Why one soccer mom wants Hussein taken out

[DanTMWTMP]

sigh..no opinion either....at least bush forced iraq to redo the weapons inspections...

 

[JellyBaby]

You should have voted for Harry Browne

Who says I didn't. 😉

at least bush forced iraq to redo the weapons inspections.

And now he's telling us "don't be fooled by these inspections....Saddum has WMDs.". This is either the absolute best sabre-rattling "evar" or he really does value Iraq's oil above peace.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You should have voted for Harry Browne

Who says I didn't. 😉

at least bush forced iraq to redo the weapons inspections.

And now he's telling us "don't be fooled by these inspections....Saddum has WMDs.". This is either the absolute best sabre-rattling "evar" or he really does value Iraq's oil above peace.

You are ignoring the obvious third possibility.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You should have voted for Harry Browne

Who says I didn't. 😉

at least bush forced iraq to redo the weapons inspections.

And now he's telling us "don't be fooled by these inspections....Saddum has WMDs.". This is either the absolute best sabre-rattling "evar" or he really does value Iraq's oil above peace.

Why do I get the feeling that no matter what the inspections uncover...no matter what SH complies with or doesn't...no matter what the rest of the world might say...no matter what, period...Bush is going to get his way and lay waste to Iraq.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26
CS Monitor

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

Bah!!!! I'm 19, they'll probably haul me off to iraq to get blown full of holes........

 

[revvy]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: grasshopper26
Yes, a bit odd, isn't it? 🙂

Truth be told, we really do have a consistancy problem, one that I don't have a good answer for...

Grasshopper

Excuse me?? WE??

Stop acting like you speak for the whole country. You don't. You're just some f*cking moron whose mouth is bigger than his brain.

Seriously, just STFU. You make the rest of us Americans look bad. :frown:

You're quite right.. Grasshopper is the kind of American that I despise and look down upon.

 

[revvy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: UDT89
its better to be feared than loved................and yes im an arrogant american and i love it.


and if they hate us so much, why dont we just stop helping all the third world countries with their problems? I guess that goes unaccounted for.

Sounds like an excellent first step, not that you provide much aid to third world countries anyway (btw, I'm not saying this in support of foreign aid, just don't claim that the US is a great giver of aid, it isn't).

I would disagree, we are large giver of foreign aid.

foreign "aid"???? I think not, through the International Institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF (in which the US has veto power over), they have slapped "conditionalities" onto that very aid, where those third world countries who accept that "aid", are forced to implement trade and market liberalization, thus further impoverishing their already dire situations!

 

[revvy]

Originally posted by: grasshopper26

Originally posted by: gopunk

of minute importance... would we really care if saddam did it directly or if he did it through some intermediary?

my point is not to say that saddam is not bad or whatnot... but simply saying that he funds terrorist organizations is not saying very much, considering that's SOP. you can say he funds terrorist organizations that are against the united states, and those are some of the grounds for us wanting to take him out. that would be correct. just keep in mind that terrorism is used everywhere and by almost everybody. it is not just used against the "good" side.

The United States of America does not fund any terror groups...

Grasshopper

did you ever look at the situation the other way around? Don't you think other countries (not including the industrialized West) view the US regime as "terrorist" as well? It's not a one way street, it goes both ways.

 

[revvy]

now since when did Anandtech become a political forum???? This thread should be renamed "PolityTech" or something like that if that's the case. =\

 

[JellyBaby]

You are ignoring the obvious third possibility.

No, I'm waiting for the evidence of it.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: charrison
[
We rarely, if ever, get "our way". Bush slaps a 11% tarriff on softwood lumber to appease the US lumber industry, while travelling to S. America to tell them they must support "free trade" (can we say "hypocrite?). 'Free trade' is a rhetorical device in the hands of your government, nothing more (come to think of it, so is "freedom", "liberty", "rights" and most other apple pie concepts).

And canada is without tarrifs? Every country has them.

NAFTA.

Oh I guess you dont realize that Nafta is about 2000 pages that describe how free trade works between US, Mexico and Canada. NAFTA does not make tarrifs illegal, it just trys to regulate them. Canada does have tarrifs, export limits and other trade rules. If you say they dont, you will just prove how clueless you really are.

