President Bush - about bush

PaganToris · 2002-11-30 13:10:49

I just wanna write this becuse welll i was thanking about president bush and i thnx all becuse of him we are going to war with Iraq well dont get me wrong Saddam is a bad man but as i could recall back when Bush Sr was president who dream was to take out Saddam and now since Bush Jr is president he wants to fo fill his dads dream and try to take him out alls were gonna do is cause a war a bad one im thanking biological and chemical war ALLL BECUSE BUSH JR WANTS TO FO FILL HIS DADS DREAM! ???

CalTech2010 · 2002-11-30 22:00:42

HEY PAGANTORIS! Nice grammar. By the way, do you think that the leader of the free world goes down to Texas to "get some Presidential tips from the 'ol man?"
President Bush is fufilling his promise to the nation to defend against ANY and ALL terrorist threats, Saddam being one of them. He's not sending 250,000 soldiers into combat to fufill his dad's dream.
By the way, Bush Sr.'s dream wasn't to dethrone Saddam. I can just see you, PaganToris, imagining Bush Sr. in his Barney PJ's snuggling a teddy bear and dreaming about killing Saddam. No, he went to war with Iraq to defend the helpless Kuwaitis (sp?), and to prevent the Iraqis from invading Saudi Arabia, a major military center for the US and a tremendous oil exporter. If it wasn't for our actions, a ruthless dictor (Saddam, PaganToris) would have controlled a major portion of the world's oil supply and used that wealth to develop weapons of mass destruction (which coincidentally are the only things we want to destroy in Iraq). ???
I won't go into the fact that Saddam LAUNCHED MISSILES at innocent Israelis, which is probably the reason that we invaded as far as we did. (I still don't know why Bush Sr. and Swartzkopf didn't capture Baghdad. Anyway, that's a story for another day.
To end, have no fear of our troops in battle, PaganToris. They are the best trained, best supplied, and best commanded fighting force in the history of the world. We will destroy his troops WITHOUT QUESTION if he chooses to fight us, and if he uses biological or chemical weapons, we will destroy those and remove him from power.
It is the Iraqi's blood that we will trail across the desert. Have a nice weekend, PaganToris. :angry: Try doing your English, History, and Political Science homework before you spend all of your time on this message board... :angry:

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-01 13:52:17

Hmm, government propaganda has sufficiently convinved some of us to be afraid of Saddam it seems.

PaganToris · 2002-12-01 14:29:44

welll caltech I do have good english just becuse i dont use camas and stuff lioke u rich school people do i just dont feel like doing all that crap! ok now bout bush he still aint my best guy in the world see but saddam has not done nothing to the us and were just gonna go in a attack him hes done stuff to other countries let them deal with it not us.
Caltech u need to work on yer proper language.
us youngsters know that u grown ups do not know how to use our proper language ok so
if u dont know what yer talking bout its best to keep yer mouth SHUT!

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-01 22:07:48

Oh, like this!

And what's that you said again?

Oh, and I'm a middle class FRESHMAN IN HIGH SCHOOL! If you looked at my profile you would have seen that I was born in 1988. Nice research.

Once again, what would have happened if the Kuwaitis has been conquered by the Iraqis, or the Saudis, or the Israelis? He would have used the oil money to finance his weapons of mass destruction, which would end up hurting us in the long run. THINK AHEAD PAGANTORIS!

And you, Cryer, I haven't seen any of this PROPAGANDA yet. I'm just smarter than the average liberal American... like PaganToris!

I can assure you that President Bush is taking ONLY necessary precautions in ousting terrorism. And Saddam's weapons, although not technically terrorism by itself, can still be sold to terrorists, or used by state sponsored terrorists.

Yeah, I do know what I'm talking about, and I know a hell of a lot more than you for a freshman. Work on your spelling homework. It's atrocious*

*Might want to work on your vocab too. It helps...

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-01 23:40:40

Sorry. I'm still figuring out quotes. I made fun of your contradictory grammar at the beginning.

Oh, and I'm a middle class FRESHMAN IN HIGH SCHOOL! If you looked at my profile you would have seen that I was born in 1988. Nice research.

Once again, what would have happened if the Kuwaitis has been conquered by the Iraqis, or the Saudis, or the Israelis? He would have used the oil money to finance his weapons of mass destruction, which would end up hurting us in the long run. THINK AHEAD PAGANTORIS!

