1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

State your Position: Iraq!

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Advocat, Jan 31, 2003.

  1. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    We've had a lot of discussion of late on the Iraq situation. In another thread, a member asked "Why don't they get it?", wondering why people don't get their viewpoint on Iraq.

    I think it's because we're really not fully understanding what the "other side" is saying... and maybe we're not really listening.

    So, let's find out what we're really thinking. :)

    What I'd like to propose is this: we use this thread, not to aruge who's right or wrong, but to come up with a statement of belief/arguement as to what each side (or all sides involved) believes to be true.

    So go ahead and argue as to whether individual points should or should not be added to each side's "statement of belief", but don't try and debate your side against the other.

    First we have to decide what the "sides" are, along with some questions to consider. For this discussion, I'd like to suggest:

    <b>Attack Iraq!</b>:
    We should attack Iraq because...
    We should ignore other options because...
    Defeating Iraq would/will...
    After defeating Iraq, I see this happening...

    <b>Middle Road</b>
    There may be reasons to attack Iraq. They are...
    There are concerns which should preclude attacking Iraq. They are...
    Not attacking Iraq could lead to...
    Attacking Iraq could lead to...
    Other options...

    <b>Don't Attack!</b>
    We shouldn't attack Iraq because...
    We should use other options because...
    Leaving Iraq alone will lead to...
    If we leave Iraq alone, I see this happening...

    Comments, thoughts, and additional "sides" are welcome!
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Great idea, Advocat. Shall make my case tonight. ;)
  3. Twingo

    Twingo Registered User

    Attack Iraq!:
    We should attack Iraq because... It'll be fun and make for some fun TV. Hell I haven't watched CNN in a while they need a ratings boost.
    We should ignore other options because... Cuz they're more boring and take way too long.
    Defeating Iraq would/will... Quench our bloodlust for at least a little while and let the rest of the world get back to normal.
    After defeating Iraq, I see this happening... Next on Fox, stupid people tricks and next week Saddam in Surreal Life 2.

    I do believe in attacking Iraq, but obviously the above is a joke. HopefullY i'll have time this weekend to make a legitimate post.
  4. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I must correct you. We are not fighting Iraq. We are fighting the Hussein Regime. Please be more specific, as your terminology adds only obfuscation.

    I've already stated my opinions elsewhere with great regularity, but in the spirit of this, I offer forth the following.

    We should attack Hussein because...
    They're in material breach of virtually every post-war resolution they agreed to. The UN has essentially admitted this without actually saying it; again, this is because admitting such confers the onus of taking appropriate action. Clearly, "smart" sanctions and diplomatic isolation have done nothing to deter the regime from changing its mind. And the sanctions, while certainly preventing the Hussein regime from obtaining high-end military goods, are only hurting the Iraqi people. Sanctions work only when the government they are aimed at cares for its people more than its prestige as a nation (witness the DPRK). If anyone here can offer any credible information which concludes it is the sanctions themselves which are hurting the Iraqi people and not the simple fact they are being hijacked by the Hussein regime, speak now and thrill me. Pardon me if I do not hold my breath.

    There's been much ado about missing chemical precursors, developed chembio stocks which are unaccounted for, and the niggling little vanishing act of some 29,984 ballistic chembio delivery devices. While the US has long beat this pony to death, Hans Blix has only manned up and said: "They're not telling us where this stuff is." The Iraqis maintain they have made a full and proper accounting, but even the UN is in disagreement. Because of this, we are again subjected to the laughable rhetoric of the Hussein regime, insisting the UNMOVIC inspectors are spies of the United States. Given the great chasm which is currently yawning between the US and the UN, one wonders if the Hussein regime also gets its substantive facts from The Onion like the Chinese do.