The sanctions were rules illegal by the NAFTA panel. The US applied them anyway.

----------

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin, 1759

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You should have voted for Harry Browne

Who says I didn't. 😉

at least bush forced iraq to redo the weapons inspections.

And now he's telling us "don't be fooled by these inspections....Saddum has WMDs.". This is either the absolute best sabre-rattling "evar" or he really does value Iraq's oil above peace.

Why do I get the feeling that no matter what the inspections uncover...no matter what SH complies with or doesn't...no matter what the rest of the world might say...no matter what, period...Bush is going to get his way and lay waste to Iraq.

That's it exactly.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: revvy
now since when did Anandtech become a political forum???? This thread should be renamed "PolityTech" or something like that if that's the case. =\

Its called "Off Topic", I think they describe it as a "coffee shop". This is what I discuss in my local coffee shop 🙂

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
And now he's telling us "don't be fooled by these inspections....Saddum has WMDs.". This is either the absolute best sabre-rattling "evar" or he really does value Iraq's oil above peace.

Interesting thought...

Perhaps what he is really saying is, "Hey Saddam, we know you have WMDs, saying you don't isn't acceptable. If you say that we'll attack, so you'd better start coming up with something and real quick, cause we aren't going to ask again..."

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Lithium381
Bah!!!! I'm 19, they'll probably haul me off to iraq to get blown full of holes........

I'm 26, so I'm beyond the selective service age...

Don't worry about it, the draft isn't comming back for anything short of a world war.

Grasshopper

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: revvy
did you ever look at the situation the other way around? Don't you think other countries (not including the industrialized West) view the US regime as "terrorist" as well? It's not a one way street, it goes both ways.

Sometimes it does go both ways, but in this case it doesn't...

We're right, they are wrong, that is how it is. We're free, they are oppressed... We're democratic, they are despots... We're honorable, they are not... We're the good guys, they are the evil dictators...

We will take the battle to the enemy... and we will win!!!

*waves flag*

*puts on Acme Flame Suit*

Grasshopper

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You are ignoring the obvious third possibility.

No, I'm waiting for the evidence of it.

If there is unrefutable proof that Saddam is amassing WMD's what would be your response?


Do you really think that the governments of the US and Britain would go on record saying that Saddam has them if they couldn't back those statements up?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: etech
If there is unrefutable proof that Saddam is amassing WMD's what would be your response?

Do you really think that the governments of the US and Britain would go on record saying that Saddam has them if they couldn't back those statements up?

That was my thinking too...

What is everyone expecting, a personal evidence brief from the President himself? 😛

Grasshopper

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You are ignoring the obvious third possibility.

No, I'm waiting for the evidence of it.

If there is unrefutable proof that Saddam is amassing WMD's what would be your response?


Do you really think that the governments of the US and Britain would go on record saying that Saddam has them if they couldn't back those statements up?

If he knows Saddam has them, tell the UN inspectors where they are, let them find the WMD, then we'll have something to deal with. Simple, no?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

You are ignoring the obvious third possibility.

No, I'm waiting for the evidence of it.

If there is unrefutable proof that Saddam is amassing WMD's what would be your response?


Do you really think that the governments of the US and Britain would go on record saying that Saddam has them if they couldn't back those statements up?

Absolutely.

 

[JellyBaby]

If there is unrefutable proof that Saddam is amassing WMD's what would be your response? Do you really think that the governments of the US and Britain would go on record saying that Saddam has them if they couldn't back those statements up?

Yes, I believe the U.S. government would go so far as to claim Iraq has WMDs even if there is no proof.

As to my response, the first question I ask is: has Iraq attacked us with WMDs? Has it attacked us at all? Does it even threaten us? But skip past that for a second and consider the original inspection team's record: they located, cataloged and destroyed most of Iraq's previous noncompliant weaponry. Obviously the goal was never to invade Iraq and depose Saddum although noises to that effect are being made today even though Iraq's been quiet for over a decade. If I recall Bush 1.0's statement, the goal was containment. Thus I can see how many might call for removal of any newly discovered weapons and that seems reasonable to me.