Iraq Striking First

[p_p_man]

Re: Heh heh.

I think Gunner was bein' sarcastic, big guy.

Yeah I know but it was easier to hang my post on his short one than to quote and then edit one of bigger and more appropriate ones.



ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

Such a situation could be probable, considering we surrendered the element of surprise.

TB4p

 

[bad kitty]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

however bk, the base line question of why now has never been answered. With me, it is not a Bush/Republican thing. I have a deeply rooted distrust for both major parties. Funny, I told my wife shortly after the attacks on NYC and DC when the wave of patriotism was whipping everyone into a comatose frenzy this will give Bush all the reasons he thinks he needs to wage war on any country that he deems a threat. If this was Clinton or, god forbide Gore, I'd be saying the same thing in the same situation. This is not about protection, this is about potenial colonialism. While I honestly feel Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, the precedent he is setting is one that very well may change the future and lead to many many wars. My sons are 8 and 4, I do not relish the thought of them fighting somewhere in a land that means diddly shit to me. Why now is what I've wanted to hear from the President for months now. Why now has never been answered.

I see what you are getting at. Actually the US fights many places that mean diddly shit to me, but ya know what? Everyone knows we are the strongest and they expect us to stand up and enforce what is right. The world make up the world's police and we are just filling the role.

You ask, why now? Why wait? The longer we wait the more plotting and building up Saddam can do. It was a tragic mistake to wait this long.

 

[bad kitty]

Re: Re: Re: Ugh.

Unfortunately I tend to want to discuss things rationally, even with people who are irrational.

I have the same problem. The key is remember who you are dealing with in specific posts.

 

[bad kitty]

You want an intelligent discussion? Pick a topic that isn't stupid.

Just because you don't understand it and/or agree with it doesn't make it stupid.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I see what you are getting at. Actually the US fights many places that mean diddly shit to me, but ya know what? Everyone knows we are the strongest and they expect us to stand up and enforce what is right. The world make up the world's police and we are just filling the role.

You ask, why now? Whay wait? The longer we wait the more plotting and building up Saddam can do. It was a tragic mistake to wait this long.

based upon what information? This government has tried for months to prove a direct link and the best they could come up with is a dude with a broken leg.

As to the "filling the role" bit, that is not constitutional. The federal goverments one and only purpose was protection of its peoples, not the worlds peoples.

 

[bad kitty]

based upon what information? This government has tried for months to prove a direct link and the best they could come up with is a dude with a broken leg.

As to the "filling the role" bit, that is not constitutional. The federal goverments one and only purpose was protection of its peoples, not the worlds peoples.

I don't believe this has anything to do with 9/11 if that is what you are getting at.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

I don't believe this has anything to do with 9/11 if that is what you are getting at.

unfortunately, yes it has everything to do with that date.

If not for that date we would not be having this discussion.

If not for that date friends of mine would not have been called up for active duty.

If not for that date Bush would have had no cause to take action.

If not for that date our tax monies would not be being wasted in an attempt to find a reason to attack.

If not for that date the UN would have laughed our asses out of NYC at the suggestion there needs to be all out war.

What else could possibly be the reason? The adminstration, as all do, are acting upon opportunity.

 

[bad kitty]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

unfortunately, yes it has everything to do with that date.
I disagree.

If not for that date we would not be having this discussion.
This may be true. Then people wouldn't be trying to insist that Bush is just wanting to bomb anyone in the middle east because of it. If[/] there is a 9/11 link in all of this I will guarantee you the reason hasn't been leaked to the press or the public, and it is more than likely genuine.

If not for that date friends of mine would not have been called up for active duty.
True. The people of America screamed for the military to do something and wanted to bash them for allowing it to happen in the first place.

If not for that date Bush would have had no cause to take action.
Have you totally ignored all of the noncompliances that are the reason for this?

If not for that date our tax monies would not be being wasted in an attempt to find a reason to attack.
Sorry, this one just made me giggle.

If not for that date the UN would have laughed our asses out of NYC at the suggestion there needs to be all out war.


What else could possibly be the reason? The adminstration, as all do, are acting upon opportunity.
Have you totally not listened to the reasons? Saddam has not complied in 12 years. he has been stubborn and continues to do what he wants to do behind the scenes.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

unfortunately, yes it has everything to do with that date.
I disagree.

If not for that date we would not be having this discussion.
This may be true. Then people wouldn't be trying to insist that Bush is just wanting to bomb anyone in the middle east because of it. If[/] there is a 9/11 link in all of this I will guarantee you the reason hasn't been leaked to the press or the public, and it is more than likely genuine.

