Do you think we should wait until Saddam does something before we do anything about Iraq?

[Random Variable]

In other words, do Americans have to die before we remove him from power?


I know what you're thinking: "Not another stupid question from Vespasian!"

 

[Cougar]

No.

Go in guns a blazin' and take this nimrod out once and for all.

 

[Time2Kill]

<< In other words, do Americans have to die before we remove him from power?


I know what you're thinking: "Not another stupid question from Vespasian!" >>



Didn't Americans already die because of him?

I thought that was what Desert Storm was all about.

 

[Nefrodite]

yea of course, gotta wait for him to give some nutty group some nice chemical weapons or a finished nuke if bush doesn't take him out republicans are good for nothing at all.

 

[compuwiz1]

No.
He needs to be dealt with, BEFORE he causes any more trouble.

 

[Random Variable]

<<

<< In other words, do Americans have to die before we remove him from power?


I know what you're thinking: "Not another stupid question from Vespasian!" >>



Didn't Americans already die because of him?

I thought that was what Desert Storm was all about. >>


I should have said "more Americans."

 

[CrackRabbit]

Probably not Americans dying first, it would most likely be the Saudis or Israelis or some other nation that happens to like us over there, Then we would probably remove him from power, but not before, thats the sad part...

 

[Random Variable]

Don't people understand the concept of pre-emptive action? Why do we have to wait? I just don't get it.

 

[b0mbrman]

<<

<< In other words, do Americans have to die before we remove him from power?
I know what you're thinking: "Not another stupid question from Vespasian!" >>


Didn't Americans already die because of him?
I thought that was what Desert Storm was all about. >>


Is that what Desert Storm was about?

 

[ToBeMe]

IMHO it's a tough call either way and one that could have implications no matter which course is chosen.................

 

[CrackRabbit]

I belive something should be done, but the fact of the matter nothing will be until its too late, Dubya is too busy "hunting terrorist" in Afghanistan to pay attention to the one that happens to be ruling Iraq.

 

[Evadman]

<< Don't people understand the concept of pre-emptive action? Why do we have to wait? I just don't get it. >>


Then we would be seen as the instigators. We would get a 3 day supension, while Iraq would get ISS.

With that out of the way, I think that Iraq would look good as a 10,000 Sq mile Glass reflector.

 

[Random Variable]

<< IMHO it's a tough call either way and one that could have implications no matter which course is chosen................. >>


What does the "wink" mean?

 

[Time2Kill]

<< yea of course, gotta wait for him to give some nutty group some nice chemical weapons or a finished nuke if bush doesn't take him out republicans are good for nothing at all. >>



Right...what about those democrats...Clinton didn't do a single thing about the first WTC bombing and never did anything about any of the embassy bombings or when that ship got bombed.

At least our Pres is doing something about the latest attacks.

 

[Pentbomb]

Good question:



<< Do you think we should wait until Saddam does something before we do anything about Iraq? >>


For what reason? To appease the Europeans? Hussein's Arab neighbors? The Russians? The Chinese? Unsure American's? All of the above? It doesn't really matter because it is doubtful Iraq will do anything in the near future to provoke an attack from the west.

Iraq, after several diplomatic disappointments, is singing a different tune. I won't go into detail, but China and Russia are distancing themselves from Baghdad. Iraq's neighbors see an American attack on Iraq as inevitable, and are also distancing themselves.

This leaves Hussein without many options. He is now diplomatically focusing on Europe. He has volunteered to open his country for human-rights inspectors. He has signaled to Kofi Annan that he is ready to reopen dialogue regarding weapons inspectors.

Saddam's time is running out, and he knows it. His 11th hour maneuvers are too late. Bush has chosen Iraq as the next step in his war on terror, and he won't wait for an act of Iraqi aggression because he knows it may not come anytime soon.

The U.S. will act when it is ready to do so, regardless of Iraqi action.

Pentbomb

 

[Cougar]

<< This leaves Hussein without many options. He is now diplomatically focusing on Europe. He has volunteered to open his country for human-rights inspectors. He has signaled to Kofi Annan that he is ready to reopen dialogue regarding weapons inspectors. >>




Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't something similar happen when Clinton was in office? I seem to remember the UN (or was it the US?) threatening action if they weren't allowed to come in and perform an inspection. He said no, no, no but after things heated up a little bit he finally gave in (like he was stalling for time). I'm not posting this to bash on Clinton or anything like that, but if this same situation came up before and we let him slide he needs a serious beatin' this time around.

 

[Yzzim]

<< Don't people understand the concept of pre-emptive action? Why do we have to wait? I just don't get it. >>


I'm all for bombing the snot out of Saddam, but that "pre-emptive" thing is what's stopping most of our allies from following us. If we attack countries based on what we "think" they're going to do, then we should take out Iran, North Korea and China along with some others I'm forgetting.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just my thoughts as to why our allies won't follow us.

 

[Random Variable]

<<

<< Don't people understand the concept of pre-emptive action? Why do we have to wait? I just don't get it. >>


I'm all for bombing the snot out of Saddam, but that "pre-emptive" thing is what's stopping most of our allies from following us. If we attack countries based on what we "think" they're going to do, then we should take out Iran, North Korea and China along with some others I'm forgetting.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, just my thoughts as to why our allies won't follow us. >>


If we were serious about dismantling al-Qaeda before September 11th (which we weren't, by the way), I'm sure our "allies" would have been up in arms.

 

[Yzzim]

<<
If we were serious about dismantling al-Qaeda before September 11th (which we weren't, by the way), I'm sure our "allies" would have been up in arms. >>


No doubt about it. Even if we did have "credible" information of the attack we still would have looked like the aggressor.

What a screwed up world.

 

[IGBT]

Your probably right. Americans are notorious for head in the sand syndrome and the path of least resistance. And the hand wringing liberals are encouraging this tunnel vision syndrom of apathy. Lets see how they react when the smallpox shows up in their community.

 

[SinNisTeR]

n/m

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<<

<<

<< In other words, do Americans have to die before we remove him from power?
I know what you're thinking: "Not another stupid question from Vespasian!" >>


Didn't Americans already die because of him?
I thought that was what Desert Storm was all about. >>


Is that what Desert Storm was about? >>



No, it was a matter of our oil supplier Kuwait being invaded, and with that our interests in the region being threatened. Only reason Desert Storm was started.

 

[Siddhartha]

September 11, 2001 was an example of a foreign power deciding to do "something" about George Bush and the United States.

 

[BuckleDownBen]

Don't Kurds qualify as people? Saddam's been wiping them out for years. The US even helped him to do so before 1990. People forget Saddam was the US's friend during the 80's, until he disobeyed or misunderstood US orders by invading Kuwait.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

<< September 11, 2001 was an example of a foreign power deciding to do "something" about George Bush and the United States. >>



Ah yes, good thing we punished the one who did that eh? Oh wait, we never caught him!