A thought on Iraq...

[IGBT]

Certainly makes sense..but his son is the blossoming problem as prev.mentioned..and there may be other outstanding issues that require direct supervision and intervention. If we wait for a smoking gun it will be too late in this world of NBC weapons.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Woah, calm down, you will blow an artery or something. First of all in very simple words, USA cannot fight wars for other countries. I mean China wants to "reclaim"Taiwan and they are prepared to do anything to achieve this. So lets go ahead and send the marines to china.

China is not prepared to "do anything" to reclaim Taiwam or they would have made an attempt by now. The fact that we have the U.S.S. Kittyhawk sitting there is what is preventing them from doing so.

In accord with the Taiwan Relations Act the U.S. will use any force necessary to protect Taiwan.

We also send over the Nimitz battle group for "exercizes" on some occassions; these occasions always seems to coincide with Chinese "missle tests" and "readiness exercizes" around Taiwan.

 

[reitz]

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading.

Bullsh!t. If Iraq weren't an oil-rich nation, with a military that has already been destroyed, we wouldn't be talking about invading.

Isn't war supposed to be the last resort of civilized nations? Why, then, has Bushlite balked at every single suggestion to resolve the Iraq situation through diplomacy or the UN? Why was his administration upset that Congress wants to limit the scope of the resolution authorizing force to Iraq only? Why has the Bush administration (and by extension Bush's lapdog, Tony Blair) not provided a single peice of evidence linking Iraq to terrorism?

I think it's time for a "regime change" in the USA.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: reitz

Simple fact is that if he weren't a threat to use WMD, we probably wouldn't be talking about invading.

Bullsh!t. If Iraq weren't an oil-rich nation, with a military that has already been destroyed, we wouldn't be talking about invading.

Isn't war supposed to be the last resort of civilized nations? Why, then, has Bushlite balked at every single suggestion to resolve the Iraq situation through diplomacy or the UN? Why was his administration upset that Congress wants to limit the scope of the resolution authorizing force to Iraq only? Why has the Bush administration (and by extension Bush's lapdog, Tony Blair) not provided a single peice of evidence linking Iraq to terrorism?

I think it's time for a "regime change" in the USA.

Regardless, I won't be voting for Bush in the next election.

 

[StageLeft]

Unforrunately he could live a lot longer, and then his dumbass reslatives would take over anyway.

 

[reitz]

Regardless, I won't be voting for Bush in the next election.

Neither will I. I voted McCain (write-in) last time, but I'll admit that I supported Bush over Gore. Two years later, I'm ready to admit--as much as it pains me to do so--that the world would probably be much better off if Gore had won.

*shudder* I feel dirty just typing that :disgust:

I won't be voting for a single incumbent in November.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: reitz

Regardless, I won't be voting for Bush in the next election.

Neither will I. I voted McCain (write-in) last time, but I'll admit that I supported Bush over Gore. Two years later, I'm ready to admit--as much as it pains me to do so--that the world would probably be much better off if Gore had won.

*shudder* I feel dirty just typing that :disgust:

I won't be voting for a single incumbent in November.

I'd've supported Gore over Bush. *sigh* It hurts to type that, too.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Some one asked if we were just supposed to wait for L.A. to get nuked. Well, that is exactly what we have done for the last 50+years. Russia, China come to mind, but also Pakistan to some degree. They all have nukes. Once you get nukes, you KNOW that if you ever use them, you will be bombed into oblivian with no quarter given. This terrifying system of checks and balances has worked so far.... So yeah, I think that is the idea. We stay alert and we wait for an act of war before we declare war.

Bush has tried and failed to link Saddam to 9/11. Perhaps the connection exists, perhaps it doesn't. But you don't start down a one way road on which you can't U-turn based on a guess.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: reitz
If Iraq weren't an oil-rich nation, with a military that has already been destroyed, we wouldn't be talking about invading.

If we did invade Iraq and install a different government, would they sell oil to us cheaper than the rest of OPEC does?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Just had a thought earlier... it's the concept of a rat in a corner. A rat will generally run or evade an adversary, until it's forced into a corner - then it fights, and it fights hard. Or maybe it's rats in a sinking ship.

The analogy is the same with Iraq. If we know that Hussein is aging, anyway, why not let him live out his years and let the Iraqi people straighten it out? If we attack him with little or no provocation to us directly (as a sovereign nation), who's to say that our direct military aggression won't force him into using a nuke?

Not justifying anything one way or another, just a hypothetical.

but but but....saddam is stockpiling thousands of weapons of mass destruction and has elaborate plans in place to attack the US through international terrorist cells! just don't ask me for a shred of evidence to back up any of these claims.