And you, Cryer, I haven't seen any of this PROPAGANDA yet. I'm just smarter than the average liberal American... like PaganToris!

I can assure you that President Bush is taking ONLY necessary precautions in ousting terrorism. And Saddam's weapons, although not technically terrorism by itself, can still be sold to terrorists, or used by state sponsored terrorists.

Yeah, I do know what I'm talking about, and I know a hell of a lot more than you for a freshman. Work on your spelling homework. It's atrocious*

*Might want to work on your vocab too. It helps...

AltToWar · 2002-12-02 03:26:58

What does Iraq have to do with the war on terrorism?

Can you provide any real evidence to link Iraq to Osama Bin Laden?

Can you provide any direct evidence linking Iraq to the world trade center attack?

If you can, please call the white house, because they are in desperate need of some.

W and his administration has thrown out every possible rationale they can come up with for why we need to attack Iraq. When asked for evidence, instead of providing any they instead just changed the story.

One does not need to be any sort of rocket scientist to read between the lines. Unfortunately in america, if you tell the same lie enough times people will accept it as the truth.

Beginning with the attack of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the United Stated had the opportunity to create and solidify a global alliance vs terrorism.

Instead the war administration has chosen instead to use the blood of those that died in the trade towers as a rationale for pressing their own agenda.

We don't know if Osama Bin Laden is alive, and it seems like we dont care. Afghanistan is in shambles, and word is that the Taliban is regrouping. In a decade we will hear the same story about afghanistan.

You know we left afghanistan high and dry like this after the russian invasion, no? It was our lack of support after the war that caused afghanistan to become the hotbed for terrorism in the first place. Yet here we are doing the exact same thing again.

AltToWar · 2002-12-02 04:46:14

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....ber.DTL

clark · 2002-12-02 10:30:10

Thy name is Oil.

What oh what were all the international oil companies doing over the weekend in merry ol' england, talking to the prospective leader of a New Iraqi regime?

Why oh why have France and Russia, the loudest proponents against the war in Iraq holding out for before green lighting Bush's war in the desert? Not oil contracts- no, that would be cynical. Acuuracte, but cynical.

But why oh why would they do this?

Could it be perhaps that Iraq has oil reserves on par with those of Saudi Arabia (the largest), and that a new "democratic" Iraq, led by people chosen by the most democratically elected President in our nations history, would grant the most concessions to US oil companies (now what did the VP and Pres do before politics, and who was their biggest financial supporters?), and furthermore, with Russia's stout refusal to join OPEC, and that a new Iraq would have little need for OPEC when their bread is buttered in Washington, we might see the practical dissolution of OPEC, thereby ensuring cheap oil, cheap energy, and the American way of life for another generation.

I don't know weather to applaud or cry.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-02 15:11:52

Look, AltToWar, Iraq could have nuclear weapons. I will give you the point that we're not really sure, but there is some very convincing evidence that they do. We sent the UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq to be sure.

Now, suppose Iraq DOES have a nuclear weapon. Could they not sell it to terrorists groups? Or launch it at the Israelis (who, need I remind you, were attacked with SCUD missiles during the Gulf War)?

The US is by no means "picking a fight." We have built our case in front of the international community, and laid all of our feelings, policies, and intentions out on the board. We will not attack unless we find weapons, or we are attacked ourselves. The US won't defy the UN's findings, and go into Iraq anyway. Our issue isn't with anything but the Iraqi weapons program.

If we find that Iraq has NOT developed a nuclear weapons program, the US will promptly pull out of the region and put any plans of an invasion away.

MY FEAR IS, however, that in the 2-3 years it will take inspectors to search the whole country, the Iraqis COULD continue their weapons program. Some very reliable estimates say that Iraq, if they get a hold of the aluminum casings and suffient supplies of nuclear fuel, could have had a weapon in 3 MONTHS! Keep in mind these estimates were made in August.

Now, if the Iraqis have to keep moving their weapons due to inspections, it would slow down their program, but it would still be feasible to create a weapon in that 2-3 year period, even under the gun.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like war. But I think that in some cases it is the only thing to do. If Iraq proves it has no weapons, our administration will drop its case against Iraq.

