SO, what does everyone on here think....

[kramadas]

about Bush's war on Iraq? And Saddam's supposed connection to Al Queda.

Uh oh...hopefully I'm not stirring a hornet's nest here!

[malanee]

I agree with this article:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/10/07/bushwar/index_np.html

[vicman]

[vicman]

it just looks bad.

[zaguero]

I agree with what an Iraqui official said last week. "Bush and Saddam should settle it with a duel.":2guns:

[kramadas]

Originally posted by malanee

I agree with this article:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/10/07/bushwar/index_np.html

COuld you copy and paste the whole article onto here...I cannot access it.

Thanks!

[vicman]

Irak is no Panama, not Grenada not a tiny country that they can occupy easily.

[revaluation]

I think it comes down to how you side on one fundamental question: Do you think Saddam Hussein is a threat to us?

Me, I do. I really, really do.

But there's larger qestion that I feel is easily answered. Why do we do any of it at all?

I don't believe in the fundamental goodness of man. I believe people make every choice based on personal gain. People will always do that which is in their interest.

Is it in Amerca's interst to have Iraq be friendly to us? Yes. Whether it be oil or democracy or humanitarian or some weird combination of all three, it is in our interest that Saddam be gone. So, we will act in our interest. Notice there is no value judgement there. It is not wrong or right or good or bad. It's just what we do.

[malanee]

Here it is again:

Hail Caesar!

Yes, leaving Saddam in power is risky. But Bush's neo-imperalist war plans carry even more dangers for the U.S.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Gary Kamiya

Oct. 7, 2002 | President George W. Bush is presiding over the most radical change in American policy since the end of World War II. Bush's determination to invade Iraq represents a gigantic gamble. It is the riskiest military intervention America has undertaken since the end of World War II. Yet cavalierly disregarding those risks, the White House is pushing for regime change in Iraq as part of an aggressive new global strategy, one that represents a decisive -- and extremely dangerous -- break with the thinking that has guided American policy since the Cold War.

Prodded by hard-line ex-Cold Warriors and crusading neoconservatives, President Bush -- who ran for office promising a "humble" America -- has embraced an arrogant new doctrine of American supremacy that threatens not just to destabilize the Middle East and breed more terror, but to unravel the carefully constructed international order that has safely guided the world through the Cold War and into the new millennium. By word and deed -- breaking treaties, disdaining allies, declaring America exempt from international law, announcing a new doctrine of preemptive force -- the Bush administration has shown its desire to establish the United States as, in effect, an imperial power, the new Rome. After Sept. 11, an angry and triumphalist America is to be answerable to no one. Flaunting our 3,000 dead like a crusader's banner, we will march against foes wherever we may find them, our unchallengeable military and invincible rectitude giving us the right and might to do whatever we want. Deus lo volt!

The problem with this grand strategy is that military might is only half of what is needed to fight terror -- and Bush, jolted by Sept. 11 back into his most primal right-wing instincts, has completely failed to grasp this.

[kramadas]

Originally posted by revaluation

I think it comes down to how you side on one fundamental question: Do you think Saddam Hussein is a threat to us?

Me, I do. I really, really do.

But there's larger qestion that I feel is easily answered. Why do we do any of it at all?

I don't believe in the fundamental goodness of man. I believe people make every choice based on personal gain. People will always do that which is in their interest.

Is it in Amerca's interst to have Iraq be friendly to us? Yes. Whether it be oil or democracy or humanitarian or some weird combination of all three, it is in our interest that Saddam be gone. So, we will act in our interest. Notice there is no value judgement there. It is not wrong or right or good or bad. It's just what we do.

Brian, man, you're one of the few people who support the war, who's willing to come right out and say it for what it is - the nation's personal gain. I respect that. Most people get on this moral "us good, them evil" bullshit!

My take is that, it is NOT in the best interest of the US to start a war in Iraq now. It will alienate a lot of the Middle East (the people) thus adding more fuel for terrorism, NOT the war on terrorism. Last, not least, I hate Bush's arrogant, neo-imperialistic approach to foreign affairs.

And I won't even get started on the Iraqi civilian casualties. I don't care if its "collateral damage" - a dead person is a dead person regardless of whether it was intentional or not. If the US wants Saddam removed, then I say make it covert ops - at least you leave civilians out of it.

[cookiegirl]

From The Onion. . .

