Bush's Plan to conquer...errrr.....liberate Iraq

I just finished listening to a guy explain to me something that has truly got me wondering when we became wimps. It seems that the inspectors in Iraq just held a press conference a little while ago. During that conference they snuck in the fact that Iraq was in breach of a U.N. directive (http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq).

Now, I then spent the next ten minutes listening to him rant and rave about how that should not be enough to go to war on. A lady asked him wasn't that a direct contradiction to the Iraqi official who weeks ago spent several hours on TV telling the world that his country has not violated ANY of the U.N. agreements including the ones about weapons of mass destruction?

The guy then lead off with this statement, "We all know that Iraq has violated the U.N. agreements but that does not mean that we should go to war over them. The proper step would be to sit down with the officials in Iraq and work out new terms and agreements. Sure that might take a few years to really accomplish, but that would be a preference to war any day."

She then asked him, "What makes them honor that agreement any more than those of the past?" And he said, "because this time they'll understand the consequences." I am too through. :)
 
we became wimps on september 13th....sept. 11th=fear, sept 12th=outrage 13th= back to normal again.

what I really can't believe is the number of posters on this board who actually defend Iraq by pointing out America's flaws....You would think Saddam is just a nice guy who is misunderstood.....the only thing that will convince some here is a big mushroom cloud over Israel or NYC....I said "some" because the others will believe it was really the Jews blowing up themselves to get sympathy
 
Quote from candletrader:



The US has every interest in dismantling OPEC, piece by piece... Iraq is first... my opinion is that Venezuela, Iran or Saudi Arabia will be next...

This whole game is not about religion, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction or Saddam... its simple Imperialism, manifesting itself in a three letter word: Oil...
More...

And Venezuela maybe next in line:

WAR ON TERROR
Defector: Chavez gave
$1 million to al-Qaida
Venezuelan leader endangering region with increasing ties to terrorism

Posted: January 7, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


Recent high-level Venezuelan military defectors say President Hugo Chavez gave $1 million to al-Qaida shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States......

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30350


Josh
 
Josh:

You and i have sparred before and disagreed and agreed on various subjects ( almost always civilly :) ) My complaint/question though is where do you come up with these so called NEWS stories? It's one thing to reprint a link or an artical and Im not saying whether it's true or not but you tend to post these things like they were a certain fact coming from a reliable source....Its just my observation but I do think you get some far out radical clippings from time to time.....Just an observation and Im not saying it's not true but every now and then I'd like to see the more mainstream sources quoted.

respectfully,
TM
 
Quote from TM_Direct:

we became wimps on september 13th....sept. 11th=fear, sept 12th=outrage 13th= back to normal again.

what I really can't believe is the number of posters on this board who actually defend Iraq by pointing out America's flaws....You would think Saddam is just a nice guy who is misunderstood.....the only thing that will convince some here is a big mushroom cloud over Israel or NYC....I said "some" because the others will believe it was really the Jews blowing up themselves to get sympathy
More...

But Saddam is misunderstood! There are many who believe he is a good leader bent on improving his people and their position in the world. He is forever evidencing this to them (and us) by allowing them to build and see his lavish palaces and cheer his entourages. His flaws are acceptable to many because they don't have a day-to-day impact on their lives. There is a fear that if we impose on Saddam he might affect them negatively either by:

a) calling a world news conference and telling the world how we are an evil peoples trying to take what is rightfully his (uh, his peoples), oil.

b) having the people with anti-American interests calling them uncaring and out of control.

c) having the Arab countries do something that they never have in history. Come together and work together to talk about how bad we are.

Is it me or am I not getting the true picture? What we seem to get from that part of the world is either an evil oil, or terrorism. Could they be one and the same? :)
 
Quote from TM_Direct:

Josh:

You and i have sparred before and disagreed and agreed on various subjects ( almost always civilly :) ) My complaint/question though is where do you come up with these so called NEWS stories? It's one thing to reprint a link or an article and Im not saying whether it's true or not but you tend to post these things like they were a certain fact coming from a reliable source....Its just my observation but I do think you get some far out radical clippings from time to time.....Just an observation and Im not saying it's not true but every now and then I'd like to see the more mainstream sources quoted.

respectfully,
TM
More...

No problem TM_Direct,

Yes you are right.! Some clippings may appear far out there. But what makes a story or source a more reliable than another? e.g. only US articles count from 4-5 major media services? do we include CNN BBC FOX AP?. Actually I am with you in what you said. I have similar questions myself. But where can one draw the line?

There are many local papers unknown to the vast majority of the populous, heck most of us probably don't recognize more than few in our city and the few major nationals, and there are thousands out there. But does that make their articles any less credible? Internet has brought out many new sources and made the accessible to a much grater audience.

Maybe we need a list of sources that we can all deem reliable and credible, and discount anything else outside that list? Not sure what the answer is.

hehe ...Who watches the watchers?

Good points.

Thanks for bringing it up.

Josh
 
Quote from TM_Direct:

what I really can't believe is the number of posters on this board who actually defend Iraq by pointing out America's flaws....You would think Saddam is just a nice guy who is misunderstood.....
More...

another interesting thing: a certain "black or white" position by some. Seems that either you wave the flag and nod along wide-eyed at the ranting of politicians, or you are a terrorist sympathizer and traitor.

