You know, I believe that most middle eastern countries would secretly rejoice if and when an attack is launched to overthrow Hussein. Heck, most of the Iraqi people would welcome it too.

Of course, they are not going to say this publicly, they can't because of all the political BS and propaganda, but deep down they will all welcome it.

I hope this makes sense. This statement is based on my perceptions from when I visit there twice a year.
How would you like to be a neighbouring country with Iraq?
Believe me, they don't like it any better than we would.

As long as China has the smarts to keep their nose out of it, I think the overthrow of Hussein would be less problematic than what the world media would have us believe.

Who was that ******** on CNN last night, some chairman of Middle eastern Peace Coalition or something (I can't remember)
He said if an attack was made on Iraq, the "Gate of hell would be unleashed in the middle east"

I think he's all bravado and unrealistic. Some people like to hear themselves on TV, I gotta admit though, it did sound pretty cool.

Just my thoughts.

Regards
Habibi

 

Last year, when it became known that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were involved in the terrorist attacks on our country, I was in favor of retaliation and would not have thought twice about using nukes against them.

If Iraq's Hussein attacked us or sent terrorists to blow up something or use biological agents on our country, I would be all over the President and Congress to "turn Iraq into a glass plate."

Thing is, Iraq is not a direct threat to the US, as far as I know. At this time, I see Bush just itching to find any excuse to attack Iraq. Makes me wonder if all he's trying to do is to finish what his old man failed to do. I really have to question his motives for going after Iraq.

I don't know why we are still involved in keeping the reigns on Iraq. It's pretty clear that none of the Arab countries want us there. Let's just turn our back on them and let them duke it out themselves.

If Iraq attacks Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and everybody else in that region, let's play hard to get when the various Kings and other Arab leaders come begging for our help. Hell, they have no qualms about trying to get more blood out of our oil consuming citizens. Why not turn the tables on them for once? Tell them, "You didn't want us there. You want to suck us dry with your high oil prices. You all can squirm for all we care. You want us to bail you out again? Well, this is what you're gonna do for us..."

I think it's high time that we start to adopt the policy that NOBODY GETS A FREE RIDE ANYMORE.

 

sdiesel316:

Yes, your right, some of these people lost and now have no ***** at all. They think with "feelings" rather then facts and reason.

Dennis:

With all due respect I disagree with you. Bush is NOT finishing what his Dad did not do. His Dad did exactly what he said he would do. That was to get Iraq out of Kawait. He and the military did it by the book no BS, no politians running the show like Viatnam. Sure people can now say "Bush didn't finish" well if it wasnt for the liberals in the press "CNN" Clinton News Network crying like a bunch of babys "Oh my, there killing all those poor military people on the highway" then we would have wasted a lot more people. They should of kept killing the little wuss bastards running with their tails between their legs and it would of been perfectly acceptable. They were not retreating as they should have in a military conflict, because they did not leave their "arms" behind they took it with them so they were fair game.

That's the problem in this country we have liberals that care about "feelings" they have no common sence, no reason. They can't do hardly anything right but think it is what they feel that counts, not what they do or do not do. In other words actions mean nothing to liberals. They further have this stupid belief in world peace, maybe its because of all the drugs they did when they were young, maybe to much crack today but anyhow since they have no reason and no common sence they can't seem to understand that there will NEVER be world peace. Anyone who ever believe that one day they will be is a complete moron.

They other things liberals can't seem to understand is people like Saddam don't care about "feelings" he is just a plain nut. I agree with what someone else said that most countries especially near Iraq can NOT wait for us to take the bastard out. They are just to wuss to say so.

We do have enough proof to take out Saddam, and even if we didn't SO WHAT. First we wait for jets to fly into buildings to take out the tally morons so now should we wait for a nuke to go off somewhere in the USA, or wait to thousands of people start dieing and then figure out "ah ha, chemical weapons from Iraq" now lets go take him out.

By the way Cliton had 3, yes 3 chances to have OBL but failed to do anything about it. At least Bush just like Reagan has serious ***** and ain't taking no sh*t from no one. The people in the middle east are by nature wussies, when they see real power they run and hide and don't cause problems. Only when they think they can get away with it (like Cliton) do they act up. Its time to slap some asses my friends, lets LIGHT THAT CANDLE and send it on its way hopefully its a clear night so most of us can see it

 

Seems to me some of you, such as 01 XLT Sport, are saying the US should engage in a first strike attack. Are you also saying that we should go after "suspected" terrorist states too? Sure sounds that way to me. When did our country turn to the "Hit first, ask questions later" mentality?

