Iraq War

[Bob Hubbard]

Let me see if I understand the global situation:

IRAQ:
-Is suspected of having weapons of mass destruction
-is suspected of having a secret nuclear program
-is suspected of having the delivery means to use WMD to hit about 100-200 miles away...not much farther.
-is allowing survelience of their country (now)
-is allowing inspectors to go where they will
-is cooperating (somewhat) with working things out (outta the knowledge that now is not the time to act tough)

N.KOREA:
-HAS WoMD
-HAS a nuclear program
-HAS the means to drop a nuke on LA.
-HAS expelled inspectors
-IS Mobilizing for a fight


Umm...anyone else understand why we are aimed at the 'maybe' vs the 'definite'?

Think it might have something to do with that black liquid and related transport routes that Iraq has, that NKorea dont?

Hmm.....


Hows this for proof?
Let the inspectors do their job and either find enough to convict or else report back that they were denied access.

Putting it another way, youre a cop. You hear gunfire on the other side of a fence. there are 2 guys there. One says "Nice gun huh?" and holds it up, with smoke still drifting from the barrel. Other guy (whose wearing a rolex) says, 'I got no gun'. But you remember his talking smack about your dad. So, what do you do?

If you are George W. Bush, you get someone else to beat up the guy without the gun, while totally ignoring the guy with the firearm. Oh, and you take the rolex while youre at it.

:asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

That said...the question is, do we need the 'support' of the UN to attack?

Yes and No.

Yes - because we are a member nation, who has agreed to certain requirements as part of that organization. This matter is under the juristiction of the UN and should be handled there.

No - if the UN ceases to be a body that can handle these types of issues, then the US should Withdraw! from the organization, and go it alone.

If I remember right, the US witdrawing from the ineffectual League of Nations was a factor in its dismanteling. (Someone correct me if Im mistaken here please)

If the proof is there, (real proof, not manufactured proof), and the UN just wants to sit around n talk for ever, then by all means, take the bastards out. But given that there are an equal number of other targets just as good as, if not more of a 'danger' than Iraq, someone needs to answer the question of why him, rathert than the others....besides the hard on W has for Sadamy that is....

 

[Rich Parsons]

Kaith,

I think you might be using the proceeds from the board to help some other than Red Blooded Americans. Therfore you and everything about you should be brought to a quick and painful end.


NOT!

Boy, if all it took were claims then the bill of rights means nothing.
Can someone say McCarthy? (sp)

Personally I think that the U.N. should have allowed the Gulf War to be brought to an end by the Allied oocupation of Iraq. If the Kuwaiti and Saudi troops did the occupying then there would not have been as big a back lash to the U.S.A. Yet it was not allowed for anyone to occupy Iraq. Now we are here.


As for the Iraq vs N. Korea thing, it was stated previously, ( I cannot remember by whom sorry *) that there are U.N. Sanctions active against the country of Iraq and that there are none against N. Korea. Therefore the U.N. is reacting to the sanctions. I agree with this process for it is what the U.N. has agreed too. I also believe that sanctions should be brought against N. Korea and inspectors allowed back in. Yet, this is my opinion. Also, as Kaith stated, N. Korea probably believes that the U.N. does not represent their best interests and therefore are going it alone.

I do hope that the human race survives. Just my opinion

 

[Elfan]

Originally posted by Jas
If any of these countries ever get the power to destroy us they will, so why not destroy them while we still have some power left.

Since WWII no nation, including murder's on a scale to witch Sadam can hardly compare, has used Nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence. That's all they are good for, keeping Nation's from invading each other, which is a good thing.

I am so sick of people who have never served this nation claiming the rights they think they deserve and then questioning the govt. when its time to go fight for those same rights.

I fail to see how invading Iraq would increase or even preserve freedom in the US. If the actions of the Justice department under John Ashcroft thus far are anything to go by it will *decrease* freedom.

BTW If military service is to be considered a prerequisite for questioning the government, wouldn't it be desirable for high ranking government officials to have served themselves? That is not the case in this administration.

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

 

[Bob Hubbard]

:soapbox:

My family has served, my family has bleed, my familiy has paid the price many times. I have friends who were in the last Gulf conflict, I have freinds who are -still- in Afghanastan. Many of my friends from HS went into different branches...some never returned.

They paid a price so that folks like me have the ability to say whats on our mind. People think the government is in charge...WRONG!!!!!!!!!

-WE- are -SUPPOSED- to be the government..... "BY the people, FOR the people..." Not "By some out of touch folks who do what they want anyways..."