And then we can move onto PROVEN rogue states with nuclear weapons... North Korea.

Have a great week!

clark · 2002-12-02 15:57:56

We sent in inspectors into a sovereign country based on an assumption that "convincing evidence" would be produced that demonstrates that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons. If we had "convincing evidence" now, we wouldn't send in inspectors, we would send in troops. We sent the weapons inspectors in to create a pretext for war.

Let us also address the assumption, or the supposition, that Iraq, having acquired a nuclear weapon might sell it to terrorists. I ask you, why would it do such a thing? Saddam has proven over and over that he is interested in furthering his own personal power, and maintaining his position- how would the sale of nuclear weapons further this end? This isn't ideology, this is pragmatism- how are his needs met by allowing terrorists access to such weapons? It would seem he might lose far more than he would gain, because contrary to popular belief, such an act could be traced, the culprits known, and the reprisal final and lasting. And, the idea that he might launch such a weapon at the Israeli's flies in the face of wisdom or reality. Israel HAS nuclear weapons. Not one or two, but hundreds. It is naieve to think that this reality would be ignored by others- most people in power do not have some martyr complex- they have a strong desire to live and lead, not lead and die; which is the final result for anyone who uses a nuclear weapon against an opponent with enough fire power to slag all of your inhabitable areas.

The US is picking a fight, and it is hell bent on engaging in this fight. Our original case, made by our leaders, was that regime change was necessary in Iraq. Not disarmament, regime change. That stance has not changed because the war with Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction, it is simply over control of oil. The US will defy the UN (not that the UN would defy the US on this one) if it must to meet our previously stated goal. The UN does nothing but hem in US hegemony, and the UN will lose all relevance if it does not bow to the wishes of Washington- so a face saving compromise is worked out that will give us what we want, and make all the little countries feel like the UN, and their views count.

The Iraq regime is what we have an issue with, not the weapons program. Why would we care? So a bunch of people in a far off country have a bigger weapon- the idea that they might legitimately attack a first world industrialized nation capable of complete and total destruction of their entire nation negates the them as a legitimate threat. A bee can sting us, but if it does, we can wipe out their entire hive. The reason to prevent the spread of WMD is to maintain the status quo, whereby the desires of certain peoples can be neglected since they would be unable to effect us in any kind of way- however, that all changes once they armed with nuclear weapons- it allows them the ability to effect a modicum of damage that must at least be addressed- it is a ticket to the table to be heard, it allows for a perverse equality among nations.

No plans are being shelved. We're mobilizing NOW. Everybody has their finger on the trigger- war is being glorified in popular media to prepare the population. This will happen.

As you pointed out Cal, we know North Korea IS developing nuclear weapons, in violation of treaties, yet we do nothing. Why I ask you. Here we have a case of suspect versus a case where we are still engaged in hostility with an admitted developed of nuclear weapons. The difference?

Natural resources we want versus a useless and meaningless country.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-02 16:24:53

First on Iraq, and then on Korea.

The US wouldn't defy the UN! We'd have that over our head for years! The UN will inspect the country, and either find weapons and create a base for war, or we won't find any and go on to bigger and more important enemies.

Troops were moved into the region to force Saddam to allow the inspectors in and to assure no funny business. It's also nice to have them there if we find weapons, and war is imminent. It gives us some say in the region, as far as keeping inspections in line.

Plus, it's not about oil. If the Sierra Club would let us drill in the ANWR, this wouldn't even be a suspected point! Yes, we do need oil, but we're not about to replace a government to get it.

On Korea, we haven't done anything to them because:

1.) We are taking the diplomatic road in trying to resolve this problem, like we are doing with Iraq. We are waiting for the full story about the nature of their weapons to come out, like Iraq. When we know all the facts, like we are waiting to do in Iraq, we will proceed either to disarmament, or war and economic sanctions. It's their long-range missiles and proximity to South Korea that scares me the most.

2.) Where do you think they got those weapons from? Most reports say Pakistan, which right now is important to our counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. We don't want to make Pakistan more upset than it already is with Americans. And who says that China didn't assist with that technology? That's a sure-fire threat we have to worry about.

clark · 2002-12-02 16:45:50

The US wouldn't defy the UN? On what do you base this assumption? It has in the past. And worrying about "having it over our heads" is a little na?ve. We are the only super power. We spend more on our military then all our allies combined. We have some of the largest capital markets in the world. What exactly do we need the UN for?