    The man has shown substantial willingness to use mass murder tactics on all who oppose him and his regime. He has carefully cultivated those who might follow his footsteps to use the same barbaric methods of coercion, death, mutilation, terror, murder, and rape to ensure his legacy. He has also shown a marked desire to expand his territory; one can look back to August 1990 when Kuwait disappeared overnight and became Iraq's Ninth Province. That this small fact is continuously overlooked is nothing more than a sterling example of insufficient character on the part of those who wish to avoid confronting Hussein. It is the hallmark of appeasers, those who shirk their duties to their various constituencies in particular and the world community in general. I am, of course, speaking of the French, Germans, and leftist apologists which can be found on every news program and on every corner, the selfsame people who have the duplicity to parade about with placards that read NO WAR FOR OIL one day and DEATH TO AMERICA the next.

    History does not lie regarding the results of the last Gulf War. Saddam Hussein's crack forces, the elite of the elite, veritable desert Superman complete with red capes and rocket booties, were shown to be incapable of manhandling my grandmother. Any sane national leader would doubtless learn his lessons from such an overwhelming defeat--Moe Khadaffy learned it from a single airstrike. But Hussein's ego knows no bounds; humiliation of any sort ignites only blood lust. He displays this lust by cheating and retreating from every deal, agreement, and accord he has accepted. He seeks out new missile technologies which are proscribed, so that he might develop weaponry he does not need to defend himself. He continuously challenges US and UK jets which enforce the no-fly zones, which his general staff--and, as we all know, he himself--agreed to in February 1991. He wishes the death of each and every Kurd and Shiite in Iraq, and without. He revelled in the death and destruction of 9/11, though it would be woeful of me to cite his poor manners as a reason for war. I mention it only to try one last final time to illustrate how vicious, cruel, and murderous this individual and his ilk are.

    All of the above are matters of public record. If readers here take issue with any of these points, they do so because they fear the truth of the matter. We have a word for this where I come from in Texas: Cowardice.

    We should ignore other options because...
    Unless I miss my guess, pretty much every option has been tried over the past 11.9 years. Diplomacy, inspections, sanctions, precision airstrikes, isolation, pandering, dismissal, evasion, strong talk, soft talk, hand-wringing, and abject pleading have all met with failure. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have anything left in my professional repertoire.

    Again, all of the above are matters of public record. To protest otherwise is self-delusion.

    Defeating Hussein would/will...
    Defeating Hussein will give the Iraqi people a chance to live again. It will give them the opportunity to shape their country to reflect them as a people, not as a single meglomaniac with max delusions of grandeur. If successful, it is likely democracy of one form or another will take root and grow; after all, the Iraqis have already tried the military dictatorship course, which didn't work out so well. They are likewise disinclined toward theocracy; they have seen what the mullahs have done to neighboring Iran, and it does not set well with them. A calm will return to the region; Turkey and a free Iraq will likely discover a political kinship. If a liberal democracy is put in place, the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south will likely find they have less to fight for; after all, most things will be delivered to them automatically, and the example set by Afghanistan does not seem suited to the Iraqi environment.

    It will also likely serve as a catalyst for change in the entire region. Iran has for the last two decades been seething with potential reform. War with Iraq is no longer a viable option; while the Iranians fought well and hard, they lost. Attacking an Iraq under American stewardship will likely not be successful. It's one thing to attack Iraq when its Iraqi soldiers flying Mi-24s; it's quite a different thing to be met by Iraqi Mi-24s backed by American Apaches. Iran will have two choices: return to its former self-imposed isolation, or modify itself to be more reflective of a changing environment. Nature has always been very cruel in this regard; those who can not or do not adapt, perish.

    Saudi Arabia...ah yes, the crown jewel of Islamic fundamentalism. How will they respond to a democratic--or just plain moderate--Iraq? Already, the princes and princelings of the Kingdom of Saud are filled with fear. They do not fear an attack against the Hussein regime, for they hate and despise the man violently. But they do fear their eminence will be eclipsed. It's no secret the US distrusts the Kingdom. If appropriate deals could be cut with Iraq for oil export, the Saudis lose not only the direct patronage of the US, but also its #1 purchaser of oil. Money is the only thing which keeps the tribe of Saud in power. They have also been a malignant, oppressive regime in their own way. How long will they be able to maintain their hold on the throne when US sponsorship switches to their northern neighbor?

