the world in favor of a "Final solution".
Yes we did support Iraq when we had a problem with Iran. Just as we supported Noriega, Ho Chi Mihn and many others thru the years. Our CIA is seemingly responsible for most of the worlds strife. We should stop that!
"If only 50+ year old men fought in battle we would have far fewer battles" I forget who said that but it has to be true
____________
The Gods have brought us together... I can't imagine why.
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 10:22 PM |
|
|
The sad thing about the U.S. government is that a lot of the actions taken by authoritah figures are just to grab votes. They're thinking in the short-term in order to grab votes, instead of thinking of the long-term and actually trying to fix problems instead of taping it up with cheap generic brand bandages that rip your hair off when you take it off.
That being said, unfortunately that is one of the factors in motivating the Bush administration to launch an attack on Iraq. It's been, what 10 years since Iraq has posed a significant threat? And all of a sudden, with the U.S. economy struggling, various high-profile scandals, etc. Iraq becomes a problem? I'm not buying it, especially with the lack of support Bush has gotten. Bush's approval ratings have fallen steadily ever since they shot up post-9/11... so with presidential campaigns beginning soon, Bush needs a big boost to get his appeal to the American people back. Answer: addressing a problem that will be backed by the majority of the U.S. population. That's what Iraq is. Iraq is just sitting there, a gold mine for votes... and oil for that matter, but we should be drilling in Alaska anyways. But anyways, without any real reason for attacking Iraq one has to look and see what the motivation would be. I may be wrong, but it does certainly seem rational.
O, and it pisses me off to no end that OBL is still alive a year after 9/11. He may have just been a scapegoat to appease the vengeance of the U.S., but he's still alive. That's sad.
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 11:42 PM |
|
|
This is a very dificult situation.
We all know there will be no diference if we assainate Laden or Saddam because there will always be another Bin or Saddam to take thier place.
I have no doubt they have heavy weapons hidden that even United states know nothing about.
This may be a crucial time & hopefully we wont see a repeated sept 11th.
SO what can we do
There are also innocents wherever you go but that is war innocents will be lost.
SO what can we do.
Like father like son like you said Mellisa.
I guess we will see but you talked about bombing Japan & all those inocents but they were allied with Germany & see what they did to Pearl Harbor with not even a warning came out of thy blue & same day after they bombed Pearl they threatened in public thy United states so somethang had to be done.
Well see what happens but I have a feeling we wont like it lol
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 11:48 PM |
|
|
Oil in Alaska much more expensive to get than in Iraq. Also successfull war increase government's popularity and boost economics so I cant imagine that US government will decide to drill oil in Alaska instead of attacking Iraq. Even it will bring many problems in the future it will be problems of next president
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 11:53 PM |
|
|
Problems for next president lol Big Depression & President Hoover 
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 11:55 PM |
|
|
EASY..
Iraq bad
USA good
USA kill iraq
good think 
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 12:10 AM |
|
|
Aculias 11th september became possible only after US started such politics like attacking countries without permission of UN and so on. Terrorism is retaliation of those that cant fight in open war, dont harass others and u will not get terrorism.If US will continue attacking any country government of those disliked by US government sooner or later something like happened 11th september will happened again, also such actions force all countries that want to be sure they will not be attacked to get nuclear weapons.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 12:54 AM |
|
|
The Americans and (unfortunately) the british have always ignored the UN when they can afford to. The Israeli's have managed it for many years and no-one has yet taken action against them, nor any of the other nations who defy UN sanctions or resolutions. The main reason America is planning on attacking Iraq is simply because it believes it can. With British backing they can divide the UN security council and ignore/veto UN decisions like the US always has done in the past.
Is it right to bomb Iraq, and then invade? No, but it is right to attempt to remove Hussain IF they provide proof he is a danger. And by that I mean public proof, not both Blair and Bush both just saying "well we know he is a danger" WHY is he a danger? Then I will support an attempt to remove hussain.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 08:39 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 2 Sep 2002
|
Nivek
You stated “It's been, what 10 years since Iraq has posed a significant threat? And all of a sudden, with the U.S. economy struggling, various high-profile scandals, etc. Iraq becomes a problem?”