Here is a question for you, why would we spend the political capital necessary to place ourselves in such a situation as we now find ourselves now? Why would we upset our current allies, and our prospective allies against terrorism to determine if ONE despot is working towards building WMD's? Did we worry about Pakistan? Did we worry about anything that happened in Rwanda? Do we worry about Chechnya? Our continued involvement is solely due to one overriding need, cheap sources of oil.

It's not a matter of troops being moved in- it is more than that. The fact that we have special operation forces IN Iraq NOW. We continue to build up a preponderance of military material- not for deterrence, but for preparation for a full scale conflict. Almost half of Kuwait has been transformed into a US military base. We have already arranged the logistical side of a full scale war by preparing advanced areas in Jordan, Israel, and Yemen. We continue to deploy our naval assets, and we have also prepared our bombers to deploy OUTSIDE of the US for the first time at Diego Garcia. I can accept that we want Saddam to let us in to inspect, so we need military backing- but to suggest that the preponderance we are preparing is necessary to achieve said goal is a bit absurd.

As for your knee-jerk statement regarding ANWR and the sierra club, please, take it elsewhere. What is located in ANWR is a pittance compared to the proven reserves in Iraq, and we have done far worse in our contemporary past when it suited our perceived national interests. We have looked blindly on as others have murdered and raped whole nations, as long as our national interest were served. To expect something different now is foolhardy. It's simple, the demise of the Iraq regime allows the US to install a government that is pro-western, and more importantly, pro-America. It will be the US that protects the oil wells, and by default, we will control the only real revenue source for that country. Do you understand what that means? It means the practical dissolution of OPEC (Iraq and Russia make Saudi Arabia, the engine of OPEC, a moot point). It means oil prices, and by extension, world growth, will be dictated by Washington

I would prefer to leave north korea out of this discussion, as it will only detract from the points I am making., but I will address them if you decide to pursue it further.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-02 22:22:48

On the point of our military operations in the middle east, I really don't care where they are deployed. The fact is, we are making our presence known in an effort to force the hand of Saddam Hussein. The presence of covert-ops will create the ability to strike at a moment'snotice, if Saddam begins to show signs of hiding weapons or harassing the weapons inspectors. I hope that we never have to use those troops, but I'm glad we have a substantial force there just in case.
We really do need the UN's support. I mean, we pretty much ARE the UN, but it is still a symbolic thing. I guess congress feels better about itself if it has friends, no matter how weak in comparision. I'm sure you're saying "well, Bush has shown that he will defy the world, if necessary to accomplish his goals".
Well, that's the beauty of the US Government. Even though Bush has broader powers to declare war now, he would be fool-hardy (yes, I'm sure you think he already is) to declare war against a proven innocent nation without the support of his country, his allies, or his lawmakers.
I just think you're getting too caught up in a belief that Bush would install a pro-western government for oil. If we find weapons and turn to war, perhaps this will be the case (like in Afghanistan). But if we find that Saddam was telling the truth, I think that Congress, and the UN in particular, will greet Iraq's new-found co-operation with arms wide open.

If Saddam is proven to have no WMD's, and keeps his nose clean, I think there is a good possibility that the UN will pin the US and other allies to remove sanctions, and open the door for a dialogue between our two nations. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but the chance to freely trade after 11 years is a very powerful bargaining tool.

Now, here comes the UN inspectors! At first, our international team of professionals had the right to search WHENEVER and WHEREVER they chose. Now, we are giving 24 hour notice about sites we plan to visit. As I've said before, Saddam can go about manufacturing weapons during the 2-3 years we are inspecting. Although it will be nip-and-tuck trying to hide those weapons in a short time, I am confident that the manufaturing and research can continue. That is my only fear as far as inspectors go.

As for ANWR, I think that any oil we can get domestically is better than having to import it from nations like Saudi Arabia.

If you want to talk about North Korea some more, I would be more than happy to pick up the issue.

PS- Where has PaganToris been? I've been debating with Clark and Josh Cryer for days now, and I have to admit that I've actually had to think to debate Clark KUDOS!