    They too will have to change. They will have to accept that women can drive automobiles and speak out against their men. They will have to accept that Allah will assuredly take care of them in Heaven, but they have to watch over themselves here on Earth.

    After defeating Hussein, I see this happening...
    The Iraqis are likely to be happy. it'll be a new day for them. US involvement in the region will no longer be a casual, economic venture; it will now be a true socio-political venture as well. Saudi Arabia and Iran will be forced to change, as they refuse to work together, and neither has the might nor the will to risk US ire.

    At the same time, a clear and concise message is broadcast to the rest of the watching world: We Mean Business. Look for radical elements like al Qaeda and Hizbollah to scream and cry that it's all about death from the Crusaders; these cries will likely be echoed by that bastion of sensibility, Indonesia. But their claims will go unsubstantiated. Our actions will speak for those with the will to see.

    Malaysia will come in line with the US. They fear Indonesia, and always have; they will look to the US to buttress them from the radicalism seething in their Muslim neighbor. Our Singaporean allies will be key here; while relations between the US and Malaysia are strained, between Singapore and Malaysia they are anything but. And Malaysia well knows that Singapore is a de facto protectorate of the US. They will listen to the Singaporeans, because it saves them face and gives them an easy way out.

    China will be restless and discontent. China sees any American intervention as a personal affront, be it necessary or not. In this, China sets itself for a collision with the West for which it is not--and never will be, in my lifetime--prepared. China wishes very much to be an empire again, and has not reconciled that there is already an empire in existence, albeit a reluctant one.

    If required, I can post links to previous presentations on these same issues elsewhere.

    I very much look forward to a rebuttal which has a chance in hell of standing up against the facts. And please, none of this "We're going for their oil" nonsense. We had a 12-hour drive from Baghdad last time and already occupied the oil fields in 1991. If we'd wanted them, they would have been ours. So try and be a little more original...and realistic.

  5. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Point taken and clarification made; Saddam and company are the targets. However, we must note that if the coalition goes ahead, it won't it be just Saddam it invades (now <b>there's</b> an image I'll have to get out of my mind! ;) ), it will be Iraq the country which is moved on... but you're right, some people could construe a subliminal bias in my original wording.

    Not my intent. Should we say, "Moving on the Hussein Regime in Iraq"?

  6. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Would be fine.

  7. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    We should not attack Iraq. Why?

    1. If we just start invading countries without declaration of war to oust world leaders, that doesn't exactly put us on a moral high ground.

    2. We piss off more Arabs than we've already pisssed off. Not that I care what the Arabs think, except for their tendency to go on suicide missions...

    3. Except for money being paid to suicide bombers, I still haven't seen any terrorist ties to Iraq. Sure they might have WOMD but I'm not seeing the terrorists, which we seem to be using as a justification for going after them.

    4. Bush is making it too personal. "He tried to kill my daddy" It makes it seem as if he's just out for revenge, not fixing up the worlds problems.

    5. A "liberation" mission is useless if the people don't want to be liberated. I've heard of no entity like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that really wants to oust Saddam. We could end up with another wackjob in control after the war.

    6. When was the last time Iraq launched an attack on the US?
  8. civax

    civax Main-Monkey

    Well, I don't know if I'm qualified to answer the question, being an Israeli with every reason in the world to see one of hour active enemies no longer poses a threat.

