Soapbox: The Saddam issue

[amtsst]

Re: Soapbox: The Saddam issue

"Response to VWIT100"<br /><br />What?? Does the administration want inspections or not, hard to tell isn't it. <br />== The administration wants inspections. The Bush team doesn't want an Iraqi dog and pony show complete with lies, smoke and mirrors. If thats the agenda, then no...inspections won't work. If we're talking unqualified access, then the administration would love to go that route. They know exactly where to look. You are taking things out of context to support your own view.<br /><br />The man who led our forces in Desert Storm says we should have inspections but then the Vice President says the it won't do any good. Bush can't seem to make up his mind, his statements are sort of wishy-washy on the issue. He want's to do something but won't say exactly what that might be. <br />== I agree. The president should turn over all satellite intelligence to CNN. He should further advertise how we plan to go about taking out Saddam. Additionally, he should fly to New York and grovel before the UN security council which has members like France and Russia on it. <br /><br />So far all I've heard or seen on the news says that it will be at least three years before Sadam has nuclear weapons. <br />== A leading think tank released a report this morning saying that Saddam is only months away from a working nuclear device. I'd hate to think you needed to see a mushroom cloud rising over Chicago before you were willing to take a stand on this issue.<br /><br />Saddam only controls about a third of his own country, do you think a leader that can't even control his own country could pose a serious threat to the US. <br />== I don't see your point. You seem to be saying that if our warplanes patrol the no-fly zones (which are mostly empty desert) then Saddam isn't a threat? WHAT???? I contend that if Saddam has a couple of billion dollars in cash and some chemical weapons (lets ignore nuclear for the moment) then he IS IN FACT A THREAT...and YES, its a SERIOUS ONE.<br /><br />The question is, do you think the Middle East will be safer for American interests after an unprovoked attach on an Arab country. <br />== WOW. I didn't even think YOU would go there. Lets see....Failed to comply with cease fire signed in 1991....continually shoots SAM missles at US planes in the area...pays cash to families of suicide bombers (who managed to kill several Americans in the last wave I might add)...has continued to build weapons of mass destruction in clear violation of UN terms...<br /><br />THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES. Our interests will be safer after after we remove Saddam. Your phrase 'unprovoked' is straight up laughable. The Saudis need to be slapped too. They BEGGED us to come defend them against Saddam 11 years ago. Now they spit on us and say its all our fault. To heck with them too.<br /><br />Or do you think this will serve to fuel the fires of anti-americanism and terror against the US in this part of the world. <br />== anti-americanism is a fact of life and will continue until Israel is destroyed. The arabs already hate us for arming Israel and since the fires of hate are already burning bright, we may as well defend ourselves.

 

[wvit100]

Re: Soapbox: The Saddam issue

Backwater,<br /><br />I think I can see the way you think now. The answer lies in the the last two paragraphs of your last post. You say the Saudis need slapped along with Iraq and that everyone in the middleast hates us for arming Isreal. Maybe, by your logic we should just go ahead and see if we can't take over the middle east and make an american holding out of it. Like the bumper sticker says, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."<br /><br />We have tried changing peoples minds by force a couple of times in the past, Vietnam comes to mind. It didn't work there what makes you think it will work now. <br /><br />And how do you think they will deliver the nuclear bombs to Chicago. I don't think they have the resources to get them here. Your worrying about the wrong things, Timothy McVey used fertilizer and fuel to blow up the federal building and the Sept. 11th terrorists used box cutters and commercial jets. Terrorism isn't a high tech issue. Sadam isn't going to UPS a nuclear bomb into this country or spray poison gas over your city. He might use a nuclear bomb on our troops or use some of his gas on them if they attack.<br /><br />If his neighbors aren't worried enough about him to try deposing him then why should we send our men and women to fight and die. And make no mistake some of them will die in the fight. What is the final outcome you want for this military action? And how and when do we get our people out of Iraq when we've done whatever it is we are going to do? If it's revenge for Sept. 11th you want then I think we are attacking the wrong country.<br /><br />Have you ever been to the Vietnam memorial in Washington and seen the names of the thousands of people who died in our last war to change the way people in another country think? It's a sobering sight and feeling. I don't want another memorial somewhere to a war in Iraq without some good reasons.

 

[amtsst]

Re: Soapbox: The Saddam issue

Yes, I've seen the Vietnam memorial. I pass it on the way to work when I go to the downtown office and the names of family members are on those black granite tables. I find your attempt to liken Iraq to Vietnam very disturbing for several reasons.<br />1. Our presence in Vietnam was purely ideological. The NVA posed no direct risk to the US, nor had they threatened any action, unlike Iraq.<br />2. SH intends to use weapons of mass destruction *offensively*. This is the hallmark of a tyrant. He bankrupts his country and starves his people in the pursuit of his weapons program. You cannot argue that he stockpiles Mustard Gas, VX, Ebola Virus, and Plutonium?? for personal defense.<br />3. Yes. If we go in, it will be bad. I grieve now for what will certainly be a tragic loss of life. <br /><br />Your complacency alarms me. "And how do you think they will deliver the nuclear bombs to Chicago. I don't think they have the resources to get them here. "<br />=== And how will a poor illiterate, rag-tag bunch of Al Queda fighters kill 2600 people in 90 minutes armed with carpet knives???<br /><br />Have you ever seen the port of Norfolk? An Iraqi nuclear weapon will enter this country in a shipping container of goat skins or a pallet marked 'donkey pinatas'. It will be put on a truck that can be rented for $39/day and driven there. Sheesh. You think in terms of guided ballistic missles that use GPS links for steering. Has it escaped your attention that for years, Afghanistan was the world's largest producer of Heroin? How do you suppose it got into the US???????<br /><br />You have now alluded to 'good reason' for the third time. Please enlighten me on what constitutes a 'good reason' to take Saddam out under these circumstances.<br /><br />1. Iraq lost the Gulf War and has failed to keep its peace accords.<br />2. Iraq has an offensive weapons program that continues uninterrupted.<br />3. UN inspectors are not allowed into the country as mandated.<br />4. Iraq directly funds terrorism and bombings against our sworn ally.

 

[derwood]

Re: Soapbox: The Saddam issue

Killing is to good for him.....at least not right away.....I said in another post about another rat that I would be more than happy to hang him upside down from my front porch and **** down his nostrels every morning on my way out the door to work.<br /><br />I'm not greedy either.....I won't charge a dime to anybody elese that wants to stop by and use the head (pun intended).<br /><br />First one to turn his eyes yellow gets to shoot the Ba$terd (just let me move him out on the lawn first).<br /><br />We could even right a book about it...."The yellow river" by I.P. Daily. (sorry....Old joke)<br /><br />vendetawood.