Cowards - We helped them, where's ours...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by train, Aug 19, 2002.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Read here: Cowards not backing Bush

    Iraq should not even exist today - It takes a man to remedy history's mistakes... I think this is a no brainer - what are all these other countries thinking?
  2. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Going to war with Iraq right now would be a BAD IDEA.

    I have yet to hear one good reason why we should from our dear President, or from that triumvirate of nutbags: Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

    So please, do enlighten me.
  3. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Who are you thinking of when you say "we helped them"? All the article seems to be referring to is Bush's circle of advisors.
  4. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    I think I like the actual title of the article better.

    The only reason Bush wants to invade Iraq and get rid of Sadam Hussein is because his father couldn't (or at least didn't) do it.

    Thinking hopefully for him (which is not something I frequently do), I think Bush should get to work on issues on which he might actually leave a mark.
  5. train The Wildcard!!!...

    As for the cowards - the article had mentioned how a countries and leaders, not just american, thought it would be a bad idea for a war to be started with Iraq. This is a war on terrorism... the ideal, not people or where they live, the people using this ideal to harness power and threaten livelihood.

    Bin Laden is the focus now, and being a royal family member has its advantages - his money for example.

    Except for Iraq financially and militarily supporting some of Al-Qaeda's exploits, leaders in Iraq having family ties to Bin Laden, the fact that Hussein has preached, endlessly, that Iraq will do whatever it takes to destroy the U.S., I don't see a reason to go to war with Iraq - they should have been demolished in Desert Storm. Senior's quest to obliterate Iraq would have occurred had the economic downfall in the early 90's not been blamed on him.

    Saddam was to be removed from power - then clinton got elected, lucky Saddam. Clinton turned his back on Saddam and Iraq once again built up military supply levels.
    This may have a little, or a lot, to do with finishing father's business, but Bush is right - with Saddam in power, Iraq is a bigger threat than Bin Laden... He should have been tried for war crimes against Kuwait, but clinton was too prissy... now he needs to be dealt with...
  6. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    The article mentioned the need for allies if Bush was to go against Iraq, but it's primary thrust seemed to be that his own cabinet is saying to wait.

    Barring that, why stop at Iraq? Why not support Israel and "get" Arafat? Which in turn leads to Syria (which seems to have been tied to the PLO)?

    Bin Laden royalty has almost no bearing publicly, as his family has disowned him. They might be supporting him covertly, but something like that probably would have turned up, or will, seeing how a lot of investigations are delving into the financial support of Al-Queda. Speaking of which, that's where most of Bin Laden's money comes from, financial dealings on his own.

    There are many other countries which have declared their "distate" for the US. That doesn't mean we have to go to war with them.
  7. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Don't go to war with them... just plow over them...
  8. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Well I suppose if the US was a Fascist state, rather than a Republic, I would be forced to agree with you. Literally.

    Look, I agree that Saddam needs to take a hike. But I also think that Castro needs to go, along with Arafat and Sharon.

    Let's blow 'em all up.

    Or, we could pretend we are a sane, rational nation with an, ahem, intelligent leadership, and work on problems that really need solving rather than being the Bully of the Middle East.

    Terrorism occurs on almost a daily basis in Israel and the would-be Palestine. Why haven't we bombed the hell out of them yet?

    We simply do not have the right to go around taking out the leaders of sovereign nations. If we begin to assume that right, then we are no better than Axis powers of yore.
  9. Mikeymike Captain Hiatus

    I agree with pretty much 100% of this comment. Getting rid of Saddam has been long overdue, and the biggest mistake the US made in the Gulf War was NOT finishing the job (but that's another argument).

    Due to the current political climate now is not the ideal time to go after him, but unless Hussein drops dead of a heart attack that ideal time will never come. The longer the world waits to make a move the bigger a problem Hussein becomes.

    Regarding Castro, he is a dictator in the same ilk as Saddam that rules with an iron fist. But where he differs is that Castro doesn't have Hussein's penchant for making terroristic threats, disobeying UN sanctions, creating Chemical and Biological weapons, and with-holding food rations from indeginous Iraqis causing an intentional/unintentional near-genocide by starvation. I'd love to see Arafat and Sharon ditch also, but that's not going to happen - the last thing in world the US should do would be to use military force in Jerusalem. Involvement beyond negotiation would completely seal our doom.

    You're right CT, but I personally feel that diplomatic/democratic principles needs to be set aside now and the larger issue of world safety needs to be taken into account. I would have to imagine that most people (including many Iraqis) feel that Hussein is a threat humanity - and that's enough for me. As the good doctor says, prevention is the best cure, only if they believed that in the early 30's.