    I'll try to stick to the formal requested answer, though... :)

    We should attack Saddam because...
    He poses a threat to the area. Actually, he's not only poses a threat - he's an ACTIVE aggressing force in the area. He funds terrorist actions in Israel and continues to fire the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with money, agents and training. He already fired missiles on Israel during the first Gulf War - when Israel was not even a side in the war. He used Chemical Gas on his own people for testing and to crush resistance. There is absolutely no doubts he will not hesitate to use and distribute nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons once in his hands. This war is a preventative measure to make sure he'll be eliminated while still weak and easy to handle, and before he'll be a serious threat to the rest of the world. Preventing a 3rd World War should make every nation realize it got to be alert through out the world for possible starting points.

    We should ignore other options because...
    We shouldn't ignore other option - those options were tried and failed. It's not about rushing to combat, it's about fighting as a last resort. And it is a last resort now.

    Defeating Iraq would/will...
    Be very easy, but winning the whole campaign will be extremely hard. The war should leave a solid State/states in the place of Iraq, to prevent vacuum and chaos which will further increase instability in the region. This is extremely difficult as Iraq is made of various minorities with a lot of hate to each other and a long memory. Read <a href="http://www.jrep.com/Columnists/Article-0.html">this article</a> by Ehud Ya'ari, one of the most senior reporters in Israel which specialize in Arab issues.

    After defeating Iraq, I see this happening...
    The raise of 2-3 smaller states, with pseudo-democracy. The are will be unstable for a while and the west will have to stream a considerable amount of money to stabilize the region long enough for those states to be fully accepted (not just accepted formally). I hope that Syria and Iran will get the clue and stop financing and supporting terror, but I'm too realistic to think it will really happen.

    All in all I HOPE the post-war situation will be better, but I'm not to optimistic. I *AM* sure that avoiding this war now will only cause extremely bad situation, where the world will find himself forced to attack Iraq eventually, only that this time Iraq will have nukes and will not hesitate to use them (or sell/give technology to terrorist groups).
  9. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    Thanks, Civax! That was a great piece, and your thoughts on post-war Iraq were particularly interesting! :thumbsup:
  10. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    <B>We should attack Hussein's regime because...</B>
    Despite thoughts to the contrary, he does pose a valid threat to the continental United States. If we haven't learned anything from 9-11, we should have learned this: In our modern, porous, high speed world, infiltration is not only possible, but simple. If we ever want to get back to the point of being able to fly without Granny being patted down, if we ever want to go to a baseball game without worrying about some crop duster full of anthrax being flown over the crowd, we have to put the world on notice that if you subscribe to these types of tactics, we'll kick your ass, your buddy's ass, your mom's ass. Nothing less will be respected.

    And out of that respect comes peace. I see the post war scenario as being peaceful. Once that happens, the stabilization of the Middle East, the nasty-machine can be turned on North Korea. Not that we need to be invasive there, but the mere threat and resolve to do what must be done will be a most powerful deterrent to keep that ignorant bad-hair-do in check.

    <B>We should ignore other options because...</B>
    There are no other options. They've run out. Every other option has been tried and failed. Hussein is an egomaniac who cares not a whim for the health and welfare of his nation, and cannot be reasoned with.

    <B>Defeating the Hussein regime would/will...</B>
    Send notice to rogue nations of solidarity among the people of the United States, that we may bicker amongst ourselves but in the end we'll still whip your ass if you don't play nice. Such is democracy.

    <B>After defeating Iraq, I see this happening...</B>
    Things will stabilize. I don't think the rest of the world will be able to deny the benefits and keep a straight face. The Chinese won't appreciate the results, because anything damaging to the US furthers their ends, and the French will be left in a diplomatic quandry, having squandered every bit of their leverage... But of course, they'll still whine. Only it will be during peace time, and the world economy can begin to rebound from the emotional roller-coaster.
  11. civax

    civax Main-Monkey

    I think both Steve and copzilla are being way way too optimistic about the post-war situation. If you guys think the Iraqi people (and mind you, there is hardly such a thing - these are saperated, mostly hostile, groups) are going to thank the US and run to build a democracy you're bloody wrong. First, none of them know what a democracy is. The country had been under a dictatorship for years and years, the people do NOT know any other way. In addition, where exactly have you ever seen a democratic arab country? The only one which comes close to this is Egypt, which isn't your typical democracy, and does suffers threats from within.