All of a sudden??? We have been fighting with Iraq almost since we won the gulf war. Also I think 9/11 is something rather major that changed our perspective…the war on terrorism….Saddam is a supporter of terrorists…plain and simple. So yes if a response to 9/11 if “all of a sudden”…well I don’t know what to say it.
You stated “lack of support Bush has gotten. Bush's approval ratings have fallen steadily ever since they shot up post-9/11”
Yes they have fallen (what wouldn't fall at the astounding historical setting record approval ratings he had) somewhat but he still has a huge approval rating…currently he has a 65% approval rating according to USA Today…that is pretty dang high.
You stated “so with presidential campaigns beginning soon”
Huh????…the presidential elections aren’t for about another 3 years. Considering a presidential term is 4 years I don’t understand how they are “beginning soon”?
You stated “it pisses me off to no end that OBL is still alive a year after 9/11”
No one knows if he is still alive or not…there is no proof one way or another. I got to say that out of billions of people who inhabit a very large planet….it would be quite difficult to find him…particularly if he is being hidden by another nation such as Iraq.
Undead_Knight
You stated “The only reason that USA want to attack Iraq is to gain its oil resources. All arabian counries dont want this war because when Iraq that will be ruled by loyal to US government will come to oil world market prices will decrease as much as US want.”
What?….if that is so….why didn’t USA conquer Iraq 10 years ago when we easily could of taken them out…and as you say “gain its oil resources”?
You stated “US never cared about death of innocent civilians , examples are bombing cities in Afghanistan and Serbia.”
You got to be kidding….my only response is that you are either obviously biased or misinformed to make such an incorrect statement as that. USA could of done untold damage to civilians if they ever chose to not care…what is actually so incredibly surprising is the low numbers of civilian death in Afghanistan.
You stated “If US will continue attacking any country government of those disliked by US government sooner or later something like happened 11th september will happened again"
Huh??? There have been many countries that US does not approve of which we have not attacked. If USA, the only true world power, was as you say…well Cuba would of become the 51st state a long time ago. Come on!
Melissa_X
Thanks for the assistance on URL’s.
You stated “Why did Iraq all of a sudden become a problem when a Bush stepped in the Whitehouse? There was no threat when it was Clinton.”
I don’t think that is quite accurate as The history Guy web site states “Since the beginning of 1999, Allied pilots have launched over 1,100 missiles against 359 Iraqi targets. That number equals nearly three times the amount of ordnance used in the four-day Desert Fox strike. Also, the pilots in the Iraq War have flown two-thirds the number of missions as NATO pilots in the Kosovo War." Also it states that during the Clinton administration since operation Desert Fox “the Allies have engaged in almost daily attacks as Iraq attempts to enforce it's sovereignty over the "no-fly" zones.”
Regarding the corporate theft issues like Enron and Worldcom…what amazes me is that people would have to assume these debacles arouse overnight in the short term of less than a year of Bush’s presidency….these type of scandals were most likely in the making for years.
You stated “My kindest interpretation is that maybe the President knows about some pending Iraqi attack on the US and can't tell us for security reasons?”
I raise my drink to you on that interpretation
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 10:10 AM |
|
|
Wow a post in which he didn't argue against me.............. Come on Dargon you are slipping m8!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Undead_Knight
Known Hero
Hero of Chaos
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 07:59 PM |
|
|
2 dargon : USA cant conquer Iraq 10 years ago because that war with Iraq was with permission of UN and this permission and full support from all arabian countries were only in liberation of Kuweit so US government just couldnt say that they decide to conquer Iraq because Hussein is evil also I think in those days US government still didnt forgot about Vietnam and feared to invade in Iraq.
US army killed in Afganistan more ppl than died in US 11th september, its proven fact and if censorship on US TV didnt allow u to know it, use alternative sources of information.
Before revolution almost everything in Cuba belonged to americans, soon after Fidel Kastro will die it will happen again so no need to fight with Cuba to gain it, just need to wait several years. Also USA will never add any country as 51st state because it will force to to increase life conditions in that country to US level and its very expensive to do much more easy to force other countries to have governments loyal to US that will bring all positive part of conquering and nothing negative except hatred to US and what can bring hatred to US u could see 11th september...
2privatehudson: I cant understand about what danger u are talking? ppl in Iraq prefered to have Hussain as their leader and its their internal business when he must retire, or you think only americans have rights to have leader they want while all others need to ask US government what leader they must have?
____________
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 1 
