Why one soccer mom wants Hussein taken out

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
CS Monitor

When President Bush The First went to war against Iraq almost 12 years ago, I was totally opposed to it. I figured Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was a bad guy all right, but let the Kuwaiti princes fight their own battles.

The first President Bush never communicated to me any reason why I should want to send American troops to Baghdad. In the end, when we went to war but didn't go to Baghdad after all, I was furious. It seemed Mr. Bush The First was willing to go on a fool's errand - and make it all the more foolish by not going all the way.

Fast forward more than a decade, and how things have changed.

George the Second is in the White House. I have four young children. I live in the suburbs. I drive a minivan filled with kids going to and from gymnastics, piano practice, and Boy Scouts.

I had to go out at night with a flashlight and my first-grader to find "saw" and "smooth edged" leaves the night before the tree project was due. ("But mom, I have to have it tomorrow!") I say things like "don't interrupt," "because I'm the mommy and I said so," and "here honey, I'll give it a kiss." I have to keep my 17-month-old away from toilets because she likes to suck on objects she's dipped in them. I tell my 8-year-old boy not to doodle so many guns on the margins of his schoolwork. My 3-year-old tells anybody who will listen that she never wants to grow up. And why should she? She probably figures life can't get better than this.

I'm delighted to see my kids get up in the morning, and delighted to see them go to bed at night. Once in a while, I even try to meet a journalistic deadline. In my entire life I've never been happier or enjoyed my life more.

And something else has changed - this George Bush has convinced me that Mr. Hussein is a threat to this way of life; that, more than anything else, he is a menace to the four most precious things in the world to my husband and me - our kids.

It may even be that Hussein is a hazard largely because George the First foolishly "shot at a king" without killing him, setting the stage for the current confrontation. But how we got here doesn't matter to me. Whether Hussein is a threat to his neighbors is not what makes me want to put ground troops in Baghdad.

What motivates me is this: I don't want my kids to be on the receiving end of smallpox, a chemical weapon, or - most horrifying of all - a nuclear device, courtesy of Hussein. But I do think that is exactly what Hussein wants.

But what's also changed is not just that this President Bush has convinced me that Hussein is a threat to my kids. This Bush has convinced me that he'll finish the job this time. That he'll go into Iraq with overwhelming force, and do what his father would not: topple Hussein and his murderous regime.

I must say I agree with this women, she is smarter than the average bear...

Saddam is a clear and present danger to the Unites States of America, as a matter of simple self-defense we have the right to take him out.

Let me know when the butt kicking begins so I can grab the popcorn. :)

Grasshopper
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
I know I don't have kids, for you people who say "Anyone without children won't understand." I may not "understand," but going to war to protect the children seems absurd. More fantasy and drivel to rally up supporters if you ask me. Saddam wants out children, give me a break. I used to be all for a war with Iraq, but I'm quickly changing my mind the more I think about it.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Hide your children, Saddam will eat them!

I'm in for the toppling of Saddam and the institution of democracy of Iraq. But you must include #2 with #1, otherwise what the hell is the point? We'd get a fresh-faced new dictator who puts on a good face for the media, and under him the population would continue to churn with hatred. For a damn good reason too, I'd say. "Thanks for bombing our country, destroying our buildings and infrastructure and killing my father/mother/aunt/uncle/cousin/sister/brother/girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/friend, America!" Quick fixes are bad news as we've already painfully learned.

The situation is very different than Afghanistan. Their leader is not an outside interloper for one. There also doesn't seem to be any drive to put Western forces in the region over the long term to stabilize and rebuild the country either. With all this in mind, you'll excuse me if I ask Mrs. American Suburban Mom to STFU about her kids.
 

bizmark

Banned
Feb 4, 2002
2,311
0
0
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Saddam is a clear and present danger to the Unites States of America, as a matter of simple self-defense we have the right to take him out.

That's a completely ridiculous statement. I disagree with the first part, and the second part is pure lunacy. It's no better than those who support 'thought crimes'. Punishing somebody for something he/she hasn't even done yet? NOT a valid way of proceeding in international affairs....
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: bizmark
That's a completely ridiculous statement.

Funny how one statement can be taken two completely different ways...

I disagree with the first part

Fair enough...

and the second part is pure lunacy.

Ok class, how many evil dicators still in power today have used weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone? Anyone?

Thats RIGHT! One... His name just happens to be Saddam Hussein...

Go figure... :)

Grasshopper
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Originally posted by: bizmark
That's a completely ridiculous statement.

Funny how one statement can be taken two completely different ways...

I disagree with the first part

Fair enough...

and the second part is pure lunacy.

Ok class, how many evil dicators still in power today have used weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone? Anyone?

Thats RIGHT! One... His name just happens to be Saddam Hussein...

Go figure... :)

Grasshopper

When his actions at the time were ignored and glossed over by our government. What has changed?