Bush seeks U.N. support for "U.S. Does Whatever It Wants" Plan

UNITED NATIONS—In an address before the U.N. General Assembly Monday, President Bush called upon the international community to support his "U.S. Does Whatever It Wants" plan, which would permit the U.S. to take any action it wishes anywhere in the world at any time.

"As a shining beacon of freedom and democracy, America has inspired the world," said Bush in his 25-minute address. "With its military might, it has kept the peace and bravely defended the unalienable [sic] rights of millions around the globe. In this spirit, I call upon the world's nations to support my proposal to give America unrestricted carte blanche to remove whatever leaders, plunder whatever resources, and impose whatever policies it deems necessary or expedient."

According to top Bush Administration officials, if the measure is passed by the U.N.—and possibly if it is not—the U.S. would immediately launch invasions of Iraq, North Korea, and Cuba; establish oil-drilling operations in Siberia; install nuclear-missile silos in Mongolia along the Chinese border; make English the official language of the planet; detain thousands of Middle Eastern nationals currently in the U.S. on temporary visas; begin each day with a moment of worldwide prayer; and prohibit Japan and Germany from manufacturing automobiles.

In addition, no demonstration against U.S. actions by any foreign nation or individual would be permitted. Any such protestation would be deemed a high crime subject to a U.N. tribunal, with those found guilty flown to Texas for execution by lethal injection.

"After the unspeakable events of last Sept. 11, the U.S. was deeply touched by the outpouring of support and condolences from our neighbors and allies the world over," Bush said. "This kindness played a vital role in our national healing process, but, more importantly, it cemented our long-standing self-image as the country, with all other nations lumped together into a vague, foreign Other Place. I call upon you now to join us in our vision of America as the only country whose wishes matter."

Bush then turned to the pressing issue of Iraq.

"Despite repeated American efforts to change the situation, Saddam Hussein defiantly continues his longtime policy of being the president of Iraq," Bush said. "The time has come for this man to step down, because we want him to."

"While there exist many grave threats to America abroad, we suffer still more problems—from unemployment to a lack of quality, affordable housing—right here at home," Bush said. "After this resolution is passed, we will begin a 10-year project to clean out our nation's landfills and toxic-waste sites, transport the materials to Central American jungles, and build low-cost housing on the newly cleared land. This would solve the housing shortage, create thousands of construction jobs, and improve our nation's environment, all in one fell swoop."

As much of a boon as it would be to America, Bush stressed that his plan will also benefit the rest of the world, giving foreigners greater access than ever to American goods and entertainment.

"From the Beijing businessman who treats his family to dinner at KFC to the New Delhi textile worker who unwinds after a hard day's work by watching Friends, the world community has embraced our many wonderful cultural and commercial exports," Bush said. "As part of my plan, the U.S. will be allowed to export its products tariff-free, while other countries' goods will be subject to heavy taxes. This will help ensure that people the world over will continue to enjoy our computers, DVDs, and soft drinks, free of the clutter of competing non-American goods on their store shelves."

Bush concluded his speech by calling upon the U.N. to fly an extra-large U.S. flag outside its headquarters, high above the other member nations' flags.

"From the Monroe Doctrine to our ignoring of the Kyoto Treaty, America has always boldly defied the powers that be. Ever since its founding, this great nation has courageously asserted its will, bravely tuning out the objections of the other nations of the world," Bush said at the speech's conclusion. "I urge you today, do not let that legacy die. Allow us to continue our long-standing tradition of getting our way."

Global reaction to Bush's plan has been mixed, with 56 percent of Americans in support and 100 percent of non-Americans strongly opposed.

[revaluation]

there is not one iota of truth in that article. This is not a "new" doctrine. If someone is yelling at you and loading a weapon and you run over to stop them before they get it loaded, wouldn't that be smart?

True, its possible they may not have pulled the trigger. But are you gonna take that chance? Are you gonna stare down the barrel of a gun and "trust" that there's no way they'll shoot?

After the speech last night, there is only one critique left: the president is lying. You absolutely have to believe the president is lying in order to feel like Iraq does not present a threat to us.

But then, that shouldn't be so hard for Dems. They sat there and believed a liar for the last 8 years with no problem.

[revaluation]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Brian, man, you're one of the few people who support the war, who's willing to come right out and say it for what it is - the nation's personal gain. I respect that. Most people get on this moral "us good, them evil" bullshit!

My take is that, it is NOT in the best interest of the US to start a war in Iraq now. It will alienate a lot of the Middle East (the people) thus adding more fuel for terrorism, NOT the war on terrorism. Last, not least, I hate Bush's arrogant, neo-imperialistic approach to foreign affairs.