    In addition, the US army will find it very hard to control the various groups from massacaring each other. Look at the war Israel had in lebanon. Look at Sabra and Shatila. This is not going to be an easy task, people. And certainly isn't going to lead the world into a sudden golden age.

    You'd be right if all nations in the world had your and mine logic. But it's the middle east here, people. Things work by different rules here. sorry.
  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    We'll know it when we get there, Civ. If the Iraqis don't reason and work for their common good, it's their ball game to play.

  13. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Civ, you operating under the assumption that I disagree with that notion. Personally, I don't care if another dictatorship takes the reigns, so long as he doesn't torment his people and he plays nice.

    An elected representative would be nice, but I know Rome wasn't built in a day. The stabilization comes from getting the tyrant out of power. Everything else can be worked on peacefully.

    I understand that from your position, peace may be a very different perspective. The terrorists will be there still, for certain. But the threat of bio attack on our nation becomes dramatically reduced.
  14. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Just as a reminder, this is just a "post your points thread". We'll debate it in another. ;)
  15. cdw

    cdw Ahhhh...the good life.

    Attack Iraq!:
    We should attack Iraq because...
    We should ignore other options because...
    Defeating Iraq would/will...
    After defeating Iraq, I see this happening...

    I think we should dispose of the Hussein regime, but since we can't seem to just pick particular people off, we have to attack.
    I believe that he is power hungry and dangerous to world's well being. I believe that he has WMD. I believe he not only has aided terrorist, he IS one.

    I don't think we are ignoring other options. I don't think there are any anymore.

    Cutting him loose would enable us and our allies to help into power a more rational, workable government.

    I'm not sure what would happen once we defeated him. But it won't cure all our ills...that I'm sure of.
  16. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Come on, people...let's hear from you!

  17. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    We should attack Iraq because:

    Iraq is and has been in material breach of the U.N. resolutions regarding its disarmament. It is in material breach of the U.N. resolutions everytime it paints a U.S. or British aircraft in the no fly zones and attacks our drones.

    The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that they continue with research into banned weapons and this alone would be reason enough to go in.

    Sufficient linkage exists between Huessein and Al Qaeda to warrant Saddam's removal and it is in the best interests of the region and the world for him to go.

    We should ignore other options because:

    The other options have been tried and Huessein continues to play the shell game, obfuscate and relocate.

    Defeating Iraq Will:

    Provide the ability to find and remove the banned weapons, their precursors, the documentation and the knowledge from the country. It will provide some additional stability to the region in the sense that one of the more destabilizing influences has been removed. Iraq is a source of financing for Hamas and other organizations bent on terrorism. One major checking account closed.

    After The Downfall of Huessein

    The people of Iraq will have some choices. It may well become two countries, with Kurdistan in the north and Iraq in the south. No matter what, the people will be given the opportunity to join 21st century civilization with some form of representative government...if they can work through their prediliction for tribal warfare. They will at least be given a choice and a chance to make something for themselves.
  18. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    We should attack Iraq. Iraq has WMD in the form of bio and/or chemical weapons at a minimum. In an attempt to keep power, Saddam agreed to unfettered inspections. He broke that portion of the truce immediately and repeatedly. If he did not have WMD all he has to do is quit impeding the inspectors.

    In the agreement ending the Gulf War Saddam agreed to no fly zones. He is shooting at and attempting to kill American and British pilots daily.

    In the agreement ending the Gulf War Saddam asked for helicopter flights for humanitarian reasons. He is using the helicopter flights to kill and suppress his people.