I, for one, don't care if Saddam gets taken out - the Iraqi people will make their choices eventually. What worries me is a manipulative, simple-minded president who is milking a serious issue to his own selfish end, endangering our hard-earned civil liberties and freedoms along with it.
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
And when we bomb the living fvck out of Iraq, no children will die?

Sadly, they will..

But they won't be "American Children", and that is all most soccer mom's care about...

If there was a way to kill Saddam without invading Iraq, we'd do it. There just isn't a way to do it... James Bond is fiction, the Big Red One is not...

Grasshopper
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Hussien will never use chem/BIO/nuclear weapons against america. He cares to much about his own personal survival.

No, he won't... But nothing is stopping him from providing them to terrorists who can then use them against us...

Grasshopper
 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
Ok class, how many evil dicators still in power today have used weapons of mass destruction?

Anyone? Anyone?

Thats RIGHT! One... His name just happens to be Saddam Hussein...

Go figure... :)

Grasshopper


Hmm, you must have seen something that the UN inspectors haven't. Please do share your inside source of information.

But I can name a much more legitimate threat, that is much more likely to have weaspons of mass destruction... It's this wonderful place named "North Korea".

And I'm guessing you think that an Iraqi child isn't as important as an American child. You know, theres a "soccer" mom in Iraq, thinking the same exact thing. What right do we have to kill numerous civilians and childrens, destroying lives and families? We're obviously not doing it for their own good, we're doing it for OUR own good. If another sovergeign government didn't like our leader, would it be alright for them to bomb the US?
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Hussien will never use chem/BIO/nuclear weapons against america. He cares to much about his own personal survival.

No, he won't... But nothing is stopping him from providing them to terrorists who can then use them against us...
He doesn't need to, we did a good job of that ourselves in the 80s
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Hmm, you must have seen something that the UN inspectors haven't. Please do share your inside source of information.

But I can name a much more legitimate threat, that is much more likely to have weaspons of mass destruction... It's this wonderful place named "North Korea".

Grimlock, what rock have you been hiding under? :)

Saddam has used chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people. These have been well documented many times over...

He is the only living person to have used weapons of mass destruction against people, period...

Not to worry, North Korea's time will come. We would be foolish to attack both at the same time, they can wait their turn.

Grasshopper
 

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,720
1
0
Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Saddam is a clear and present danger to the Unites States of America, as a matter of simple self-defense we have the right to take him out.

Using this theory, most of the world should be able to bomb the living sh1t out of the US.


 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

well said tweak. how many children are starving right now because of sanctions against iraq?
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
And I'm guessing you think that an Iraqi child isn't as important as an American child. If another sovergeign government didn't like our leader, would it be alright for them to bomb the US?

I do, but many American's don't...

In any case, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette...

Other nations are welcome to bomb us if they would like to live with the consequenses...

In any case, Iraq isn't a sovereign nation right now, they still haven't lived up to the agreements that ended the last Gulf War. They lost a war and surrendered. As such, they will do as we say until we say they are again sovereign...

Grasshopper
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: Colt45

Using this theory, most of the world should be able to bomb the living sh1t out of the US.

Now you're just being silly... :)

But if you think they should try, by all means...

Just remember that we ARE the United States of America, and you might not like our response... :D

Grasshopper
 

Grasshopper27

Banned
Sep 11, 2002
7,013
1
0
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

well said tweak. how many children are starving right now because of sanctions against iraq?

Those deaths are Saddam's responsibility, not ours...

Grasshopper
 

illusion88

Lifer
Oct 2, 2001
13,164
3
81
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
Originally posted by: tweakmm
The United States is a lot more definite of a threat to the children of Iraq than Iraq is to the children of the USA.
Using her logic, shouldn't the people of Iraq be attacking us?

well said tweak. how many children are starving right now because of sanctions against iraq?

Those deaths are Saddam's responsibility, not ours...

Grasshopper

But how can he if he does not have the means to do so? They are his responsibility but he cant walk without any legs.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76

That has to be the most retarded justification I've ever seen for a war on Iraq.

 

Dragnov

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,878
0
0
Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Hmm, you must have seen something that the UN inspectors haven't. Please do share your inside source of information.

But I can name a much more legitimate threat, that is much more likely to have weaspons of mass destruction... It's this wonderful place named "North Korea".

Grimlock, what rock have you been hiding under? :)

Saddam has used chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people. These have been well documented many times over...

He is the only living person to have used weapons of mass destruction against people, period...

Not to worry, North Korea's time will come. We would be foolish to attack both at the same time, they can wait their turn.

Grasshopper

Those terrorists connected to Iraq are going to smuggle them weapons of mass destruction under thier jackets right? Hes imaginary navy and air force are going to miraculously drop them on the US also.

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates America...
We have a prime example of a racist right here. Americans > Iraqis.