No one has to die! Right?

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
which is why we are attacking now and were not going to attack on 9/10.

And yet again you prove your ignorance

No, you prove yours...

That is a letter TO Clinton, not from him...

It was signed by a number of people who were trying to push Clinton into getting tough with Iraq...

I don't get George W. Bush's signature at the bottom, do you? Find one of those with his signature on the bottom and I'll be interested.

: ) Hopper

Watch this program. It gives a good overview of how the Bush doctrine evolved.
The neocons (who are now in control) have wanted to take out Saddam for over a decade.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
When it comes right down to it, he with the biggest stick makes the rules. That is not politicaly correct to say, but it is indeed the truth.

And then people wonder why everybody hates us...

People will hate us until the end of time... Trying to make everyone love us is part of the problem...

Your idea is good and all until people start strapping bombs to their chest and blowing up civilans to get their point accross. People don't respond well to being oppressed for too long

Just who are we going to oppress in Iraq? The same people we're oppressing in Afghanistan? Oh wait, we're not doing that there either...

As for people attacking us... Someone should remind them that even if you don't like the neighborhood bully, it is unwise to walk up to him and kick him in the shin, even more so if he can run faster than you can...

: ) Hopper

 

[przero]

tweakmm - And the oppressor you speak of?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: przero
tweakmm - And which oppressed party are you speaking of?

I was refering to people through history

No you weren't, you were trying to imply that America is going to oppress people of the world with our big stick.

Tell me, who is the last nation we oppressed?

: ) Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Watch this program. It gives a good overview of how the Bush doctrine evolved.
The neocons (who are now in control) have wanted to take out Saddam for over a decade.

I don't question that a number of people within the government have wanted to take out Saddam.

*I* have wanted to take him out since the gulf war, that doesn't mean it was going to happen.

Bush never would have gotten this far if it were not for 9/11.

: ) Hopper

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So hopper, for sake of argument.

What if you are wrong. No, dont say you cannot be. What if you are wrong? Your theory is going to be given an opportunity. My POV is irrelevent.

What if you are wrong? Going to say "Oh well it was worth a shot"? or "the liberals caused this to fail" ?


How will you justify it, because I know you will.

 

[przero]

What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: przero
tweakmm - And which oppressed party are you speaking of?

I was referring to people through history

No you weren't, you were trying to imply that America is going to oppress people of the world with our big stick.

thanks for putting words in my mouth

I was making a general statement that people don't take well to being oppressed, I was trying to give another side to your "The bully makes the rules" general statement
Surly through your extensive knowledge of history grasshopper you have noticed this trend also

 

[przero]

tweakmm - And the oppressor you speak of?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: przero
tweakmm - And the oppressor you speak of?

Are you dense?
I don't have a particular oppressed group that I'm referring to, but I have a particular oppressor

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: przero
What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

Hmmm...

Well if this turns out to be a cluster fsck from a military standpoint. (Unlikely)

or

increased instability in the region

or

increase in terrorism

or from my POV and relevent to this thread

massive casualties.

I got more.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
So hopper, for sake of argument.

My favorite...

What if you are wrong.

What if I'm wrong about what?

No, dont say you cannot be.

I can be wrong about all sorts of things. What did you have in mind?

Your theory is going to be given an opportunity. My POV is irrelevent.

I'll listen to any point you want to make. Just tell me what your thoughts are?

As for your POV, we all have to work from our own point of view. I don't consider your arguements any less valid because you're not an American or whatever, I just happen to disagree with the degree of threat that you see from Saddam.

I think he is enough of a threat to be worth attacking. It sounds like you disagree, but rather than put words into your mouth, tell me what your thinking...

: ) Hopper

 

[przero]

"or from my POV and relevent to this thread massive casualties."

Military? Our side or theirs? Civilian? Even if used as human sheilds?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

See the above post

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
thanks for putting words in my mouth

You're welcome.

I was making a general statement that people don't take well to being oppressed, I was trying to give another side to your "The bully makes the rules" general statement

You're right of course, oppressed people don't take kindly to it...

But as the Soviet Union showed, as Cuba shows, as Libya shows, as Iraq shows, etc... The population can't always do anything about it...

In fact, we would have lost the American Revoltion if it had not been for the French coming to the rescue. It was French gunpower and arms that really allowed us to win our independance from England.

Surly through your extensive knowledge of history grasshopper you have noticed this trend also

Sure, but I don't believe that America intends to oppress anyone, rather Bush wants to free people and spread democracy around the world.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I think.

: ) Hopper

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
In fact, we would have lost the American Revoltion if it had not been for the French coming to the rescue. It was French gunpower and arms that really allowed us to win our independance from England.

The Iraqi's have anounced their independance from Saddam???
LINK!? :Q

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: przero
What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

Hmmm...

Well if this turns out to be a cluster fsck from a military standpoint. (Unlikely)

or

increased instability in the region

or

increase in terrorism

or from my POV and relevent to this thread

massive casualties.

I got more.

I believe I can come up with very probable scenarios where leaving Saddam in power will lead to each of the things you listed.

 

[przero]

Hayabusarider - What?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Watch this program. It gives a good overview of how the Bush doctrine evolved.
The neocons (who are now in control) have wanted to take out Saddam for over a decade.

I don't question that a number of people within the government have wanted to take out Saddam.

*I* have wanted to take him out since the gulf war, that doesn't mean it was going to happen.

Bush never would have gotten this far if it were not for 9/11.

