strike on iraq

Originally posted by canyonman00



You advocate holding the sanctions line. ....

How many years of the inspectors being thwarted would constitute them having done their job as best as they can? And while they can't evidence anything, they also will not say that they are sure that things are as they seem. Then what do you do?

And remember, there would be fifteen or more years of additional starvation, death, suffrage, etc., in the minds of another generation of the Iraqi people.
More...

I guess I have not made myself clear. I think that an attack MUST be strongly considered. I also think that the past 11 years have been wasteful because we did not have a serious policy with which to truly get Saddam's back against the wall. Why would he cooperate if he knew he could get away without doing it? I believe this "mandate" may achieve the goal of making him realize he has no more room to get away with his deceit and lies. At least I hope so. If the threat does not work, then action would be justified. As long as we can do it in a way that will appear clean and just to the world. We should be able to come up with an approach and valid reasoning so as not to alienate more of the world than we already have. Last thing we want to do is create more "martyrs" and more terrorist reprisals. This is a delicate situation. If it were not, it would have been over long ago.

MD
 
Originally posted by MondoTrader
Max, thanks for arguing semantics with these guys. They are worse than Clinton.
More...
John Birch thanking Pat Buchanon.
 
Originally posted by marcD


Max, what would you consider an example of an "extreme left" position from the posts here? Just curious if you don't mind. I don't mean a cut and paste long drawn out thing. I mean a concise example of the "mantra" to which you refer.

Thanks, if you can help me understand exactly what you mean.

MD
More...

hehe, this seems to have gone on all through the weekend, hmm.

marcD, maybe max doesn't appreciate the fact that some are pointing out that we have more serious problems to address than starting a war, where containment would just as easily do the trick.

a0Cf+Y=

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...r=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1385880-5189448?v=glance

The Guardian

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'

Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence

President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------

and, what's been argued here quite a bit already, that striking saddam could very well be counterproductive:

The New York Times

C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror

...But a new element was injected into the debate by a C.I.A. assessment that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of an attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force.

The judgment was contained in a letter signed by the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, on behalf of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. It was alluded to in a hearing of a Congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and then released tonight, after the House opened its debate on Iraq.

The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States.

"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

i mean, it's just common sense, after all.:D

brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
 
Originally posted by MondoTrader
lol, this has become pretty funny actually.

I'm moving on to other threads where the issue hasn't been decided yet. see ya !
More...

Yes, and a big thank you to vvv for determining the correct course for America. Ta Ta!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top