Fact remains. Bush is looking for any excuse to hit Iraq.

Do you people have any idea what a first strike by the US means? Do you know what the ramifications of a first strike are?

Iraq is not a threat to the US.

 

The thing I don't understand is why people think that we (meaning me here and others) are using the "pre-emptive strike" reason to validate an attack. We are using it as an additional positive affirmation that an attack needs to be made (i.e. he'll have nukes soon), but what validates the attack is that Suddam has violated the cease fire agreement and fired at our planes. How could people be missing this important factoid?

It's no different than you beating the crap out of someone, them begging you to stop and promising they won't mess with you anymore, and when you turn around a bottle smashes into the back of your head. Now imagine you've got all these people rushing up to you and saying, "Does an attack really need to be made, is this person really a threat?" Who cares? If you want to maintain any kind of non-wuss reputation, you've got to turn around and finish the job.

I will say that I find it unfortunate that W's administration and he himself seem to not be using this argument, but are suggesting in this day and age we need to use pre-emptive strikes on any country that could pose a threat. I say it's unfortunate because there is a legitimate underlying reason why Iraq needs to be attacked that has nothing to do with this new policy. However, I think the administration thought it would be easier to jazz people into a "go get em" attitude by using the "they might get nukes and we need to stop em now" argument.

 

This "hit first" mentality has already happened folks. It seems a LOT of people have forgotten that the US didn't do the first strike. Someone remember about a year ago, a BIG attack in New York, Washington, and PA that killed over 3,000 Americans? If thats not considered a "first strike" I dont know what the HELL is!

 

Im with Dennis on this...

Except its not George W's wanting to finish what his dad didnt do...its Cheney wanting to finish what George Sr. wouldnt do. Cheney is the real brains behind this administration and he wants to get rid of Saddam just like he did back in the Gulf War when he was Secretary of Defense. But George Sr. and Secretary of State Baker among others did not agree, just like they dont agree now. (well at least Baker doesnt...not sure about Bush Sr.)

Right now I see no good reason to attack Iraq in such a way that
Bush is talking about. There has to be more diplomatic pressure put on and the U.S. needs more support than Britain alone.

 

sdeisel316

The first strike has not already happened, 9/11 is unrelated, although Bush and some in the media would surely have you believe it is.

cpadpl

There is NO legitimate, underlying reason why Iraq needs to be attacked. It not upto Americans to decide who runs what country, how they do or what they have! Stay out of their business! If you don't **** with them, they won't **** with you.
If you are concerned with those violating UN resolutions, there are certainly bigger fish to fry.

There is a reason that it is an embarassment to travel almost anywhere the world with a US passport. America has done this to itself.


01 XLT

Previous American leaders with attiudes such as yours has gotten the US in the trouble it is now.

 

That's what the French said about Hitler. If we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it. If we do nothing now, I will be sitting back 5-10 years from now saying, "I told you so." Just like I was in 1991 when we didn't finish Saddam off. He is a known terrorist supporter/financer and you say he is un-related to 9/11? I bet you 100 bucks here and now he had some $$ or people in the planning of 9/11. Wanna take that bet ? A nation has a right to defend itself. If Canada ever needs it, gues who they'll call. Yep, the US of A.

 

notirT wrote:

"01 XLT

Previous American leaders with attiudes such as yours has gotten the US in the trouble it is now."

Sorry but you are SO wrong. It is the liberal mind set that has got the US into these situations. They see a country not treating their people right and then they get on CNN crying "we can't let this happen, don't the US have a heart" Then with public pressure because some in the public think with their hearts (big mistake) rather then reason and knowledge end up getting the US involved.

It is American leaders with attitudes like mine that have to take care of the BS after the fact. Like Reagan ending the cold war, why because Russia knew he meant business and wasn't screwing around with them like other leaders (Carter) wussing around and kissing their as*.

Someone said "if we don't ****** with them they won't ****** with us" Here we go again someone not thinking with reason and knowledge. HERE THIS, these nuts in the world CAN NOT STAND us for who we are and what we stand for. It don't matter if we sit here with our thumb up our as*, they will ****** with us PERIOD, because at the moment and while liberals have there say we are sitting here like a bunch of wussies shacking in our shoes. Some of us (the ones that don't seem to have knowledge or reason) are thinking to ourselfs and trying to tell them "Can't we just be friends?, Can't we just get along?"