    The UN allowed Saddam to export oil to provide food for his people. Saddam has used this money to repair damaged palaces and to build new palaces.

    Saddam has never made one move to comply with UN resolutions and the truce unless under threat. Even then he has lied with such transparency one can only conclude he holds the UN in total contempt.

    Iraq, under Saddam's leadership, has backed terrorist attacks against the United Stated in the embassy bombings, the attack on the US Cole and the attempted assassination of a US president.

    In my opinion Bill Clinton's legacy of shame should rest much more on his failure to act in the above instances than in any lying about his juvenile sexual harassment of women. And women, those charges should have had him kicked out of office. Not the BJ with Monica, the other cases and the lying before the country.

    We should ignore other options because we have tried them and they did not work. He is laughing at the whole world over his ability to get by with his antics.

    After defeating Iraq I would hope we would work with all factions in the country to establish a new government. Once it is in place we should leave and allow them their sovereignty.

    <b>Before leaving we should make very clear that we want a percentage of their oil profits until our cost of this war has been repaid. I would not want these reparations to be so high as to impede their economy, but we should be repaid.</b>
  19. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    Take him out

    Hussein and his followers are a disease. They are breeding hate and could become an even bigger threat then Hitler. He's known to support terrorism and has not abided by the rules that were asked of him, to insure peace. It's obvious that he wants nothing to do with democracy....his way of handling voting is just one example. He thinks nothing of killing his own people so it proves just how little human life means to him. His intense dislike for Israel and his terrorist allies in nearby nations, lead me to believe that he will join the Jihad which has been declared on our country but since he seems slightly smarter with strategy, he has tried to appease us in a minor way to keep us thinking he is neutral...when we know that he is the real threat and is the one who is behind this all. I have faith in my heart that it has been him we should have killed from the day that the towers were brought down. Obviously I was not alone in my assumptions or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. This is the Middle East's vendetta for us butting into the affairs concerning Palestine/Israel.

    There is no other option except to beg that Israel picks up and moves their nation out of that area and then they win. They will then think they can bully anyone who they don't like.

    Defeating them will not stop this Jihad. This war will go on for hundreds of thousands of years as we've seen with the hate for the people of Israel has been in the past, or it will ended by a mad man who pushes a button and ends life as we know it. Realistically this war can never be won and we will be left to control an area with non stop occupation forever, which would mean we would have to civilize and modernize that area by taking it over and turning it into an extended US territory.

    After defeating Iraq, I see other middle eastern countries either getting scared and siding with us, or getting rabid and joining in the Jihad. I see Israel and the United States in talks which would divide up what we know now as the Middle East. I also have a weird feeling that Egypt will play a substantial role in the way things go down in that area and just as there is fighting now in Israel between the Palestine nation and Israel, I see Egypt wanting to control how it all goes down and where Israel will stand in exchange for total peace. I see us in a new situation based on the fact that Israel will not want to deal with Egypt. I see it all happening all over again over and over and over. Same area...same backgrounds but different spur offs of people who were once Iraqi or whatever, who have migrated and new names for them.

    I see no end to this unless there is total control over that area and the United States take over all together and governs it, to insure it can never happen again. It will mean a never ending battle even if we occupy the area, as there is always going to be some Bin Laden who gets strong in a cave and comes out to fight the Jihad.

    I believe in my heart that this is not happening because of oil, it's happening because of Israel and those who oppose it being there. Oil would just make a nation rich but the thought that a rich or poor nation would have in this prejudice, will never change. If iraq had no money it might make it easier to fight them and keep them from attempting their oppression and destruction over that area but it's not going to stop what they think in their heart. There's always going to be a way for them to get money and their reason for it will never change.

    Now I might just be talkin out of my ass but I'm saying this from what I feel on all this. Like a sixth sense kinda thing. I'm kinda shy with my opinions on this stuff but this is what I really think from what I know, which might not be much but I'm being honest :)
  20. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    We should attack Iraq because it is the right thing to do in the current environment and new order of the way the world works.

