-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
POLL!!! SHOULD USA INVADE IRAQ????
- Thread starter nick1985
- Start date
Well, they have to defend themselves against madmen like Bush somehow. If all they have is SCUDs and a few machine guns, any nation that doesn't like them or wants their oil can come in and trash the place.
Besides, why do we need to send OUR troops into a distant foreign nation that does not pose a threat to us?
Right, and Clinton, who was as adamant about deposing Saddam as Bush. And Canada, and Italy, and Great Britain, and France, and about six other countries who were part of the coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait and neutralize its military capability. Duhhh...don't remember that, eh?
As for this poll, there have been like 50 scientific polls performed in the last 12 months by credible polling and media agencies, the vast majority of which show the same result. Why on earth do we need a completely unscientific internet poll?
MainFramed
Diamond Member
hmmm...........
But did he actually do it? No, he didn't. I've got nothing against saber rattling, but when you send troops off to die for a personal vendetta, I DO have a problem with that.
We had defense treaties with Kuwait, and were obliged to help them when Iraq invaded. We repelled Iraq's invasion and did some damage to their military, but we did not invade Baghdad in retalliation. The additional loss of life (both to our military and to Iraqi civilians) to do such a thing could not be justified then, and it can not be justified now.
No, we shouldnt invade them. But im not gonna go out on the street and scream "no war with Iraq" either as long as they dont drag me into this thing. If there is a draft coming, i am not going, not gonna fight a war and risk my life just to fatten the Bush Family's pocket, then again, if there is a draft, then we are getting our ass kicked.
Is this the Iraq that doesn't like terrorists in its land? Most of the Arab countries support terrorists, Iraq doesn't. Quite a few Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc) don't LIKE Irqa (Gulf War and stuff). If you are worrying about terrorists, that has nothing to do with Iraq, if you're worried about Saddam, then that's what should influence your decision on an attack on Iraq. Most of the other Arab countries wouldn't want Iraq having nuclear weapons, one reason why they are allowing the US to use their land for military bases, it's these countries who support terrorists.
This War, if it can even be called that, is just so Bush can distract the US from the bad economy and give a good reason to jack up oil prices for his buddies.
The Bush camp keeps saying Iraq had this and that, but even after 2 months the inspectors can't find ANYTHING at all. And Bush says there is proof but have never showed it
We have more problems in North Korea right now, and WE KNOW they have nuclear weapons, BUT they don't have oil :|
So Bush is going to kill good people (Like US army, navy, etc...) so he can look good in the polls(get elected), and keep oil prices high. I have seen NO PROOF that saddam has anything bush says. But NK does. Is saddam bad, YES, is it worth the lifes of our people to make Bush look good, NO!!!!!
The Bush camp keeps saying Iraq had this and that, but even after 2 months the inspectors can't find ANYTHING at all. And Bush says there is proof but have never showed it
We have more problems in North Korea right now, and WE KNOW they have nuclear weapons, BUT they don't have oil :|
So Bush is going to kill good people (Like US army, navy, etc...) so he can look good in the polls(get elected), and keep oil prices high. I have seen NO PROOF that saddam has anything bush says. But NK does. Is saddam bad, YES, is it worth the lifes of our people to make Bush look good, NO!!!!!
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This War, if it can even be called that, is just so Bush can distract the US from the bad economy and give a good reason to jack up oil prices for his buddies.
The Bush camp keeps saying Iraq had this and that, but even after 2 months the inspectors can't find ANYTHING at all. And Bush says there is proof but have never showed it
We have more problems in North Korea right now, and WE KNOW they have nuclear weapons, BUT they don't have oil :|
So Bush is going to kill good people (Like US army, navy, etc...) so he can look good in the polls(get elected), and keep oil prices high. I have seen NO PROOF that saddam has anything bush says. But NK does. Is saddam bad, YES, is it worth the lifes of our people to make Bush look good, NO!!!!!