And I won't even get started on the Iraqi civilian casualties. I don't care if its "collateral damage" - a dead person is a dead person regardless of whether it was intentional or not. If the US wants Saddam removed, then I say make it covert ops - at least you leave civilians out of it.

Did you watrch the speech last night?

[kramadas]

Originally posted by revaluation

Did you watrch the speech last night?

No I didn't get a chance to, but I think there might be a copy on cnn.com...gonna check it out.

[malanee]

So, are we going to wipe out everyone who we percieve as a threat? Very dangerous thinking, indeed. I see no peace at the end of that road.

And maybe that's the difference. To me, peace is the ultimate goal - not the total and unchallenged dominance and safety of the US people.

~Malanee

[vicman]

hehehe.....i love when people start talking politics.

i see both sides, war is war regardless and there will be ceivilian casualites while invading irak would only make matters worse on the long run. then of course do not think that the US or the coalition will have the capacity to occupy the country plus as the Soviets found out in Afganistan, these people are truly fanatics and will stop at nothing. Last thing the US probably wants is another Vietnam.

On the other side, is Saddam a crazy lunatic who has tremendous power in the middle east? yes. if no one does anything will he have the capacity in a very short time to deploy nuclear weapons and use them without thinking twice? yes. is he a danger to the stability of the entire region? yes.

its been over 10 years since the gulf war and economic preassures have accomplished nothing. the country is poor and he could care less. typical dictator that will stop at nothing to get what he wants.

there is no easy answer to this, any action that is taken or not taken will have undesirable side effects, but if the whole thing stays as it is, i just dont wanna see another september 11 type of event here or anywhere in the world and then finding out that the people that did that were trained, received funds, etc. from a terrorist nation.

[vicman]

Originally posted by malanee

So, are we going to wipe out everyone who we percieve as a threat? Very dangerous thinking, indeed. I see no peace at the end of that road.

And maybe that's the difference. To me, peace is the ultimate goal - not the total and unchallenged dominance and safety of the US people.

~Malanee

of course a big deal of the problem was that during the cold war the US intervened in lots of places, the reputation of the US govment precedes it when it takes actions like the ones Bush wants to engage in.

But i dunno, to me Bush is kind of an air head, but he does have very capable people working for him so this is a decision that he has taken with the advice of his staff...i would hope that is the case.

[revaluation]

Nobody wants to fight. That's why they call it defense.

Offense is Saddam Hussein "reclaiming" Kuwait. He broke international law. INTERNATIONAL Law - as in, laws created by the UN who everybody loves so much. Not US law.

There is no other country in the world who can enforce international law by themselves, except us. If we don't do it- no, if we don't initiate it, nobody will. nobody will.

Ya know what happens when nobody enforces international law? Adolf Hitler.

_________________________________________________

Guys, we're talking about human nature here. It is not human nature to sit around discussing our problems until we all come to some peaceful agreement - see Isreal/Palestine.

You can't get Clinton, Barak, and Arafat to sit around a fire at Camp David and pass the doobie until we all just get along.

Preemption is not a preference, it's pragmatism.

"The naive assertion that we have no right to unseat Saddam is the product either of short-term or selective memory. Thirteen months ago, Americans could not have been convinced that we should take aggressive action against al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan -or suspected terrorists already living here -because we believed that someday soon they would hijack airplanes, destroy the World Trade Center and incinerate thousands of innocent civilians.

Today we're having an equally hard time convincing the world that we should take aggressive action against Saddam because we believe he eventually will revisit hell on our shores and our allies' borders. How long before Bush is demonized for failing to connect those dots?"

[kramadas]

Originally posted by revaluation

Nobody wants to fight. That's why they call it defense.

Offense is Saddam Hussein "reclaiming" Kuwait. He broke international law. INTERNATIONAL Law - as in, laws created by the UN who everybody loves so much. Not US law.

There is no other country in the world who can enforce international law by themselves, except us. If we don't do it- no, if we don't initiate it, nobody will. nobody will.

Ya know what happens when nobody enforces international law? Adolf Hitler.

_________________________________________________

Guys, we're talking about human nature here. It is not human nature to sit around discussing our problems until we all come to some peaceful agreement - see Isreal/Palestine.

You can't get Clinton, Barak, and Arafat to sit around a fire at Camp David and pass the doobie until we all just get along.

Preemption is not a preference, it's pragmatism.