Expressing hesistation at the idea of sending other people's children to kill and die in a preemptive war based on nothing more than the words of a handful of politicians and bureaucrats somehow means ipso facto that you 'defend iraq' or think saddam is a 'nice guy.' The same guys universally known to lie, cheat, and steal in any other circumstance are for some reason, on this one subject, treated as infallable and righteous guardians to be defended without question. To examine analogous periods in history, and to dare to utter the obvious fact that history tends to repeat is to be a 'wimp.' It's superficial and absurd.

Do you realize that there is a grey area in between, that it is possible to believe that a non-war solution to iraq is possible without simultaneously supporting terrorism or believing that saddam is in the right? that they are not mutually exclusive? that it's possible to hate and condemn saddam without calling for a war on his constituency? Or that it is possible to disagree with someone's point of view without resorting to attacking them personally?

(not directed at you, TM, just in general....:) )
 
Quote from Madison:



another interesting thing: a certain "black or white" position by some. Seems that either you wave the flag and nod along wide-eyed at the ranting of politicians, or you are a terrorist sympathizer and traitor.

Expressing hesistation at the idea of sending other people's children to kill and die in a preemptive war based on nothing more than the words of a handful of politicians and bureaucrats somehow means ipso facto that you 'defend iraq' or think saddam is a 'nice guy.' The same guys universally known to lie, cheat, and steal in any other circumstance are for some reason, on this one subject, treated as infallable and righteous guardians to be defended without question. To examine analogous periods in history, and to dare to utter the obvious fact that history tends to repeat is to be a 'wimp.' It's superficial and absurd.

Do you realize that there is a grey area in between, that it is possible to believe that a non-war solution to iraq is possible without simultaneously supporting terrorism or believing that saddam is in the right? that they are not mutually exclusive? that it's possible to hate and condemn saddam without calling for a war on his constituency? Or that it is possible to disagree with someone's point of view without resorting to attacking them personally?

(not directed at you, TM, just in general....:) )
More...
Madison, you and I have sparred on the "Poll" thread, so I will not regurgitate items we have both mentioned there. Nor will I respond to your above quoted remarks about lying, stealing and cheating at this moment. Instead, to cut to the chase and for the sake of simplicity, please answer the following questions:
1) Do you believe 9/11 signifies a threat to the US or is it a manifestation of the US "getting what it deserves" for decades of muddling in foreign affairs? Or both?

2) If you do agree that it is a threat, is it a limited threat or is the threat possibly a nuclear/biological/chemical one?

3) If you agree it is a WMD threat, how do you propose we deal with the threat?

4) Regardless of what the inspectors find or do not find, do you think Saddam would provide terrorists with nuclear/bio/chem weapons to use against the US if he had those weapons at his disposal?

Note the lack of sarcasm and what you would term a "personal attack" in this post. I look forward to your answers.
 
Quote from Madison:

Do you realize that there is a grey area in between, that it is possible to believe that a non-war solution to iraq is possible without simultaneously supporting terrorism or believing that saddam is in the right? that they are not mutually exclusive? that it's possible to hate and condemn saddam without calling for a war on his constituency? Or that it is possible to disagree with someone's point of view without resorting to attacking them personally?

(not directed at you, TM, just in general....:) )
More...

Very few things have ever been positively solved if you continue to stand in the grey areas. Sooner or later you must stop straddling the fence so that progress can be made. Avoidance of confrontation is never a good thing. Confrontation does not always have to mean a fight. But it does take one side realizing the stance of the majority.

If Saddam were searching for a true place for Iraq, I'd be willing to entertain that posture myself. And without seeming too intense here, we tried that posture before (even with Iraq). If you'll look into history you'll find that this was the posture of the powers of the day before each of the past world wars.

America assumed that posture all through the early Hitler years. Most of the world's Jewish population can tell you today about the Holocaust that MIGHT have been avoided if America had stepped in earlier. But you see no one wanted to believe that Hitler was, could be, that evil. There were even those who said, "After a small conquest he'll stop. He's just solidifying his territory. Is that so wrong?"

Nor was he a direct threat to America. Why should we send Americans to die for England? Can't they defend themselves? Would you say that we should have not intervened when we did? I think not. There are those who said that we should have gotten in well before war took place. And we could have.

History correctly reflects that there were many who did not want us involved when we FINALLY jumped in. When you wait too long to take action the cost is always greater. Well the solutions for today are more exacting on the cost of life. So I would err to the side of not taking that hands off posture for year number 12 in Iraq. With war being a more possible outcome, and realizing that they can not win, should not you be critical of Saddam and his posture?

Generally before a fight, both sides look into the abyss of truth. The question here is not whether or not war is a good thing, but will you survive a loss? Do you honestly believe that Saddam is expecting a victory? Don't you think he is counting on the sympathizers to affect the other side here? He needs your help more than our military does.

He needs you to cry out for a different American strategy. He knows that should the course continue here, he will lose badly. He is not caring for the people or their futures. He is attempting to retain personal control. Let's be truthful here. This is no longer about right or wrong for him. :)
 
Good points and i have to honest with you, i do not trust the big three networks all that much...in fact, until fox and cnn came along, we had no choice but to believe whatever jennings, rather and brokaw spit out.....In fact, I love the fact that these networks and many politicians are suddenly very "afraid" of the upstart Fox news network....for nearly 50 years the big three were able to slant stories and present opinions as fact...now because of CNN and especially FOX, they can be proven wrong or biased and they don't like it..I just get nervous thought when articles from webs sites or webs magazines are quoted and you see there's little or no advertising or content on the site which makes me believe it's nothing more then a propaganda machine for that particular view point....and don't worry about "directing' things at me...I didn't major in Poli. sci. for nothing :p .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top