    Until the past 20 years conflicts were between sovereign nations. No longer. Now it is between shadowy entities, terrorists, cultures, and pseudo-nations such as the Palestinians. The closest model is that of clan warfare. It is personal and driven by hate as opposed to cold-blooded empire building.

    War at the national level is no longer a political act perpetrated by the military of a country as defined in days gone by. Now it is lets get even or get attention. Terrorist for hire! Email us at www.terrorist.org. No longer will our armed forces attack your fleet or invade your country. No, we will fly planes into skyscrapers or send wave after wave of suicide bombers. We will poison you water and put Anthrax in your mail system.

    Terrorism and attacks by proxy is the future and new preventative methods must be implemented to protect the United States.

    Al Qaeda type terrorist organizations are very limited as to what they can do as a stand-alone entity. They need the political and logistical support of nations such as Iraq. To effectively combat terrorist we must clearly demonstrate to the world that if as a nation or government you support terrorist attacks on us then we are coming to get you. Yes, that means a proactive or preemptive attack at times. And what is wrong with that? Did the Taliban or Afghanistan attack us. Not directly but they were the nexus for 9/11 in their overt and blatant support for bin Laden. Do you think the destruction of the Taliban and the absence of bin Laden since 9/11 is a coincidence?

    In 1967 Israel attacked Arab armed forces and defeated them in six days. So was that an act of aggression by the Israelis? Not in the least. They had for months been monitoring the military activities of certain Arab nations and when it was clear those countries were about to attack and invade Israel, the IDF acted and the country was saved. Literally! They didn't take a vote to declare war or have public debate. They didnt ask the UN for permission. Had they done so they wouldnt have been around to hear the answer, which by the way would have been no anyway!

    The Israelis without any direct threat or provocation by Iraq attacked and destroyed its nuclear reactor in 1981. Had they not done so Hussein would have had nuclear weapons long before the Gulf War and would have attempted to use them on Iran, Israel, or both! He would have gone into the nukes R Us business and his customers would have included bin Laden. What do you think bin Laden would have done with them?

    Wake up people--time changes all and its a new game. Evolve or become extinct.

    But wait you say, we are hated around the world and by attacking the Iraqis we will only make people hate us more! Quite possibly! But they already hate us and do so more because of culture clash, (that clan thing again), and other reasons for which we are not responsible and cannot control. They will always hate or dislike us no matter what we do or dont do. They will always either be our enemies or sympathetic to those who are.

    Saddam has shown that he has all the weapons he is accused of having with the possible exception of nuclear. He has shown his willingness to use them on his own people and other Islamic and or Arab neighbors. We know that he hates Israel. We are Israels closest friends! He has made it clear how he feels about us.

    One of the most revealing things about Saddams use of chemical weapons on the Kurds was not just that he used them, but why.

    Most folks I suspect have never thought about it. He used his chemical weapons on the Kurds as an experiment or test. He wanted to see how well his weapons worked and to learn from the exercise so he could better use them in the future. True and scary stuff if you think about it. He didn't gas the Kurds because they were a threat, he gassed them because he needed some lab rats.

    It is an imperfect world and not every problem has an ideal solution! No matter what one does an innocent person will be harmed even in those actions considerably short of war! But to do nothing is even worse! We should decide responsibly what is best for us. The alternative is to let others decide and Ive already spoken to how others feel about us and why.

    Attacking Iraq will not only rid us of a current mortal enemy but will send a message to our enemies throughout the world. A message that the global rules and situations have changed and so have we in response! Responses that will make them think twice about whether or not to attack us or assist those that would. They will realize that attack by proxy will carry the same penalty as a direct attack. (Remember JFK's words to the Soviet Union about any missile launched from Cuba against the United States?)

    If it comes down between others or us to decide our fate and actions, I vote us!

Share This Page