First off do you remember what happened to gas prices when the first gulf war occurred. Yes they shot up but less then a month later they when way down to levels lower then before the iniatial iragi invaion of Kuwait.
There are three reasons that the inspectors haven't found anything.
1. he doesn't have it and distroyed all of it. IF he had he would be showing US HOW he distroyed it where the distruction took place and would be giving us everything we ask for. RIght now they are acting as if they never had anything.
2. He has gotten really good at hiding this stuff. He could be playing a reaaly good cat and mouse after all we left him alone for 8 years to hide it with no inspectors (thanks clinton).
3. HE moved it to another country (syria perhaps)- he might have just moved his programs out of Iraq to another country and that is why there is no evedence of the distruction.
This is attempt to deal with Iraq BEFORE they become like N Korea. You deal completely different with someone who has Nuclear weapons then with someone who is trying to get them.
If you really beleive that Bush is just doing this to get reelcected then you are really naive. If this is a sure fire way to get reelected then CLinbton would have invaded so AL could get elected. The group playing politics is the democrats and not bush. The country is a 50/50 split and if CNN starts showing the body bags coming home then people will start to lose interest.
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
This War, if it can even be called that, is just so Bush can distract the US from the bad economy and give a good reason to jack up oil prices for his buddies.
The Bush camp keeps saying Iraq had this and that, but even after 2 months the inspectors can't find ANYTHING at all. And Bush says there is proof but have never showed it
We have more problems in North Korea right now, and WE KNOW they have nuclear weapons, BUT they don't have oil :|
So Bush is going to kill good people (Like US army, navy, etc...) so he can look good in the polls(get elected), and keep oil prices high. I have seen NO PROOF that saddam has anything bush says. But NK does. Is saddam bad, YES, is it worth the lifes of our people to make Bush look good, NO!!!!!
That's interesting but then how do you explain the 1998 Congressional vote to oust Saddam Hussein. That was when Clinton was president just in case you weren't aware. Clinton signed the bill btw.
_________________________
"The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."
The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.
The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.
In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).
--------------------------
Just a tid bit of information I believe many are forgetting, or overlooking about what Iraq possesses but were ommitted from the declaration they submitted. Look for this to become a media point in the next few days.
- Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei
Inspections in the 1990s, after the Gulf War, led to destruction of many tons of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons, and equipment to produce them. U.N. teams also dismantled about 50% of Iraq's nuclear weapons program before it could produce a bomb. But that inspection regime collapsed in 1998 amid disputes over access to sites and infiltration of the U.N. operation by U.S. spies. Those inspectors never found all the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical arms. In addition, several tons of chemical and biological weaponry which was scheduled for destruction in 1998 never took place with the collapse of the inspections. There is no account for those weapons. There is almost a consensus among intelligence agencies that there are still chemical- and biological-weapons programs going on in Iraq. UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) expected to get records of production, physical evidence of where some of the stuff has been manufactured. The declaration (and inspections so far) shed no new light on any of these issues.
BeauJangles
Lifer
Yes. Iraq fits the model of foriegn intervention adopted by the Clinton administration (albiet by trial and error)... The "If, if, then" policy works like this:
IF there is a large threat to humanity (a moral, ethical crisis) AND
IF the United States has a likely probability of succeeding with intervention THEN the US should consider, and probably, act.
On the other side of this... the war in Iraq is NOT going to take weeks or months... it shouldn't take much longer than Operation Desert Storm. The Iraqi army is not committed to protecting Saddam (with the exception of a few divisions) and, even if they were, they barely have the means to do so. The middle-east nations would be very happy to see Saddam gone, many are afraid he will try to attack iran, kuwait, or saudi arabia.
More importantly, however, this country has a moral obligation to go to Iraq. In the same way the US stopped the slaughter in Kosovo (WITHOUT UN approval) on moral grounds, we are again called in on the basis of morality. This country is the most powerful the world has ever seen and, by virtue of that position, it seems to me that we must liberate the Iraqi people (who, btw, WANT to be liberated).
Hands down. Invade Iraq.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