"The naive assertion that we have no right to unseat Saddam is the product either of short-term or selective memory. Thirteen months ago, Americans could not have been convinced that we should take aggressive action against al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan -or suspected terrorists already living here -because we believed that someday soon they would hijack airplanes, destroy the World Trade Center and incinerate thousands of innocent civilians.

Today we're having an equally hard time convincing the world that we should take aggressive action against Saddam because we believe he eventually will revisit hell on our shores and our allies' borders. How long before Bush is demonized for failing to connect those dots?"

Where does it end then? And who's to decide what a danger is? Anyone who does not agree with the US? Who's next...Iran, North Korea? Are they also going to try launch terrorist attacks on the US?

Anyway, we can discuss all we want, in the end, whatever is going to happen will happen.

[revaluation]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Where does it end then? And who's to decide what a danger is? Anyone who does not agree with the US? Who's next...Iran, North Korea? Are they also going to try launch terrorist attacks on the US?

Anyway, we can discuss all we want, in the end, whatever is going to happen will happen.

C'mon man, running two jumbo jets into the WTC and murdering 3500 people is a far cry from "disagreeing with us".

And if we find evidence like the pres outlined last night to show that other countries are planning on attacking us, then yes, we should do something about it.

The bottom line is that Americans aren't like that. We (incl. Bush) are not dictators. We have peaceful transfers of power every 2 years. We have elected officials who are directly accountable to the people they represent. To compare our government to that of terrorist regimes (as in the Salon article) is pure hyperbole and ridiculous.

Check out Dinesh D'Souza's book "Whats so Great about America". I have a copy you can borrow.

Raver, check him out http://www.dineshdsouza.com/bio.html

[malanee]

To this day, I don't think a pre-emptive attack on the Al Queda would have solved our problems and prevented terror from ever reaching our homeland. Furthermore, an attack on Iraq will protect us no more than an attack on Vietnam did. This is simplistic thinking and ignores our own responsibility in creating a world full of war and violence on every level (from domestic violence to wars between countries).

We as Americans, no as HUMANS, need to question why it is that war and terrorism are common occurences. While some would argue that it was human nature, I disagree. I DO think it is a result of societies based on ownership and the accumulation of wealth and power. But it doesn't have to be that way. It requires a huge paradigm shift and one that I don't see happening until there is a disaster of monumental proportions - nuclear or otherwise.

Perhaps that is why I haven't the heart to spend a lot of time protesting this war. Sometimes I feel we humans have learned nothing of democracy and peace and we won't until something very terrible happens.

[merkie]

There are numerous pros and cons to both sides of the situation and it is a very difficult decision to make.

If the US is going to kill Saddam then we will also have to kill his sons because they are just as bad. And if left alive they will def want revenge on the US for killing their father.

Leave Saddam alive and eventually we may be faced with another 9/11.

Which ever decision Bush/Congress makes there will be negative effects.

[merkie]

We as Americans, no as HUMANS, need to question why it is that war and terrorism are common occurences. While some would argue that it was human nature, I disagree. I DO think it is a result of societies based on ownership and the accumulation of wealth and power. But it doesn't have to be that way. It requires a huge paradigm shift and one that I don't see happening until there is a disaster of monumental proportions - nuclear or otherwise.

I agree with Malanee. I think that it is going to take something serious to change the way of the world. Learn from our mistakes in a sense.

[Guest jroo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Brian, man, you're one of the few people who support the war, who's willing to come right out and say it for what it is - the nation's personal gain. I respect that. Most people get on this moral "us good, them evil" bullshit!

My take is that, it is NOT in the best interest of the US to start a war in Iraq now. It will alienate a lot of the Middle East (the people) thus adding more fuel for terrorism, NOT the war on terrorism. Last, not least, I hate Bush's arrogant, neo-imperialistic approach to foreign affairs.

And I won't even get started on the Iraqi civilian casualties. I don't care if its "collateral damage" - a dead person is a dead person regardless of whether it was intentional or not. If the US wants Saddam removed, then I say make it covert ops - at least you leave civilians out of it.

hey, if the civilains wanted to live then they shouldnt hang around targets. thats just common sense. im not for war. im for dropping fucking a-bombs on them. how's that for being civil?

[Guest jroo]

check it out, if sadam or bin ladin had long range nuclear weapons or a-bombs, they both WOULD HAVE ALREADY USED THEM AGAINST US. so fuck 'em. i dont care either way. i just want heads to roll. the people need to stop harboring these fucking monsters.