Should America invade Iraq?

[rhino 0]

Quote

So that first attempt to blow up the WTC years back wasn't terrorism, since Ramzi Yousef lived, it didn't kill many people and he failed to bring down the building? Come now, Rhino. Incompetence is no defense against being labeled a terrorist, nor is the desire to live or where we got the misinformation from. We killed hundreds of men, women and children at a wedding. You might quibble over how that was "better" than the first WTC bombing that only killed half a dozen, but I doubt the families of the victims of either event is willing to go along with your definition.

I know, I know, anyone the US kills is an unfortunate accidental casualty, anyone an Arab kills is a victim of terrorism. Beware that someday someone uses the same definitions on us - and might just have nuclear weapons to back up their definitions, which of course will be just as valid to them as ours are to us.

I didn't say it wasn't terrorism did I? And their is no comparison. Again this was a bunch os ignorant assholes trying to bring down a building full of innocent people. We killed HUNDREDS of people at the wedding??

Quote

I know, I know, anyone the US kills is an unfortunate accidental casualty, anyone an Arab kills is a victim of terrorism.

Common man.. This is not realistic..

Quote

Tony Blair is not with us. "When asked specifically about the issue . . . he repeatedly says no decisions have yet been taken with regard to action against Iraq." (LA Times)

Britain is DEFINITELY with us...

Quote

agree that our measures will be better than before. Still, nothing we've got will stop a submarine, or even a boat from motoring into, say, the LA harbor with a cargo of ANFO and nuclear waste. And the more families we kill, the more people who can tell the story of how their mother was blown in half by a US bomb, the more terrorists willing to die for revenge we will create. And we're about to create a few thousand more. Think anything we can do will stop every single one of them from buying a boat?

Actually their is a very elaborate "classified" sonar net set up all over for that very purpose.

Quote

The US government has no need to know why the US military is about to take an action that could at best kill thousands and involve us in an invasion of another country, and at worst start World War III? (Remember, Iraq has ties with several countries that _do_ have ICBM's) If that's not something they need to know, then I don't know what is.

We elected the President to make the big decisions. He is making them. WW3 won't be starting.. Even Russia is jumping on board with us for closer "trade and diplomatic" relations.

Quote

Again, so do half a dozen other countries. So do we - we're sponsoring Kurdish terrorists right now. At some point we have to learn how diplomacy works, so that a) we kill fewer people b) we don't create Al Quaeda II and c) we have to watch fewer of our own people die. Other countries have figured it out. Even Iraq is learning; they just sent envoys out all over the world to drum up support for their defense. Bush's antics aside, surely we can learn to do the same.

We will be taking care of the other countries soon enough.. Actually ops are already in countries that the press knows nothing about for this very purpose. And I agree we need to make sure we don't create more terrorist groups.. And I damn sure don't want to see more good people die.

Rhino

***

[billvon 3,119]

>Al Queda did not only get money from Mujahideen, but also
>indirectly through the Saudi royal family and other groups in the area
> like Islamic Jihaad in Egypt and who knows where else. I would not
>blame Reagan for "creating" this terror group.

I agree that other people funded the Mujahideen, but none came close to the billions we gave them - the figures I've seen range from $400 to $700 million a year for nearly ten years. As I said, Reagan did not specify the creation of Al Quaeda, but he did provide the money to enable it to become what it was. Reagan's objective was to create a terrorist network that could stymie the USSR; he succeeded. (though I'm sure he would have called them freedom fighters or something like that.) Later, unfortunately, the same terrorists were successful in pulling off some very effective terrorist attacks against us.

This is not to say Reagan was evil or off his rocker, or that he intentionally created an organization he knew would attack the US. He made a decision based on that old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, and it backfired. I think we should learn from mistakes such as this, so we don't make them in the future. For example, giving Stinger missiles, long range missiles and billions of dollars in military aid to the Kurds, who are arguably "on our side" since they oppose Hussein, might not be such a good idea; I'd hate to see US helicopters downed by US Stingers in ten years when the Kurds decide that we're not as nice as they thought we were.