PaganToris · 2002-12-02 22:55:34

AS I SAID ONE B4 CALTECH
IF U DONT KNOW WHAT YER TALKING ABOUT ITS BEST TO KEEP YER MOUTH
S H U T!!!!!!!

Phobos · 2002-12-02 22:56:48

Thy name is Oil.

Of course it's about oil. Just imagine the impact it would have on the world if some madman, namely Saddam Hussein, decided to conquer all of his neighbors and became the sole owner of most of the world's oil. I think people are forgetting that Saddam actually took it upon himself to invade and occupy a sovereign country and it would be lunacy and idiocy to let that psychopath run free and do as he wishes. I have no love for Saddam Hussein. Even though I'm not really jumping on the bandwagon in support of going to war, I really won't lose sleep at night if someone manages to use Saddam's head as a soccer ball.

PaganToris · 2002-12-02 23:02:54

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yah damn Sadamm i wouldnt mind haveing a soccer ball with his head or maybe evan a Basketball or somethig it would be pretty cool

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-02 23:04:09

Hey, PaganToris! How about you keep your nerdy mouth shut and stop talking trash about people with a good argument. How about you get your facts (not to mention your grammar) together and put something useful onto this page? And I won't keep my mouth shut because I have to prove idiots like yourself wrong.

PaganToris · 2002-12-02 23:17:36

WELL NOW CALTECH i have good grammer ok evan though i go to a continuation high school i aint no nerdy prep who gets straight A's and being on the schools honor rolol for getting a 4.0 on mt report card
ok I JUST DONT LIKE TO USE PROPER ENGLISH UNLESS I HAVE TO DAMN IT
ok so u little 8th grader or freshmen what ever the hell u are better go run to yer mommy and daddy becuse i called u a Prep LOL
ok so u just need to shut yer Face!!!!!!!!

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-02 23:47:36

I'm a freshman, you dolt, and if you could stop pushing your thick frame glasses up onto your nose for a moment, I'd like to ask you:

1.) What do you bench press?

2.) What do you squat?

3.) What sports do you play?

4.) Does the above convince you that you're a nerd? If it doesn't, I don't know what will

5.) I just remembered what will: Plutonian Eskimos

And this room isn't a place for you to spew endless garbage over, its a place for people with different ideas to establish a dialogue and exchange ideas in the hope of refining those into bigger and better ideas. In "complete idiot" terms for you, that means I have a right to debate clark and AltToWar without having you call me an idiot.

How about you go hang around the Yahoo! chat room and let some of us get a debate underway without you using up the oxygen and html space! :0

Take that you nobody junior...

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-03 02:04:13

I really hate political discussions because 10 times out of 9 you fail to convince the other guy of the validity of your argument. In addition, the most common outcomes are rancour and acrimony ... and high blood pressure!

I'd like to mention the Iraqi people, though. They tend to get left out in the cold in all this and I think they deserve a little consideration.
I've read several articles by different journalists (I know, I know ... you can't believe everything you read! ) and there seems to be a consensus of opinion that Iraqi citizens live in what amounts to hell-on-Earth. Apparently people disappear in Iraq. Anyone even suspected of disagreeing with Saddam tends to go missing, never to be heard of again. And their families dare not even suggest there's a problem for fear of being next. Expatriot Iraqis in free countries like Britain, America, and Australia are singularly quiet about the excesses of Saddam's regime and so tend to go unnoticed. Why? Because they have relatives back in Iraq who would also vanish if they spoke out!
The tendrils of totalitarian terror regimes find their way into every avenue via the network of spies who, just as scared for their own lives and the well-being of their own relatives, do everything they can to ingratiate themselves with the despot and his henchmen. Terror feeds on itself to create a nightmare of fear and distrust, like some sort of surreal horror movie ... except it's real! And Saddam sits, gloating, at the apex of this appalling situation he has created, wherein nobody can trust anybody about anything ... and the price of denouncement to 'the authorities' is death by torture and interment in an unmarked grave.
None of this is exaggeration. It's cold hard fact.