: ) Hopper

But why is that?? Because people here in the US are scared??
The people who attacked us on 9/11 attacked us before then - The WTC bombing in '94, US Cole attack. Saddam has never attacked us. So why did 9/11 change our policy towards Saddam? Is it because the populus was ripe for the fearmongering rhetoric that is required to coax a people into agressive war?
If 9/11 did change everything, why did the White House wait until Sept. of last year to address the issue?? When Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the Bush admin. was waiting until after Labor day to make a case to attack Iraq, why did he respond, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' Why did the White House have to "market" this war??

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: przero
What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

Hmmm...

Well if this turns out to be a cluster fsck from a military standpoint. (Unlikely)

That is EXTREMELY unlikely...

No one questions our ability to win the military battle, that is going to be the easy part.

increased instability in the region

That one is hard to qualify. The region already seems to be unstable.

Can you be more specific about what your concerns here are?

increase in terrorism

This is one area where Bush is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't.

If we invade Iraq and there is a major terrorist attack, Bush will be blamed for it because we invaded Iraq.

If we don't invade Iraq and there is a major terrorist attack, Bush will be blamed for it because we didn't invade Iraq.

If there is a specific concern you have regarding terrorism and Iraq, please share it. So far I have yet to hear any good comments about this, perhaps you have read something I missed.

or from my POV and relevent to this thread

massive casualties.

Military? Our side or theirs? Civilian? Even if used as human sheilds?

I got more.

Please share...

: ) Hopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
In fact, we would have lost the American Revoltion if it had not been for the French coming to the rescue. It was French gunpower and arms that really allowed us to win our independance from England.

The Iraqi's have anounced their independance from Saddam???
LINK!? :Q

Many Iraqi people who have escaped from Iraq have pleaded with us to invade and remove Saddam. No one has pleaded with us to leave them alone.

Within Iraq, if you speak out against Saddam, he has your wife raped in front of you, your children's throats are slit, then you are dragged outside, have gas poured on you and you're burned alive for all to see.

Such things tend to keep outspoken critism down to a very low level.

: ) Hopper

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: przero
What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

Hmmm...

Well if this turns out to be a cluster fsck from a military standpoint. (Unlikely)

or

increased instability in the region

or

increase in terrorism

or from my POV and relevent to this thread

massive casualties.

I got more.

I believe I can come up with very probable scenarios where leaving Saddam in power will lead to each of the things you listed.

The difference is that Saddam remaining in power is a moot point now. We no longer have to concern ourselves with that. Now war seems almost certain. That being the case, those who favor war get the glory, or bear the cross of failure if that were to happen.

No, what if's in terms of what course of action are over. Now we see what fruits of this labor will bear. He and those who want this are on the hook.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: przero
What would ahve to occur for hopper to be "wrong"?

Hmmm...

Well if this turns out to be a cluster fsck from a military standpoint. (Unlikely)

That is EXTREMELY unlikely...

No one questions our ability to win the military battle, that is going to be the easy part.

increased instability in the region

That one is hard to qualify. The region already seems to be unstable.

Can you be more specific about what your concerns here are?

increase in terrorism

This is one area where Bush is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't.

If we invade Iraq and there is a major terrorist attack, Bush will be blamed for it because we invaded Iraq.

If we don't invade Iraq and there is a major terrorist attack, Bush will be blamed for it because we didn't invade Iraq.

If there is a specific concern you have regarding terrorism and Iraq, please share it. So far I have yet to hear any good comments about this, perhaps you have read something I missed.

or from my POV and relevent to this thread

massive casualties.

Military? Our side or theirs? Civilian? Even if used as human sheilds?

I got more.

Please share...

: ) Hopper

Sorry, I am not playing the baiting game. You understand what I mean and intend to obfuscate. So be it. You have answered my questions as I expected you would.


OK guys I win the bet. You know who you are. Pay up

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
But why is that?? Because people here in the US are scared??

Yes, they are scared...

The people who attacked us on 9/11 attacked us before then - The WTC bombing in '94, US Cole attack.

Yes, and I think we should have gone after them at that time.

Saddam has never attacked us.

51% of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.
81% believe we should remove him by force.
53% believe that Saddam is aiding terrorists who are trying to kill us all.

Those are from a CNN poll taken two days ago.

So why did 9/11 change our policy towards Saddam?

Because before 9/11 our concern was that Saddam would try to attack another country with his military.

After 9/11 our concern became that he would give WMD to a terrorist group who would bring them to America.

That is really the single point that changed our policy towards Iraq.

If 9/11 did change everything, why did the White House wait until Sept. of last year to address the issue??

They didn't, Bush spoke out about Iraq from 9/13/01 and beyond...

He included Iraq in the Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in Jan 02.

When Bush Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the Bush admin. was waiting until after Labor day to make a case to attack Iraq, why did he respond, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' Why did the White House have to "market" this war??

Politics is marking by another name, you should know that...

Everything they do is timed and setup to be marketed via the mass media.

Most people don't bother reading past the headlines, so they have to account for that.

If people would just bother to inform themselves about these issues, they wouldn't have to put on these dog and pony shows.

: ) Hopper

 

[etech]

Hayabusarider

The difference is that Saddam remaining in power is a moot point now. We no longer have to concern ourselves with that. Now war seems almost certain. That being the case, those who favor war get the glory, or bear the cross of failure if that were to happen.

No, what if's in terms of what course of action are over. Now we see what fruits of this labor will bear. He and those who want this are on the hook.

That would be a good argument if you can prove direct causality between the actions of removing Saddam and what happens. I merely wanted to point out that you will not be able to do so. The probability of those actions occurring IMHO would be just as high if not higher due to inaction on the situation.

In other words, you are seeding the game before it has even started. Your contention seems to be that every bad action from now on can and will be blamed on the removal of Saddam even if you cannot provide any proof of that link. I like and admire being prepared but haven't you started rather early? The act of removal of Saddam has not even begun yet.