[billvon 3,119]

This is interesting; things have changed even during the course of this thread.

>I didn't say it wasn't terrorism did I? And their is no comparison.
> Again this was a bunch os ignorant assholes trying to bring down a
> building full of innocent people. We killed HUNDREDS of people at
> the wedding??

I agree that it's different in terms of strategy and politics. In terms of creating a new generation of terrorists, I don't think it much matters to them if their families are killed by suicide bombers or well-trained US pilots who just made a careless mistake - they will not make those fine distinctions. Neither would we, if our situations were reversed.

>Britain is DEFINITELY with us...

They are now. Politically, Bush's move to go to the UN to request that they enforce the inspections was a master stroke - he's got the support of half the world now. What he gave up, though, was the ability to attack unilaterally without warning. We pretty much gave our word that we would at least pursue inspections before we invaded, and I hope we as a country are honest enough to keep our word. If we can't be trusted to do that, diplomacy becomes impossible.

>We elected the President to make the big decisions. He is making
> them. WW3 won't be starting..

Yes, we did. But we also elected congress, and one of their jobs is to decide whether to declare war. I'm glad to see that Bush is going to get their approval before gearing up for war.

>Even Russia is jumping on board with
> us for closer "trade and diplomatic" relations.

Well, the Russians are actually arguing with us quite a bit lately over whether we need new resolutions, but I agree they are willing to talk, at least.

>We will be taking care of the other countries soon enough.

Rhino, we're selling North Korea reactors! It's a lot better, and a lot easier, to stop terrorism before it starts, and to stop nuclear weapons manufacture before they get the materials, than after things are in motion. Even if you have to give up some money to do it.

>And I agree we need to make sure we don't create more terrorist
> groups.. And I damn sure don't want to see more good people die.

This we both agree on. I think the only way that we can avoid more good people dying is by learning to settle our disputes in the UN rather than on the battlefield. If we have to go after Hussein and kill him and 30,000 of his people (and lose 50 Americans in the process) well, it's a last resort, and we will have taken the worst way out of this mess. Nothing would impress me more than seeing Bush turn Hussein into an impotent, isolated Fidel Castro clone, an American-hating despot that everyone just learns to ignore. It would take a lot of cunning, and a lot of negotiation at the UN and at foreign governments all over the world, but we did it once and we can do it again if we really want to. I think the effort is worth it.

[rhino 0]

Cool

[Phil 0]

It seems to me, that some countries or better their presidents just go to war, just to get their polls up using their dicks more than their brains. They start something and never finish it or get their asses kicked and leave.
What is so wonderful about war? It seems to me, that with time we should be capable to learn, that war will NEVER solve a problem - it will just put if of for a later generation to finish and to deal with.

Everybody is screaming for an UN resolution, but hell, there are some countries out there, that don't give a shit about UN resolutions and nobody is doing a damn thing about it.

I saw the trains with refugees coming from Bosnia, when there was war there. I will never forget the expressions on the faces of the kids that exited the train. I felt ashamed, that human beings can do things like that to each other. I cried, when I saw the WTC towers come down. I scream, when I have to see cambodian and vietnam kids crippled because of agent orange.

Why the fuck is it not possible to learn?
It seems so easy to become an enemy to the US. Just have an other opinion and stay firm with it, and you'll get to feel the wrath of uncle sam.

Looking forward to all the uplifting replies
...
..
.

how high can you fly with broken wings ...
life's a journey not a destination

[christoofar 0]

Quote

It seems so easy to become an enemy to the US. Just have an other opinion and stay firm with it, and you'll get to feel the wrath of uncle sam.

