New Mars Forums

What does innocent and guilty people have to do with this?  I am saying that a few assassinations will save the lives of hundreds of Americans in a job that needs to be done anyway.

Now, you're saying that war is a legitimate way to settle a dispute.  And we both agree that Saddam is a bad leader that needs to be removed.  The question between us now is, do we fight a long, costly, legitimate war, or snipe a few people and be done with it?

I'm at school right now, and the bell's about to ring, so I won't be able to respond until about 8 pm (Mountain) tonight.

Once again, I'm behind.

Yes, I think it is okay.  By no means should we get into a World War I type of situation, but in certain cases it is appropriate.  And the laws against assassinating foreign leaders has been replealed.

And Chinese secret services?  Ah, wesa so sorry for you losa, Mr. Bond.  Kanechiwa!

I'm sorry for the above.  My point is, we are in a very different position than China.

And I would favor an assassination of Saddam, the head of state, the secretary of defense, Saddam's son, and other prominent (Saddam supporting) leaders. ???

Yes, and we should keep the oil flowing!  But you are thinking that Bush will follow through with his 250,000 man invasion.  Remember those Covert-Ops troops we were talking about?  ONE false move on Saddam's part, and we can have him dead on the palace floor in a few hours.  Remember, we don't need to kill the body to defeat the enemy.  Just cut off the head and the rest follows.

After we've removed Saddam, it would be easy to clean up afterwords.  The question is, when do we decide Saddam has gone too far?

I hadn't read your last message, Clark before I posted my new one.  Sorry.

I just can't picture Bush curled up in bed with his teddy bear having a wet dream about getting Iraq's oil.  He's a rational man, and I don't think he wants to willy-nilly sacrifice American lives overseas.  And even though he has broader powers, he still has to convince a very tight congress even after the elections that it is a good idea.  Even with a majority, the minority can still throw wrenches in the way, and the Republicans will find it easier to co-operate than to haphazardly forge their way through congress.

And what does this have to do with oil?  Yes, I would very much like to see a steady stream of Iraqi oil flowing to our country, but I don't believe that we'll have to set up a puppet government to do it.  If you were a recently liberated Iraqi living under this oppresive regime, wouldn't you be very grateful to your liberators?  Many of those new government leaders would be oppresed Iraqis.  I think those new grateful leaders would be willing to strike a deal with US businessmen.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want to wrisk US soldiers lives in the persuit of oil.  I think Saddam should be removed for a number of already stated reasons, and an oil trade agreement would only be an extra benefit in the big scheme of things.

Thanks for the compliment.  I'm enjoying this debate.

I agree with Clark that we need to let the Iraqis choose their own government.  To some extent, we did that in Afghanistan, but the US backing there was due in part to the possibility of an Al Qaida uprising (which we now think is beginning to happen).

And what do you guys have against Bush?  Yes, he has a Republican congress.  Yes, he has broader war making powers.  Yes, we have amassed troops in the region.  But has Bush done ANYTHING with that yet?  No.  We are waiting for the outcome of the inspections, and keeping Saddam in check for the moment.

I would very much like to see the Iraqi people elect a new leader.  I mean, only 10% of the people really support Saddam.  How are those other impoverished, starving, and disarmed people supposed to oust a leader ruling under the cloak of supposed "democracy"?  The US.

Here's where my argument hits a pothole.  Please bear with me...  You guys (aka clark) have wanted the US to leave Saddam alone.  Then, you come back and say that Saddam needs to go for the sake of the Iraqi people.  What am I supposed to say?  Yes, I would like to see Saddam go, but I still don't want the US throwing its weight around and getting into trouble internationally, over a perfectly legitimate leader!

You guys pick up the trail from here... ???

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.

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!

You're getting too stuck on the thought of drinking urine.  After you've removed the impurities from the urine, at the molecular level it is just like drinking pure water.

Phobos is completely correct about drinking the wastes of eons of animals.  We are really just the present keepers and users of recycled atoms.

Yes it's gross thinking about drinking someone else's urine, but with a subatomic state of mind it really isn't so gross.

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!

Why do we have two different boards on the same topic?  The "about Bush" board is more about policy, and this one is primarily SDI and other initivatives of the adminstration.  I vote that we abandon this board and post everything new on the "about Bush" board.

And on PaganToris' last point, be sure you see my reply on the other board.  I won't clutter this one unnecessarily...

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...

If I've said it once, I've said it 10,000 times.  The SDI will HELP the space program because of its innovations.

     The military will need to develop faster, cheaper, and better missiles (NASA goal), which will help the space program's technology.  With all of the new probes becoming smaller and more efficient, and the rockets becoming cheaper because of the program, it will be much easier to persuade a congressman to approve a new mission (i.e. pluto, uranus, neptune, asteroid belt, mercury, the list goes on...).  Not to mention what the research in communication and navigation between satellite and NORAD will do for private and research satellites (oceanography, telecommunications, etc.)

     As far as I can see, the SDI will create a demand for space products, which will make it easier for the space program to get its missions into orbit faster, cheaper, and better (NASA initative again).

     Have a great weekend!

PS--  Who wants to go to the moon?  IN AN ELEVATOR!!! I would get stuck next to the fat lady and the man reading his New York Times... and we could all look forward to a dusty glass of moon ice when we get there!  We could have Armstrong Coctails!  Just think of what that will do for humanity... Higher technology implemented into low-gravity martini glasses!