Kind of like saying if you don't mess with the ****roches they won't run amuck in your home. Not going to work, you have to kill the ****roches or they will continue to feed and live in your house. Then after you kill them you use preemtive measures to keep them under control and out of the house.

We have been screwing with these middle eastern wussies for decades, mostly because of liberals and there "we must feel their pain" mind set. NO MORE now they MUST feel our pain. Trust me once they feel the true pain of the US kicking their as*, maybe more then once they will no longer ****** with us.

It's time for the US, most of us because when you look at the polls most Americans support the action, to kill the ****roches in charge and then use preemtive measures to keep the future ****roches under control.

It's really so very simple. For those of us that have the knowledge and reason it's very clear. For those that think with there feelings and heart well you just keep your thumb up your as* and head in the sand and others like me will insure you have a safe place so as to keep your thumb warm and teach your kid how to give his money up to the bully.

Oh, and you welcome

 

FrankS

Canada has to currnetly defend itself BECAUSE of the US of A.
Same with other countires.


01 XLT

Usually the guys praising Reagan cannot be gotten thru to.
Reagan DID NOT win the cold war. The USSR lost it, all by itself.
YOUR kids, their kids and their kids will pay for the debt that your hero Reagan created for you trying to win the cold war.
Just the same again YOU, and your kids , and their kids and their kids will PAY for foreign policy blunders the Reagan and his kind have committed.

 

I don't see the difference between preemptive and first strike.

If the reason to strike Iraq is because of it's nuclear capabilities, then are you saying we should strike Pakistan if the present leader should fall to someone more radical? I mean, there's the possibility that a new leader would use Pakistan's nukes. What about India? There's a possibility that they will use their nukes in the future. China too.

I see nothing wrong with the policy that if we or our allies get hit, we hit back 100 or 1000 times harder.

As far as Iraq goes, I didn't have a problem with going after them when they left their border and invaded Kuwait. I don't know why we are still enforcing the no-fly zone. It doesn't make much sense to me.

If you all want to hit Iraq so badly, then give Saddam the rope to hang himself. Abolish the no-fly zone. Spread the word to the Iraqis that if they cross their border again, they will be hit and hit again until Saddam is killed or brought to justice. Leave it up to the Iraqi people to decide how badly they want to follow and support a supposed madman.

At this point, I have problems with going to war with Iraq over shots fired within Iraq's borders.

 

notirT

In your opinion there is no legitimate reason. Again, people aren't reading or understanding my reasoning. The validation is 1) they have violated the cease fire (which I concur that there are other UN resolutions that need to be upheld in the world) and 2) they have fired on us NUMEROUS times (read: they struck first).

In my opinion, any country that fires on the US should be retaliated against. That retaliation should be metered according to the situation, but I would have to say that "war" is probably appropriate for an opponent who you did beat, and now is firing at you again. That's just my opinion.

My argument has nothing to do with the Middle East, and it has nothing to do with Iraq (albeit getting a nutso out of the way doesn't hurt). Any country, any where, during any time, fires at our troops (in an organized military fashion, not some suicide bomber) deserves intense retaliation, maybe 10-fold, maybe 100-fold.

If Canada shot at us, I would demand a US retaliation (considering our allied relationship not a fullblown war, but a retaliation)....However, don't read too much into what I'm saying. I'm not saying if a legitimate accident happened I would send up fighters or a nuke to Canada. But I seriously doubt that Saddam is repeatedly having "accidents" and firing at us because of computer radar glitches. He knows exactly what he's doing...

And don't go down the "well you shouldn't be patrolling the no-fly zone" or "W. Senior should have finished the job" because that's another argument that I may well agree with you on. The fact of the matter remains that 1) we do patrol the no-fly zone, and 2) we have been shot at.

 

notirT

I would have to agree with 01 XLT on this one. The Cold War essentially bankrupted the USSR. Socialism may (and I mean may) work great when you are utilizing all available resources to further enhance the socialist dream and infrastructure. It works horribly when you have to pull enormous amounts of resources away from socialist uses and pour it unabashed into extraordinarily expensive things that essentially "do" nothing for your system (i.e. nukes). The arms race buildup was nearly a back-breaker for our inherently wealthy capitalist system. Reagan's deficits (which funded many other things such a corporate tax cuts) were indeed mind-numbing, but it essentially forced the USSR to keep pace. Eventually the socialist structure collapsed from within, with too many people seeing and proclaiming the advantages of capitalism....

I also concur that Reagan's attitude and demeanor was a great asset.

 

If that isn't revisionist history, I don't know what is.