If you don't like America... just don't do dispariging stuff that make U.S. politicians get on Face The Nation and get grilled on Sunday morning TV... otherwise your country will get nuked.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[rhino 0]

Good Morning.. LOL

Rhino

[Phil 0]

Thats fine with me - we have anti nuke bombshelter all over the place, would be about time to find out if they hold up before it becomes serious

What? You have politicians on sunday morning tv? And I thought, you only had cartoons on sunday morning...what ever happend to the good ol' US the way I remember it...no wonder that beautiful country is going down the drain so fast.

...
..
.

how high can you fly with broken wings ...
life's a journey not a destination

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

And I thought, you only had cartoons on sunday morning...what ever happend to the good ol' US the way I remember it

Yeah, I seem to remember watching cartoons on Saturday and Sunday mornings growing up, I wonder what happened to them?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rhino 0]

MY country isn't going down the drain..

Rhino

[SpeedRacer 1]

This thread was started in August 2002.

Has anyone changed their minds since then?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Richards 0]

Quote

Has anyone changed their minds since then?

[billvon 3,119]

>If anyone has can we cancel the impending invasion retroactively?

No, but we can definitely make better decisions in the future.

[mnealtx 0]

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Tim McVeigh was in the US 1st Infantry Division during the Reagan-Bush years. So using your logic, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were terrorists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Tim McVeigh was in the US 1st Infantry Division during the Reagan-Bush years. So using your logic, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were terrorists.

Ah...then shopkeepers were responsible for Dunblane... or was it the Scouts?

Nice strawman, BTW...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Tim McVeigh was in the US 1st Infantry Division during the Reagan-Bush years. So using your logic, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were terrorists.

Ah...then shopkeepers were responsible for Dunblane... or was it the Scouts?

Nice strawman, BTW...

So you agree that your logic is idiotic. Fine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Get real, thats a hell of a jump. So I can presume that the Marines that killed those civvis personally acted on the orders of G W Bush

Give me a fucking break.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Get real, thats a hell of a jump. So I can presume that the Marines that killed those civvis personally acted on the orders of G W Bush

Give me a fucking break.

Read "Through the Looking Glass", it explains a lot about neo-con logic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

so were Tweedledum and Tweedledee working for Al Quaeda?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi

1. Al Quaeda leader

2. Captured coming from Iran to Iraq

3. Major in Iraqi army under Hussein

But...but... there's NO LINK between Hussein and Al Quaeda!! There's no link between Iran and Al Quaeda!! The Dems told us so!!!

Tim McVeigh was in the US 1st Infantry Division during the Reagan-Bush years. So using your logic, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were terrorists.

Ah...then shopkeepers were responsible for Dunblane... or was it the Scouts?

Nice strawman, BTW...

So you agree that your logic is idiotic. Fine.

Not his logic.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

so were Tweedledum and Tweedledee working for Al Quaeda?

No, they work in the Bush White House.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>Nice strawman . . .

A strawman is an argument you create just to shoot down.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was in the Iraqi military and became a terrorist with Al Qaeda - and from that you deduce that there was a link between the Iraq government and terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was in the US military and became one of the most infamous US terrorists ever. Using the same logic, there is a link between the US government and the OK city bombing.

Of course, you might argue that he was just a disaffected nut that had nothing to do with the US military when he became a terrorist. That's a reasonable argument - and one that applies equally to Abd.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Nice strawman . . .

A strawman is an argument you create just to shoot down.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was in the Iraqi military and became a terrorist with Al Qaeda - and from that you deduce that there was a link between the Iraq government and terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was in the US military and became one of the most infamous US terrorists ever. Using the same logic, there is a link between the US government and the OK city bombing.

Of course, you might argue that he was just a disaffected nut that had nothing to do with the US military when he became a terrorist. That's a reasonable argument - and one that applies equally to Abd.

Ok - I take your point.

Of course, there WERE papers available online that showed that Hussein's intelligence apparatus met with OBL in 95, and that they were trying to recruit suicide troops to strike at the US and liberate Palestinian interests...but those are now offline.

I guess providing info is only good when it's the MSM telling AQ what we're going to do next...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ExAFO 0]

"Boobs!"

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.