The Iraqi people are not predisposed towards fundamentalist Islam. They are relatively well-educated and highly cultured. They are sitting on about 25% of the world's oil reserves which would buy them all prosperity and stability in an unstable part of the world - if Saddam weren't there squandering the proceeds on palaces and wars of conquest.
Imagine a stable, democratic, moderate Islamic state in Iraq. Imagine an Iraqi people free of Saddam, prospering and advancing through education and universal suffrage.
This, as a reality, would stand in stark contrast to the oppressive backwardness of socially stultified states like Iran and Saudi Arabia - marooned in the backwater of religious fundamentalism. What an example it could be! What a beacon!

I'm not here to debate whether America's intentions are entirely selfless. (History teaches us that no superpower has ever done anything without considering its own interests first.) But if you could ask the average Iraqi citizen (in complete confidence) whether they would prefer to take their chances with an American sponsored shot at freedom and prosperity, or carry on with the cruel existence they now suffer, I have little doubt what he or she would say.

Never mind the political posturing and aesthetic arguments. What about the poor Iraqi people?!
???

AltToWar · 2002-12-03 03:33:16

Look, AltToWar, Iraq could have nuclear weapons. I will give you the point that we're not really sure, but there is some very convincing evidence that they do. We sent the UN weapons inspectors back to Iraq to be sure.
Now, suppose Iraq DOES have a nuclear weapon. Could they not sell it to terrorists groups? Or launch it at the Israelis (who, need I remind you, were attacked with SCUD missiles during the Gulf War)?
The US is by no means "picking a fight." We have built our case in front of the international community, and laid all of our feelings, policies, and intentions out on the board. We will not attack unless we find weapons, or we are attacked ourselves. The US won't defy the UN's findings, and go into Iraq anyway. Our issue isn't with anything but the Iraqi weapons program.
If we find that Iraq has NOT developed a nuclear weapons program, the US will promptly pull out of the region and put any plans of an invasion away.
MY FEAR IS, however, that in the 2-3 years it will take inspectors to search the whole country, the Iraqis COULD continue their weapons program. Some very reliable estimates say that Iraq, if they get a hold of the aluminum casings and suffient supplies of nuclear fuel, could have had a weapon in 3 MONTHS! Keep in mind these estimates were made in August.
Now, if the Iraqis have to keep moving their weapons due to inspections, it would slow down their program, but it would still be feasible to create a weapon in that 2-3 year period, even under the gun.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like war. But I think that in some cases it is the only thing to do. If Iraq proves it has no weapons, our administration will drop its case against Iraq.
And then we can move onto PROVEN rogue states with nuclear weapons... North Korea.
Have a great week!

Russia has nukes, perhaps they might launch them at us. Russia has a history of attacking it's neighbors. Shall we invade?

China has nukes. Perhaps they might launch them at us. China has a history of attacking it's neighbors. Shall we invade them?

Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan might sell the nukes to terrorists. Pakistan has a history of warring with it's neighbor. Should we attack?

Picking a fight is exactly what america has done.

If it weren't for Colin Powell, the US would have bypassed the UN entirely. Even the mainstream media has broadcast that.

Pentagon officials are quoted saying the US will go to war in Iraq reguardless of how the weapon inspections turn out.

The case we built in front of the international community had no evidence. The only reason we got the UN to agree to the new resolutions was because we made it clear to other nations that if there was a violation found by the weapons inspectors, that it would not be a mandate for America to attack. Yet that was exactly how the vote was portrayed to the american people.

All the while Osama Bin Laden is still at loose. The Taliban are regroupng in Afghanistan. Our aggression towards the middle east is inciting more and more anger towards america.

Are we really doing the right thing to stop terrorism? Or are we rationalizing our desire to vassalize the second largest oil reserve in the world?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-03 03:38:52

Are we really doing the right thing to stop terrorism?

No. We are making it far worse. :angry:

AltToWar · 2002-12-03 03:59:56

I really hate political discussions because 10 times out of 9 you fail to convince the other guy of the validity of your argument. In addition, the most common outcomes are rancour and acrimony ... and high blood pressure!