If not for that date friends of mine would not have been called up for active duty.
True. The people of America screamed for the military to do something and wanted to bash them for allowing it to happen in the first place.

If not for that date Bush would have had no cause to take action.
Have you totally ignored all of the noncompliances that are the reason for this?

If not for that date our tax monies would not be being wasted in an attempt to find a reason to attack.
Sorry, this one just made me giggle.

If not for that date the UN would have laughed our asses out of NYC at the suggestion there needs to be all out war.


What else could possibly be the reason? The adminstration, as all do, are acting upon opportunity.
Have you totally not listened to the reasons? Saddam has not complied in 12 years. he has been stubborn and continues to do what he wants to do behind the scenes.

use all the rolling eye emotes you want, you know I am right in the fact that this has everything to do with that date.


It all leads back to the very simple base question that not a soul has been able to answer, why now?

The reasons are not non compliance. He was not complying in 1992 and nothing bad happend.

Oh, what sort of threat is Iraq to the US again?

 

[Frimost]

People seem to forget that military power is all relative, just because we can kick the crap out of Saddam Hussein dose no mean everyone can, Hell if Germany or France shared a border with Saddam they would probably be begging us on their hands and knees to do something about him! Saying that just because we can roll-up his forces means he is not a threat to the region is like saying just because Mike Tyson beat ‘Bonecrusher’ Smith means we could kick his ass too.

Despite defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq remains one of the largest military powers in the Middle East region.

But its potency has been severely undermined by more than a decade of sanctions, an arms embargo, and US and UK bombing.


"Iraq's inability to modernise means that much of its armed forces are now obsolete. Many units have uncertain readiness, and will be difficult to sustain in combat," a 2002 study by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported.

Despite numerical superiority in the region, most military analysts say that Iraq's forces would stand no chance against the United States, the most advanced military power in the world.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38953000/gif/_38953783_iraq_us_forces3_416.gif

 

[bad kitty]

[/I] use all the rolling eye emotes you want, you know I am right in the fact that this has everything to do with that date.

I totally disagree.

It all leads back to the very simple base question that not a soul has been able to answer, why now?

It has been answered, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

The reasons are not non compliance. He was not complying in 1992 and nothing bad happend.

Oh, what sort of threat is Iraq to the US again?

The reasons are noncompliance. Not everything is a conspiracy. Yes it has gone on too long which is why we should act. Why wait any longer? It is obvious that he isn't gonna comply. Why wait til he is a threat? Oh, wait, he is a threat to surrounding countries. Do you think we shoulda left Hitler alone too?

 

[brokenbrainwave]

what is there to acknowledge that is so bad our troops need to be put in harms way in these numbers?

This is an regional issue. There are ways to defeat him without all out war but our goverment, past and present, does not have the guts to take the hard way out.


If North Korea, in the words of our President is regional, then this also.

Seriously I am not refusing to see anything. I will admit there is a justification under the vast number of non complainces to wage war, but why must we be the ones? Force the locals to clean up this mess. It can be done.

 

[JazzManJim]

Jesus, I can't believe anybody is falling for this tripe.

I feel the same way about the other side.

 

[Frimost]

The locals do not have enough firepower too, nor the will to sustain the casualties and the protests from the street that would follow. Even a country that does have enough firepower like Turkey has so many other hostile neighbors that the mass of troops and equipment needed to overthrow Saddam would leave the homeland to weak to sustain an advantageous attack from Syria or Iran while they were bust, tied-up fighting Iraq’s military.

We never signed an armistice with Saddam, just a cease-fire, so technically any one of those violations could be a reason to return to war (even the “minor” acknowledged violations like importing tubes for multiple rocket launchers).

Iraq could still take Kuwait.

Iraq could defeat Saudi Arabia if we were not there to help them fend off an invasion.
Iraq could defeat Jordan.

Iraq could stalemate Iran and possibly even defeat her if the new Iranians squirming underneath the heel of the Mullahs did not heed the call for a draft after the war started and did not throw their support behind the Iranian regime.

Syria and Iraq have the same political party in control of their respective governments...

Who is left to deal with Iraq?

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

however bk, the base line question of why now has never been answered. With me, it is not a Bush/Republican thing. I have a deeply rooted distrust for both major parties. Funny, I told my wife shortly after the attacks on NYC and DC when the wave of patriotism was whipping everyone into a comatose frenzy this will give Bush all the reasons he thinks he needs to wage war on any country that he deems a threat. If this was Clinton or, god forbide Gore, I'd be saying the same thing in the same situation. This is not about protection, this is about potenial colonialism. While I honestly feel Bush thinks he is doing the right thing, the precedent he is setting is one that very well may change the future and lead to many many wars. My sons are 8 and 4, I do not relish the thought of them fighting somewhere in a land that means diddly shit to me. Why now is what I've wanted to hear from the President for months now. Why now has never been answered.

You saved me SO much typing BBW. Thank you.

 

[bad kitty]

what is there to acknowledge that is so bad our troops need to be put in harms way in these numbers?

This is an regional issue. There are ways to defeat him without all out war but our goverment, past and present, does not have the guts to take the hard way out.


If North Korea, in the words of our President is regional, then this also.

Seriously I am not refusing to see anything. I will admit there is a justification under the vast number of non complainces to wage war, but why must we be the ones? Force the locals to clean up this mess. It can be done.

Unfortunately we are always the ones. Everyone else is too wimpy todo it.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

You saved me SO much typing BBW. Thank you.

LOL.

someone has to be the daily whipping boy. Its the cliques way of keeping us in line.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

Everyone else is too wimpy todo it.

sadly, this is one of the most correct statements I have seen to date on this subject.

Then again, for emphasis sakes, I am just a nut job who's a states rights isolationist.

 

[Zmey]

Bah! Sadam isn't stupid. He knows that all this bullshit is only empty threats. Even if Bush starts the war without support of UN Iraq will get support of Europian countries witch is exactly what Sadam needs

 

[JazzManJim]

It all leads back to the very simple base question that not a soul has been able to answer, why now?

The reasons are not non compliance. He was not complying in 1992 and nothing bad happend.

Oh, what sort of threat is Iraq to the US again?

I'll answer that question.

It's not a matter of right now. Congress resolved in 1998 with the full approval of President Clinton that the official US policy toward Iraq would be that of regime change. That has not changed in the 5 years since. In fact, President Bush campaigned partially on that policy in support of it and pledged that he would actively pursue it.

Non-compliance was the stated reason in 1998. Knowledgeable people, with whom I fully agree, looked at Hussein's behavior over the previous 6 years and determined that he had no intent on ever disarming or keeping the other demands of the UN Resolutions in effect. They decided that his intransigence meant that the only way that the resolutions would work is if he were no longer in power.

As to the threat, Iraq does provide a rather serious threat to US interests. Though they do not have concrete direct links to Al-Qaeeda, they do not need them. they have conrete links to Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of those organizations share personnel, money, and material with Al-Qaeda freely and often. Thus, Iraq has a working link to Al-Qaeda. Thus Al-Qaeda has access to any weapon Iraq is able to provide.

The question to ask is how effectively can Iraq provide these weapons to Al-Qaeda? Considering the porous nature of the Iraqi border (which at times has allowed arms and vehicles to pass through unckecked), smuggling a small vial of anthrax of sarin is an easy scenario to imagine. Also, the repeated presence in Iraq of Al-Qaeda's leading toxin expert and the subsequent arrests of toxin-based cells in France and Britain shows that Iraq is at least providing safe haven to members of that organization who passes through. There is also credible evidence, attested to by both captured terrorists and defecting Iraqis that the country actively trains members of various terrorist groups in the manufacture and use of biological and chemical weapons. Thus far none of those groups have included Al-Qaeda, but they did include Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all of which have very close ties with Al-Qaeda.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq Striking First

LOL.

someone has to be the daily whipping boy. Its the cliques way of keeping us in line.

How could I have forgotten???

It is interesting to me that everyone answers the 'Why Now?' question with "Because he's been breaking the rules/killing people/wearing that stupid looking uniform for 15 years!

 

[The Plunger]

Do you have a solution, because the current one is not working

 

[brokenbrainwave]

a decent answer Jim, thanks. While I see that as rather an extreme chance, I am sticking with my notion of forcing his neighbors to deal with him. Peaceful measures, none of which have really been tried always trumps war. Sanctions against a tyrant are not peaceful measures. Putting international pressure on the entire region until they clean up their backyards are. If we are so strong and mighty, why has this venue not really been approached?

 

[CoolidgEffect]

Help me here. Did the current Bush administration give a shit about Iraq before Sept 2001? Or better, did they do anything about Iraq. I assume they were a threat to stability of the region, a danger to the world prior to spet 2001.