thoughts on war with Iraq

[DBLang]

The UN needs to get on the ball and put weapons inspectors in there ASAP or make a new resolution authorizing an invasion. If they dont not only will they risk letting a buildup continue, but they also risk the US and Britain going in any way. Sure they can get the job done, but its not going to be good for foreign policy. You have to realize there are almost 6 billion people on this earth that are not British or American. Justified or not we will look like aggressors for invading a soverign nation that has not openly attacked us. They violated UN not US resolutions remember.

I really have mixed feelings about what needs to be done. But nothing is ever cut and dry. Look at me, i sound like a politician[]

 

[Dave Shutter]

I think it's time to finish the job that should have been done right the first time. Saddam has a 20+ yr track record of agression. I've seen nothign but UN inspectors on the news the last few weeks testifying that he has scores of weapons facilities that have been operating untouched an unabated for years. Everyone is in an uproar about how our guard was lowered, the intelligence community deteriorated and the warning signs of 9/11 were ignored. Of course the liberal media won't add 2+2 and criticise the last administration for any of this, that's blasphemy to them, but we've got a whole new set of warning signs right now. I don't think we should wait for a plutonium flavored U-haul bomb to go off in a major city before we act.

Saddam + weapons of mass destruction + Al Queda...hmmm, where's my calculator? [!]

 

[JTP]

UF GATOR WANNA BE?

Dave, that is an insult. You must have Wick remove that.

GO DAWGS!!

 

[The Wiz]

every new topic i start turns into a "hot" one, damn I'm good

 

[Valion310]

Well, this will go in the toilet like 99% of my other posts do, but here's my useless thoughts.

I'll go, I just have a feeling this will turn into a political Vietnam War and not what it is suppose to be. If we go, lets go with the full might of the US military, CENSORED NATO ... they are useless. Al Quida, nuke's, votes, whatever ... lets get over there, do the damn job and get our men and woman home.

"Valion310 squawking 7600 ..."

 

[antisnook]

My oppinion, (which I hear isnt good to have in the military):

Sure, the UN must be allowed to enter for weapons of mass destruction. I dont know how those inspections are actually carried out, and something tells me that Saddam isnt just going to expose their storage sites. I dont know about you guys, but UN weapons inspections isnt enough for me. I think Saddam could simply evade the discovery of weapons. Regardless of the inspection results Bush is going to send us. This, I feel is definately a good thing, because Saddam is purely a lunatic, due to the fact that he has no remorse for his own people, let alone his own family! -(Yeah, he did try to kill his own son). OK, so we go in and take out Saddam at the expense of many US troops and innocent civilians. Even though innocent civilians are going to die, I feel that if we have a post-attack solution which would replace Saddam with a regime that cares about their own people, then the Iraqi civilians would appreciate our efforts. If we dont rebuild Iraq's gov't after ousting Saddam its going to be just a matter of time before some other mad-man with a brain decides to sustain havoc on the world, which will result in a cycle where we lose more troops while killing civilians. Therefore, we must think quickly on our attack along with the regime changes. This of which, will allow for short and long term solutions, as well as more universal support for our military strike. I havent heard a thing from Bush about what his plan is after the attack. Yes, I agree with the priority of his "pre-emptive attack", but we must think a little more long term.

 

[Goliath112]

man I think that they'll "go in..win and leave" just like last time. I think that it will be more of a political victory than anything. I don't see it stopping terrorism though. and as far as Iraqi's appreciating any new regime efforts ... I'd say that's crazy.. after all we did bomb the hell out of Baghdad 12 years ago and have been ever since. I'm not against us fighting Iraq again but, I don't feel that people should have any false notions about what it will accomplish. Also I think we all realize the suffering that it will bring to the people in that region. yes yes yes.. "what about the WTC and the Pentagon" well hey I guess life really isn't fair.


man the wait is killing me

 

[E5B]

Whatever ends up happening, I have a bad feeling that its gonna be Vietnam all over again. Meaning....all the civies that put a flag on their house and on their vehicle after 911 are gonna start wearing peace signs and bad mouthing us. Its already happening to a certain extent. This angers me! I've done good so far about keeping my cool, several civies have asked me "why", and I try to explain "We don't make the decisions, we carry out the mission(s)". I hope I'm all wrong about this, what do ya'll think?

BTW...I think that we should educate SADDAM.........

"You forgot your furtune cookie"

Dirty Harry

 

[E5B]

with one of our SMART BOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JTP]

I saw on the news yesterday that Saddam hasn't been seen publicly in a longtime. The FBI has verified through photo analysis that he has atleast 3 different imposters that make "his" appearances and speeches. Has anyone else heard this, or agree/disagree? If this is true, who in the hell do we kill, 4 Saddam's?

GO DAWGS!!

 

[ghost_ttu]

I guess the job security as a Saddam stand-in kinda sucks right about now.

"praying to the SNA board gods couldn't hurt...."

 

[Tessone]

I have heard that from fairly reputable sources. According to the image analysis, Saddam himself hasn't been seen on television anywhere since 1998.

Personally, what bugs me are all the people writing in to newspapers saying we "shouldn't send our young people to die" and nonsense like that. I haven't seen such a letter from anyone *inside* the military--why won't the folks back home let men and women in uniform do their jobs?


--
Chris Tessone
http://www.polyglut.net/

 

[Banjo33]

I totally understand what Rumsfield was saying when he mentioned that in years past, we always reacted to incidents involving national security (Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, etc). But, if we wait for a "smoking gun," then it's already too late. It's easier to measure success when a "group" acts and we react, but when we stop terrorism before it happens it's much more difficult to define the success. Same thing with Saddam. If we wait for him to act, then we're already too late. If anything (whether he has NBC weapons or not), he has shown the Propensity to manufacture them and use them. That should be plenty enough reason to go in and take him out. Besides the point that he goes about his business without any regard to the sanctions placed on him at the end of the Gulf War. No doubt this will be a long and difficult battle, that international as well as local support will be difficult to come by, and that success will be difficult to measure. But, it needs to happen. I know that we live in a Democracy, but the American people I'm afraid, are relatively naive. If they can go about their daily routine without too much interruption, then they are happy. But, we have Americans all over the world, as well as Allies, that can't go about their daily routine or are in danger of having the world they live in upset -- we have to prevent that.

My .02.

I'm now stepping off the soap box.

 

[Tessone]

That's very true about not seeing the results of prevention.

During my international relations class today, my professor mentioned the thwarted terrorist attacks that were supposed to happen around the millenium (esp. in Seattle). Some dim-witted girl in my class said, "Yeah, but that just postponed the attack til Sept. 11th". People don't understand that there are many groups planning many attacks constantly. The CIA, FBI, and friends do their jobs very well, but people get angry at them when an attack slips through, no matter how many they've prevented in the past.


--
Chris Tessone
http://www.polyglut.net/

 

[Buck]

Okay, okay. There are many political, ideological, and humanitarian pathways that I could use to back up my response. However, I will not employ them in any way. I believe we should go after Saddam, but not in the usual way we work, because, for the obvious reason, it will not work. Another regime will come up from this, be buddy, buddy with us, then backstab us. What we should concentrate more on is making an example out of Sad man, or Saddam. Humiliate him so badly and disgracefully, that when the next regime comes in, they will get nightmares if we even thought they were going to backstab us. Make them so scared, that they don't want to mess with us even if a dumbarse like John Bobbit were to run the country. That's what I think.