I'd like to mention the Iraqi people, though. They tend to get left out in the cold in all this and I think they deserve a little consideration.
I've read several articles by different journalists (I know, I know ... you can't believe everything you read! ) and there seems to be a consensus of opinion that Iraqi citizens live in what amounts to hell-on-Earth. Apparently people disappear in Iraq. Anyone even suspected of disagreeing with Saddam tends to go missing, never to be heard of again. And their families dare not even suggest there's a problem for fear of being next. Expatriot Iraqis in free countries like Britain, America, and Australia are singularly quiet about the excesses of Saddam's regime and so tend to go unnoticed. Why? Because they have relatives back in Iraq who would also vanish if they spoke out!
The tendrils of totalitarian terror regimes find their way into every avenue via the network of spies who, just as scared for their own lives and the well-being of their own relatives, do everything they can to ingratiate themselves with the despot and his henchmen. Terror feeds on itself to create a nightmare of fear and distrust, like some sort of surreal horror movie ... except it's real! And Saddam sits, gloating, at the apex of this appalling situation he has created, wherein nobody can trust anybody about anything ... and the price of denouncement to 'the authorities' is death by torture and interment in an unmarked grave.
None of this is exaggeration. It's cold hard fact.
The Iraqi people are not predisposed towards fundamentalist Islam. They are relatively well-educated and highly cultured. They are sitting on about 25% of the world's oil reserves which would buy them all prosperity and stability in an unstable part of the world - if Saddam weren't there squandering the proceeds on palaces and wars of conquest.
Imagine a stable, democratic, moderate Islamic state in Iraq. Imagine an Iraqi people free of Saddam, prospering and advancing through education and universal suffrage.
This, as a reality, would stand in stark contrast to the oppressive backwardness of socially stultified states like Iran and Saudi Arabia - marooned in the backwater of religious fundamentalism. What an example it could be! What a beacon!
I'm not here to debate whether America's intentions are entirely selfless. (History teaches us that no superpower has ever done anything without considering its own interests first.) But if you could ask the average Iraqi citizen (in complete confidence) whether they would prefer to take their chances with an American sponsored shot at freedom and prosperity, or carry on with the cruel existence they now suffer, I have little doubt what he or she would say.
Never mind the political posturing and aesthetic arguments. What about the poor Iraqi people?!
???

Please look at America's history at re-building democracies after we are done playing our war games with them.

Remember that Saddam Hussain's army, Chemical processing ability, and for a long time his intelligence was provided by America.

Remember that while Saddam was using the chemical weapons on Iran (an act we now use as one of the validations for why we need to oust him) we were fully supporting him VS. Iran.

Remember how we left Afghanistan high and dry after their war with russia. Remember that is in part to blame for why we have trouble there now. See as we do the same thing today.

Remember that Al Quida operatives were trained by the CIA.

Remember that in Nicaragua the United States funded the Contras, and provided them with information on the Military movements so the Contras could attack the "Soft Targets". (soft targets means defensless civilians)

The goal was to kill enough civilains to cause a political uprising to oust the current government. It worked.

No... I think if I were a citizen of a foreign country, I'd take my chances without american intervention.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-12-03 06:46:45

There!! ... You see?

I knew I was wasting my time!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-30 13:10:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#2 2002-11-30 22:00:42

Re: President Bush - about bush

#3 2002-12-01 13:52:17

Re: President Bush - about bush

#4 2002-12-01 14:29:44

Re: President Bush - about bush

#5 2002-12-01 22:07:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#6 2002-12-01 23:40:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#7 2002-12-02 03:26:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#8 2002-12-02 04:46:14

Re: President Bush - about bush

#9 2002-12-02 10:30:10

Re: President Bush - about bush

#10 2002-12-02 15:11:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#11 2002-12-02 15:57:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#12 2002-12-02 16:24:53

Re: President Bush - about bush

#13 2002-12-02 16:45:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#14 2002-12-02 22:22:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#15 2002-12-02 22:55:34

Re: President Bush - about bush

#16 2002-12-02 22:56:48

Re: President Bush - about bush

#17 2002-12-02 23:02:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#18 2002-12-02 23:04:09

Re: President Bush - about bush

#19 2002-12-02 23:17:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#20 2002-12-02 23:47:36

Re: President Bush - about bush

#21 2002-12-03 02:04:13

Re: President Bush - about bush

#22 2002-12-03 03:33:16

Re: President Bush - about bush

#23 2002-12-03 03:38:52

Re: President Bush - about bush

#24 2002-12-03 03:59:56

Re: President Bush - about bush

#25 2002-12-03 06:46:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer