so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[lane]

This is great. No flames yet. Keep up the good work people.

I think I voted for Clinton the second time. Mostly because I can't even remember who the Republican candidate was. Little did I know how it would end up.... I was young and impresionable! My polical views have been solidified since (and partially because of) Clintons time in office.

I'm just sad I don't get to work for GW like I did his father. I thought G1 was one hell of a guy and leader. GW proved himself after 9/11 and is going to show us more of his convictions and savvy soon I feel.

-Lane

[board Lizard]

http://www.bushorchimp.com

u decide!!!11

[high_jeeves]

Actually, quite a few people are disputing Powell's report.. not in the facts that it presents, but in the fact that it proves little... The claim is, that there are terrorist cells in Iraq. Are there? No doubt. The assumption that is being made however is that Saddam MUST know about and be involved with those cells.... So, I beg to ask the question: When do we bomb Spain?

Some logic:

Cell in Iraq ---> Saddam knows about cell (that was an assumption, no proof was shown to the positive of this).

Cell in Spain --> Spanish govt knows about the cell (we have the same amount proof here as above).

I'm not claiming that we shouldnt go after Saddam.. I'm not claiming he is a good guy. I am claiming that it is disingenuous of us to go to the UN, get inspectors, and then before they are even on a plane to Iraq, we call material breach, and send the navy that way...

Do I think they are in material breach? Yes.
Does the UN? Apparently not.
Should we just go around the UN and attack? No, whats the point of the UN then?
If the UN approves? Then I agree we should capture/kill Saddam.

If we make up the rules as we go along, how can we expect any other country to follow them? We are supposed to be setting the example as the worlds leading democracy.. we are doing a piss poor job of it, if we ignore the council votes..

--Jeeves

[Borscht]

I stated that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote in either election, and that most people don't vote Democrat.

You printed the proof of that, and declared yourself triumphant. Conveniently ignoring the governerships and local elections, all dominated by Republicans.

I made no claim as to a shift one way or another, but only that most people vote Republican.

Before you can make claims on any of my equations, you must include the entire calculus. When you've done so, by thoroughly researching and including not only presidential elections, but also governerships and local *as I did*, you might have something to add.

I don't argue with fools, or throw pearls before swine, Jeeves. So it's unlikely that I will engage you further in any political discussion. There are more than enough smirking liberals in the world, and I'm not here to encourage yet another one.

[high_jeeves]

I stated that Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote in either election, and that most people don't vote Democrat.

You accuse me of not providing all of the information? Of course Clinton didnt get more than 50% of the vote in either election.. there was a third candidate.. only 1 president in the history of this country has done that... stating that as proof that clinton wasnt a good president, because he didnt get 50% of the vote, without providing any additional information is a half-truth. Stating "most people don't vote Democrat" is the same half-truth.. it is 100% as accurate to state that "most people don't vote Republican". It is like saying the sky is red. Its a half-truth, depending on what other information you provide (the sky is red, during certain times of the day, at certain angles..).

Conveniently ignoring the governerships and local elections, all dominated by Republicans.

I made no claim as to a shift one way or another, but only that most people vote Republican.

The shift is the relevant part... 10 years ago, THE EXACT SAME SHIFT happened in the opposite direction.. Saying that THIS YEAR, the republicans took many state/local positions means that most people vote Republican, is another half-truth. (note: VOTE, not VOTED THIS YEAR).

I don't argue with fools, or throw pearls before swine, Jeeves. So it's unlikely that I will engage you further in any political discussion. There are more than enough smirking liberals in the world, and I'm not here to encourage yet another one.

Jesus.. this is exactly what I mean.. you have no ability to argue a point objectively.. people either agree with you, or are wrong.. If you have a problem with the facts I presented, feel free to correct me, if you disagree with my point of view, debate me, instead of calling me names, and walking away... Unfortunately, this is what is wrong with many parts of America right now... if either of the two parties came out and said "Our new platform is to kill all people who's address ends in a 4", I think a significant percentage of the voters would still vote along party lines... The world isnt defined along party lines.. listen to the issues, think about all sides of them, then make a decision.. dont belittle people that dont agree with your opinion, this is america, everyone gets an opinion..

--Jeeves

[cryptorad]

.. the price is high to force out Saddam. But to wait is more costly. Saddam is a freaking threat to everyone. Middle East and elsewhere. He has done some of the most horrible things you can ever imagine. Everyone KNOWS this. But .. for the sake of partisan politics, everyone is trying to get in Bush's way because they don't want him to be right. The Dem's.. then the French.. then the Germans.. and with THAT much dissension. There will be more to follow. Russia is chiming in now too.

BTW... this dissension is the REAL threat to world peace. If we all just stood together these chumps would fold their cards like the bad poker player they are. But.. every dissenting voice emboldens them more and more. Soon.. they will think they have the momentum and make a strike. That will force a terrible, non-retractable, response from the US. But, I digress.

The French, the Germans and the Russians have a common interest in Iraq. That country is a HUGE customer of theirs. For all things.. medical equipment, communication equipment, technology consultants, supplies.. etc etc. Most of the middle east has a decent amount of money from oil sales. But little to no real technical expertise on their own. Iraq, ironically, is the most advanced country there in the form of technology. Saddam has seen to it that he controls a fair amount of technology and science. Almost all of it came from the military build up Saddam has performed preparing for his 'take over the Middle East' attitude. The military is where he spent all his money and why his people live as peasents. He's threatened Saudi numerous times. Fought Iran. Invaded Kuwait. Etc etc etc. The man is a god damn terrorist. His mindset.. and stated policies absolutely MIRROR Bin Laden's. They really see eye to eye on alot of things. PERSONALLY.. I think Bin Laden is IN Iraq. But.. that's just me.

Should we wait and let inspectors work?

Hell no. Inspectors didn't do us any damn good in N. Korea. They were there for a decade and managed to convince Billy boy that they were all soft and friendly like. And.. if you REALLY want to throw a spear at Clinton.. just realize that HE is the one who gave N. Korea the reactors and the material that they are using to make those bombs right now. The ones they threatened to fire on Japan if we impose any sanctions on them. If those nukes are ever used.. be sure to send a thank note to Billy Clinton and the Democratic liberal policies, cause that's where they came from.

N. Korea is a fairly stable and diplomatic country compared to Iraq. Iraq has what Saddam needs for a bomb. He's down to simply being able to enrich some Uranium, or.. at least that's what the evidence of his supply purchases points towards. Now what the hell you think HE"S gonna do when HE gets a bomb?? Does anyone reading this have any doubts about that?


We can stand by and let it happen. After all.. that's how WW1 and WW2 got started. Standing by.. and letting it happen. Of course.. if we are GOING to fight a war. I'd rather it NOT be nuclear. But.. it may already be too late for that. Again.. send your 'thank you note' to Billy. Care of Democratic National Party.

Again.. this is just MY opinion. Based on facts though.

[high_jeeves]

Clinton this, clinton that... Does anyone remember that is was Reagan that armed Saddam in the first place? I mean, I'm not a clinton fan, but lets be honest here.. he may have done nothing helpful, but atleast he didnt sell them dirt cheap, high tech arms, knowing that he had already killed many of his own people...

I agree inspectors wont work, but you cant send them in, and then immediately ignore them.. what are we working so hard to defend? Our honest, open, diplomatic way of life? No wonder most of the rest of the world hates us.. we badmouth them, while breaking all of the rules we, and they set for international behavior.. I think we need to either start playing buy the rules, or atleast admit that we arent going to play by the rules...

The entire concept that dissension (the voicing of an opinion that doesnt agree with yours) is a thread to world peace, is one of the most unamerican things i have ever heard. What is the point of free speech, if using it labels you as a threat to world peace?

Unfortunately, we have had a serious of presidents whose foreign policy exposure, before presidency was minimal at best... Our tried and true solution of arming some semi-bad guys, to get rid of some other really bad guys has bitten us in the ass more times than we can count.. There are two solutions, that I see to solving these problems, both are odious:

1) Fuck em... let them deal with their own problems.. this keeps us out of it, but leaves alot of the rest of the people in the world totally screwed... this is the Pat Buchanan philosopy, no wonder he will never be president (althought, he seems to have the elderly Jewish vote in Florida, for some reason...)

2) Kill em all, and install our own governments.. this solutions is equally as odious, because it makes everyone in the world hate us..

Being the preeminate super power sucks... its a lose/lose situation.. if you dont do enough, you are isolationist and univolved... if you do too much, you are overbearing and bent on world domination... Its a tough call, and a tough decision to make.. i hate to see it broken down to the simple one sided terms that I see here on these boards.. especially since many of the facts presented are questionable..

N. Korea is a fairly stable and diplomatic country compared to Iraq.

Huh? Their leader is the second in a family-ruled communist dictatorship, that demands 100% attention and obedience, kills anyone who could be rivaling them, starves his people with a refusal of international help, and just for kicks, has a $750,000 a year liquor bill with a major congac distributor... We can argue all day about stability, but calling north korea a diplomatic country is insane.. they have broken the all of their international treaties that relate to arms and financial support, and when somebody calls them on it, they threaten their neighbors... not exactly what I think of when i hear the word "diplomatic".

I fail to understand how educated people in the country can be so hell bent on one party or another, blame all the problems in the world on the other party, and never say anything bad about there own.. I think it is the trend we are seeing in this country over the last 25 years or so, that treats politics, and law as a game, with winners and losers... It amazes me when people treat politics like a football game, or are cheering in the streets when a certain verdict comes back from a court (specifically remembering the OJ trial).. I mean, this is real world stuff, think about what you are saying, dont take everything that the media says, and dont villify, or praise somebody simply based on their party affiliations... If all you can see is black and white, you miss the big picture..

--Jeeves

[Lyroschen]

Been enjoying this thread... particularly Jeeves' posts. It's not easy to get ones brain wrapped completely around a topic as large as politics. Then adding foreign policy, public trends, morality, economics, etc... it'd amaze me if anyone was able to make real sense of it all, instead of just picking the pieces that seem most important at the time.

This particular issue hits on so many levels it makes my head hurt to try and consider it all. So, I'll leave out the local issues (since that's been the biggest debate thus far), and ask about the world theater.

Does the UN want the US to take action? Obviously, no. If it was just a matter of whether or not Sadaam was a bad guy, it'd likely already be a done deal. So, what are the consequences of kicking Iraq's butt?

Well, first of all, it'd give the US even more cause for thinking of itself as the world police. Every time we successfully stop a bad guy from doing bad things, and make some money for the US while we're at it, we get a little more attitude, and have a little less respect for the rest of the world. We're already viewed as the teenager who think's they're too smart to listen to mom and dad anymore. The press plays a HUGE role in this, since we have to get everyone to agree that the US is justified in their action. Without popular support, we couldn't maintain our "good guy" image.

Who gets Iraq after we level it?
That doesn't just mean who gets ownership (since they can maintain their own government, etc). But, someone will get to determine what type of government that would be. Additionally, conditions and controls would be put in place to ensure that Iraq didn't become a threat again. Who would get to play that role? I can see many countries opposing the US gaining that kind of control. Especially since the oil becomes such a bargaining chip.

Personally, I'm in favor of "Operation Cherry Squishy". For those not familiar with this possible outcome, it involves the following:
1) Levelling the entire middle east with precision cluster-fucking.
2) Sending in an army of engineers to build a HUGE parking lot.
3) Populating said parking lot with "Quicky Marts" (with gas stations where possible).

Anyway, back to the point... for those getting frustrated about the UN being hesitant to take action, or pissed off that global politics takes soooo long to get anything done, remember that to do what we may think needs to be done may very well mean completely changing the scope of international politics. And lots of folks aren't going to want such changes to happen unless they get to be the ones that benefit from the changes.

And the following seems applicable:

Politics may be the truest word in the English language, since it stems from Poly - meaning many, and Ticks - meaning blood sucking insects.

[cryptorad]

... I tend to agree with your comments. But not your options. Also, you miss my point here.

Reagan sold Iraq some weapons and systems. Everyone buys their weapons somewhere.. what's the point? Of course.. all the tanks and such were Russian, but MY POINT WAS.. Clinton effectively gave N. Korea nukes. Handed them the pieces they were missing to manufacture several nuclear weapons.

And N. Korea has had them.. and haven't used them yet. I do not think Saddam is that stable. That was my comment on the comparison. It was a bit tounge in cheek .. and you portrayed it as literal. Of COURSE N. Korea isn't a democratic country.. and I think I realize that. You should realize I know that too.

Yes.. I'm a bit partisan right now but it is in RESPONSE. And only because I see the mistakes of liberal policies as threatening the very lives of my children right now. This is true.. and a fact.. and no amount of "I shouldn't feel that way.." is going to change it. I never said the conservatives were all knowing or correct in all things. And I don't feel that way. In fact.. I think we realize how many mistakes are made on all sides to get us to this point we're at now.

You offer isolationism as an option. History has shown this to fail again and again and again. So that leaves your second option.. kill them all.

I tend not to agree with either of your statements then. I think they are both wrong. I think we need a course that is very similar to the one we are on. Sadly.. it is not working very well as we have nothing but Partisan politics (From Dem's, France, Germany and Russia who'd ALL like to see the current administration choke on it) causing the situation we are in WHICH IS DANGEROUS.

That's my complaint. And.. My opinion. Again.. I feel it is based on facts.

[Mr. Suspicious]

"If you're not with me, you're against me" cryptorad?

The world != the US of A. Russians were'nt surpressed when they introduced communism (as a matter of fact their population DEMANDED it, revolted for it). Are Cubans surpressed? Are Saudians? Are Irakies? From your cultural view: yes, how about from theirs? Stating something as a fact only viewing it from your cultural viewpoint and completely ignoring the cultural differences that lead others to believe otherwise: What a dense vision. "Russians love their children to", please keep that in mind.

Unlike popular believes: there is no good and there is no evil, there's only "something on a sliding scale between those two".

I'm not telling you how revolting the death penalty as used in the USA is to most of the world, you don't hear me bash Americans, nor America for that. Or the fact that the US is the only country in the world that does not recognize the International Warcrime and Crime to Humanity Courts in The Hague where Milosovic and Mladiz are being prosecuted currently. You don't hear me give my opinion about the fact that the US President even a law that gives him the right to invade The Netherlands to free Americans from that Court if/when they have been apprehended by UN forces, without even having to consult the US Senate. Not to mention other laws that "lessens control" the US government, and inhabitants have.... IMO, this is moving the US towards a dictatorship slowly step-by-step (not a flame, just an observation)

If we allow the US now to attack someone without a valid reason, what will keep it from doing it again in the future? What will keep it from doing it to.... us?

[cryptorad]

I agree with you for a fair amount.

Yes.. my views are from my perspective.. what I call freedom. Based on a political system where I supposedly elect who I want. It's not perfect.. but it seems to be one of, if not, the best. Dissenting opinions are allowed and heard. The communists have had a presidential candidate in this country every election for longer then I have been alive. They've never won, btw.

As a matter of comparison.. how many Republican candidates have been on the ballot in Cuba? Russia? Iraq? Saudi? I believe you offered them as 'repressed' societies by my view. There are those that say they are repressive. Do they even have ballots? Oh.. that's right... Saddam received a perfect 100% of the Iraqi vote. Yeah.. no repressive BS there. There is a FAIR amount of evidence to the effect that they are repressive. And.. there is a CRAPLOAD of citizens from those countries who 'escaped' to the US and requested political asylum. Now.. why do you think that happens????

I happen to work for a Cuban who was booted out of Cuba. You absolutely do NOT want to have this discussion with him. He'll have a few comments for you that would be downright rude.

You are correct.. we are becoming more repressive.. and losing our freedoms. And.. I personally.. will vote to increase those restrictions and forfeit my freedoms. I do it in exchange for security. Since we are the target of so many attacks.. we need to sacrifice our freedoms. ONE day.. they will only laugh at how open our borders are today, and how free we have been. Because.. with the current trend I can assure you they will not remain that way.

There is a reason everyone comes here to attack us. There is NO PLACE ELSE ON EARTH like this country. Our freedoms.. and our massive amount of cheap high quality goods makes us the best place to be to accomplish almost anything. Either terror attacks.. or starting a business. MOST people who come here want the latter. Some want the former.

Communism was a revolution in some countries... to escape a repressive monarchy. Which then was enforced by a dictator. Which then has been otherthrown in many countries in exchange for democracy. That seems to be the trend historically. Communism doesn't work economically. Socially, it makes alot of sense, but the evidence is blatantly obvious that it doesn't work long term.

There are countries that are strongly social and economically sound. But they are all partly capitalist based socialism. Those countries are great places to visit. Incidentally.. those countries also export a massive amount of goods to the US. We're "customers". Maybe something like that will be possible when there are no countries that wish to expand their power thru attacks. Sadly.. we don't live in that world today. And no one in any of those 'social' countries is any position to do anything about the threats that Iraq makes. Those countries have dropped out of the responsibility of world security. In exchange for social and economic "bliss". More power to you.. but it seems a tad hypocrite to criticize a country that IS doing something about it. Unless you just want Iraq as another 'customer'. After all.. that's how France does it.

Don't get me wrong. I do NOT want a war. I don't want people to die horribly.. maybe even my own son who is exactly at draft age right now. But make no mistake. There is GOING TO BE A WAR. And the failure of the international community to stop Saddam is the cause. We had a war with him 10 years ago. The international community (France in particular) begged us to stop as we were going into Iraq. We did. Now.. over 10 years later with ALL the 'efforts' of the international community the situation has gotten worse and very deadly. And Saddam has blantantly violated EVERY rule we imposed in the cease fire agreement. He has violated EVERY rule the international community imposed. He has violated EVERY UN resolution passed.