    All this said, I do seriously worry about Bush's itchy trigger finger as Spidey is. If he does get Hussein, does it stop there? Syria and Iran are a little too close for comfort and honestly I don't trust Bush's judgement.
  10. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    The problem with going after leaders of other countries explicitly is that then they can pretty much go after ours. I'm not counting terrorists or those "outside" the box, but once we cross the line, others can too. And we all know there's plenty of countries out there who don't exactly embrace us with open arms...
  11. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    That's precisely my point when I say that it would be a "BAD IDEA."

  12. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    You'll pardon me for being an ignorant Canadian. But what does Castro and/or Cuba do these days that puts him on the same level as Saddam, Bin Laden, Arafat, and Sharon?
    Other then have a very strong dislike for the US? :confused:
  13. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    I'm assuming you're asking me, since I was the one who initially made the reference.

    I never said Castro's done anything recently that puts him on the level with the others. I merely gave him as an example of a world leader I'd like to see take a hike. I didn't mean it as an analogy.

    Delete his name from the list, and my point still stands.
  14. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Well, I wasn't asking you specifically, just in general, but thanks for the answer. :)
    Your point is well taken and understandable.
  15. train The Wildcard!!!...

    We should just clone the Infernal Spawn of Evil as many times as we like and then send ti gift-wrapped to each of these leaders...

    Either way - It is time for them to go...

    The Axis powers weren't trying to stop their country from receiving further attacks of terrorism - one was on a mission to make Germany the greatest nation while the other was on a mission to genocide jews...

    We are the greatest nation, we are not on a mission of genocide, but we should beat the tar out of anyone threatening to do so. If the U.N. can't uphold their own sanctions - We have to take charge!!!

    Get 'em W!!!

    I also may feel more strongly about this after having met the man a few times and living in TX... but I was also a military brat and those 2 combinations are dangerous. Military thinking and the death penalty - yeah baby!!!
  16. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Ah... now I understand. ;)

  17. Mr_Pestilence Wumpus

    If W and his band of cronies are so keen to "get" Saddam, why don't they strap it on and air drop themselves over Baghdad?

    In case you haven't noticed, not one country around the world agrees with us that this is necessary.

    Sure, terrorism is a problem, but remember, the 9/11 attacks were committed by people who had initially entered the US legally, and none of the stuff they used to hijack the planes was illegal at the time.

    That being the case, why don't we more carefully scrutinize who we allow in our country, and strengthen the security on the planes themselves?

    As far as W and his crusade goes, I say give him enough rope, and let him hang himself.
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I was under the impression that some of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, having overstayed visas and whatnot... :confused:
  19. Mr_Pestilence Wumpus

    Yes, that is my understanding as well. But that is a failing of the INS, not Iraq.

    I don't want to let Iraq off the hook - Saddam is a megalomaniac with enough firepower to be a regional concern, but Iraq is NOT a threat to the United States - never has been, never will be.

    Also, this sets a dangerous precedent. Will we start intervening in every country where we dion't like the leadership?
  20. Gizmo Composite: 1860

    The biggest threat to international peace and stability right now is George Bush.

    Saddam Hussein undoubtedly retains stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the Pre-Gulf War era, however there is no evidence that he has any delivery system capable of allowing him to use those weapons outside the region. There is also no evidence that he has intention of using them WITHIN the reason. Nor is there any evidence that Saddam has managed to get his hands on any weapons grade fissile material.

    In fact theres so little justification for attacking Saddam because he poses a threat to his neighbours and the US, that Im beginning to think theres a malfunction with the White House microphones, and they keep cutting out on poor Dubya before he finishes talking, so all we hear is:

    "Iraq is a threat to America"

    And not the final part of the sentence, which reads:

    "...n oil supplies"

    Saudi and Kuwaiti oil installations have recently been fitted with US Patriot missile systems to defend them from any surpise Iraqi attack. Saudi and Kuwaiti cities have not. A multi-million dollar missile that defends an oil installation pays for itself. One that defends a hundred civilian lives does not.

    My favourite singer/songwriter, Billy Bragg, unveiled a new song at a gig I went to last week,the chorus to which is (as best as I can remember after hearing it only once):

    Bush just knows that the only way he can retain popularity when the newspapers are full of just how deep his hands are in the pockets of big business, is by filling the papers with something else instead.

    Bill Hicks, 1993:

    See? History DOES repeat itself after all!

Share This Page