There are huge protests all over this country (and the world, but they dont count in this exercize) screaming against a war with Iraq.... they are compared to a small bunch of whiners, and a 'focus group'. Do the people whose hands are on the buttons have -any- clue whats going on in the real world? Or do they just follow thier own agenda, and we are so many numbers on a computer screen?

This president has the -unconstitutional- ability to declare war, because our supposedly educated and intellegnet leaders were busy pissing themselves in fear. The Supreme Court will not strike down that -unconstitutional- law as they are the same individuals who selected the winner in the last so-called election...not us, not -THE PEOPLE-. Congress is just now starting to wake up, however the majority of them will not (for whatever reason) do anything about it. Too easy to just keep heading down the road to hell.

I'll agree, Iraq had sanctions, NV did not, HOWEVER!, the argument being given is that IRAQ presents a Clear and Present Danger....my question is, N.V does not? NV does not present a more apparent danger?

Who is more dangerous?
The guy with the gun, locked n loaded n pointed at your head,
or the guy with both hands up, no weapon in sight?

The US will shoulder the major burden of this attack. It is our money being sent oversees to bribe countries in exchange for staging areas, it is our men and women who are heading into peril, many never to return to these shores. It is our families that will be torn apart. Not GW's, not Powells, not Cheneys. Ours! Not the bloody French, not the Germans, not even the British. 90+% of this is on the US Armed forces and no where else. The Canadians, who have backed us every step of the way have said 'Not without UN ok'. Japan is with us...in spirit. Maybe they can send a few cops to stand guard over the POWs. But they wont field so much as a platoon in combat. I wouldnt bet too much on Britain either....it seems like the only Brit who wants to go all out is Blair....the rest of his gov. is against it.

So its just us. We have the most technologically advanced army in the world, second in size only to the Chinese. But, can we really go it alone, when the world only grows more hostile towards us due to 'cowboy diplomacy'?

What I want to know is.... is the price -WE- are going to pay in blood, sweat, tears and lives worth it? Are we truely fighting for freedom, or just so Dick Cheney can make a few more bucks on his dividends?

I will continue to speak out against this 'war for money' until I can see it as something other than that. Announce youve found some nukes, a biowarefare plant, a cruise missile, hell, Jimmy Hoffa. And then I'll rethink my position...because, I can think for myself...I do not go blindly on what my supposed government, or political party, or whomever says. I will look at the issue from all sides, weigh out the evidence and materials, and then, make up my own mind.

I'm an American....my family, friends and ancestors fought to preserve this county and make it a great nation. They laid down their lives to liberate France, Italy, Sicily, the Phillipians, and more.

I will not blindly follow....and I will not get out of the way....
I guess that makes me a leader by default....

It is my patriotic duty to question my government...I intend to do my duty. I will hold it accountable for what it does and does not do. I will ask them why we need to send billions overseas while at the same time every level of government here is cutting back vital services such as police, fire and education.

You do not have to agree with me....that is your right. All I ask is, make up your own -educated- mind... do not follow blindly because they are the supposed leaders....

I hope there will still be elections this year and next...perhaps we can get some new blood in there and wake them up to the fact that we do exist and we do count and are not to be dismissed as a 'focus group'.

End :soapbox:

Peace.
:asian:

 

[Cliarlaoch]

Hear Hear, Kaith.

 

[lvwhitebir]

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
It is my patriotic duty to question my government...I intend to do my duty. I will hold it accountable for what it does and does not do.

I agree to that! Speak out, let your opinion be heard, vote... That's what makes this country so great.

Originally posted by Kaith Rustaz
I'll agree, Iraq had sanctions, NV did not, HOWEVER!, the argument being given is that IRAQ presents a Clear and Present Danger....my question is, N.V does not? NV does not present a more apparent danger?

I hope you meant NK instead of NV

Iraq does pose a threat, but I think the aim right now is that they didn't play nice a while back so the UN told them to disarm. They have not. So now we're trying harder to force them. The UN has declared that they MUST disarm and is somewhat dragging it's feet to do so. I think Bush is just getting fed up with the games and wants to see it come to a close. Is the UN a world body with any control or does it just talk tough?

In North Korea's case, they have every right to have weapons to protect themselves, *nobody* has said otherwise... except that they signed a treaty which said they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons. They violated that treaty and the UN is looking into sanctions for it. It's less like a bad guy with a gun aimed at your head and more like a contract dispute. The inspectors were allowed in the country in order to verify compliance with the treaty, not a mandate to verify they've disarmed. We know they violated the treaty and therefore the inspectors being kicked out is not really an issue. In Iraq's case, the UN sent in the inspectors to check for compliance with a UN resolution. A very different circumstance.

WhiteBirch