Here's a cut and paste. Not my words.

"Iraqi Lieutenant General Amer al-Saadi, described as a top advisor to Saddam Hussein, admitted that the evil dictator he serves is "on the verge of developing nuclear weapons." This is not a story? This guy says, "We have the complete documentation from design to all the other things, but we haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it." "

Also be aware.. Saddam's missles can't reach the US. But they can reach Western Europe. Colin Powell has been laying all this out again and again and again to the UN. That must be why 18 European countries are NOW solidly on our side in a forceful disarming of Iraq. But.. if you are listening to France, those folks who hold 1.3 BILLION dollars worth of oil rights to Iraqs oil fields, you might think otherwise. Those oil rights were probably in exchange for the nuclear reactor and technology they SOLD to Iraq. The one the astronaut who died in the shuttle recently blew up. Yeah.... the politics of this war are about oil. It's just NOT the US who cares about it. We have our own oil. And we just implemented MILLIONS of dollars (per GW Bush) into developing fuel cells so we can get rid of oil ALTOGETHER. About damn time.. is my opinion.

There is a myriad of reasons behind this situation. Enough blame and failings to go around. The US certainly has it's share.. but I consider it a balanced ratio. We have a large part of blame.. but since we tend to do more.. that only makes sense. However.. we did NOT START this problem. France is hugely responsible. They (along with Britain) setup this horrible middle east situation politically. They bailed when it was time to straighten it out and they are now increasing the danger of war by refusing to accept responsibility. They want to keep their economic investment in Iraq alive. You want a country to pick on.. I advise you go check out France's history and involvment in the region a bit more before you lay it all on the US and say that we have a 'narrow' view.

We have liberal, conservative, communistic and socialistic sources of information in our country on a regular basis. The internet isn't our only source of information.

[Cryonic]

I do not agree that we should sacrifice our freedoms for security. Hmm, what was that quote again,

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither" or something to that effect. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

I believe that by sacrificing our basic freedoms (those listed in the Bill of Rights) moves us away from where we should be. I'm a staunch believer in Freedom of Speech, the Right to bear and keep arms, the right to my basic Privacy from government intrusion. You speak a dissenting opinion from me. Guess what, without the first amendment you wouldn't be allowed to. So, while I don't agree with your opinion, I do agree that you can say it, I just don't have to listen to it .

[cryptorad]

Interesting quote.

I have to agree.. and I don't like the sacrifice. I just think it's something that we are living with today. I tend to believe that until those that would attack are defeated.. we will need the loss of freedom to protect ourselves.

Was Ben's quote in reference to something occuring during our revolution?


If so.. it would be poetic that we may be at another crossroads in our history as well.


I have a quote to offer too.. Roosevelt

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.

So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

- Theodore Roosevelt

[Cryonic]

Giving up our freedoms means we have lost. They, the they who dispise America and Americans (even if they've never met any of us) win.

The reason is, when will we get our freedoms back if we give them up? You state you are willing to give them up "until those that would attack are defeated". Which those? The Al Queda? The Palestinians? Islamic Jihad? Iraq? China? Cuba? At what point do you consider the threat ended and are willing to try and get back your freedoms?

That is the biggest problem. Once you are willing to give them up, getting them back becomes that much harder to do.

[lala]

wow - never thought that this thread will be out of flame that long ;o)

just want to drop a few lines form a neutral country (austria):

no discussion - saddam is a bad guy in the point of view of the "western" world

but who is allowed to judge between good and bad?

some people think death penalty is good - most of the "western world" disagree (as far as I know there is no country in the EU with death penalty)

who is allowed to judge wheter a leader of a country is a bad guy? the leader of another country?

I dont care much about war or not war. But in my opinion the decision should be to the UN (which was designed to point out the bad guys to help the world to live in peace).
If the UN think that there is no other solution than to bomb iraq, than this should happen. But if the USA start a war without the approvement of the UN, they are not even better than any other agressor.

In my opinion GWBush is trying to abuse the fact that he has "the biggest gun in the world". Most of the inhabitants of europe disagree with USAs plan to invade Iraq even without the approvement from the UN (at least if we belive opinion polls right). The Governments of Germany and France are one with their inhabitants (unlike other countries like GB, spain...), and USPoloticians blame them for trying to find a peaceful way...

if everyone trying to solve a political conflict with invading other contries this would be a VERY unfriendly world ;o(

Sorry for my bad english (not my native language)