Ken King I agree with you 100%. Why does President Bush and Dick Cheney want to give the terrorists an excuse (in their minds!) to blow up Americans? Iraq never attacked the United States. It attacked Kuwait (not exactly a neighbor) and Iran. Why on Earth is Bush setting about this course of attacking a country for which no evidence exists that it has nukes and less evidence that it would use them against us. (There's no way they would: think about it....) I have racked my brain trying to figure out why Bush is doing a premptive strike which is without precedent in US history. This is terrifying. Who's next? China? North Korea? India? All of these countires have nukes. If that's the real reason then why didn't we attack the Soviet Union when they had nukes pointed right at us and admitted it? I think he is trying to divert attention from the corporate scandals and also is interested in taking control of their oil. Another reason he's doing it is to finish (in his mind) what his father started. Again Iraq never attacked the United States. We have no right to lay a finger on them. We have no right to commit an unprovoked attack on ANY country. We have nukes too, does that give other countries the right to attack us and change our leadership? Of course not! I am afraid. The public has to wake up and see what's really behind this campaign. It ISN'T American safety since we'll be far less safe if the US engages in the reckless and frightening experiment.
Erin

Erin,

I feel obliged to let you know that I have changed my position on this topic. My reasoning behind this switch is that Iraq has been determined to be a hostile state that has not complied with the agreements that ceased hostilities of the Gulf War. Congress passed a law in 1998 that authorizes the President to bring Iraq into compliance with the many UN Resolutions.

Terrorists might pick up activity if we attack, that is a very real possibility, but it is assured that they will attack us again if we do nothing. They already have and it seems likely they will again as we have a lot of holes in our defenses. This is one of the many prices of freedom that has always been there, we just haven't experienced it much until recently.

Iraq has and still continues to attack the United States and coalition forces (British) that are maintaining the No-Fly Zones over Iraq. This in direct violation of UN agreements. When they do we smack them for it, but it hasn’t stopped. They have used chemical weapons against both Iran and the Kurds. We knew from inspections that they still have stockpiles of agents of both the chemical and biological nature. They have theatre range ballistic missiles that can deliver the weapons throughout that region. They value only their desires, not human life, or anyone’s idea of how the world should be.

The UN either is unable to bring Iraq into compliance or doesn’t have the will to do it. Does this mean it shouldn’t be done? I now say no. It is necessary that demons that would use these weapons be dealt with. There is no place for them in our world. The sad part of all of this is that many people will suffer. Mostly because while we strive to comply with agreements to minimize collateral damage the Iraqi government is concentrating their military and equipment within their heavily populated regions which results in a maximization of those type casualties. It is deliberate ploy to weaken our resolve because of our knowledge of the number of innocent lives that could be lost, something that they care nothing about.

Now don’t get me wrong as your fears are mine also and any war is something that should be avoided. You also bring up other interesting points as to the motivations for taking this on now, but I truly believe that President Bush is acting in the United States and the world’s interests.

My main point is that Iraq has never done anything to the United States. It has only attacked its neighbors. So why is the U.S. getting involved in disputes between Middle Eastern countries? Why can't the Middle Eastern countries solve their own problems? Why should the US pay for their territorial disputes? Of course last time it was about oil....just like this time. Only this time I also believe it is Israel that is worried that at some point Iraq will use nuclear weapons on it. Israel is not a third-world poor country. No this is not an anti-Israel argument...doesn't matter who it is....they can pay for their own defense. If THEY want to attack Iraq let them do it and pay for it.
But the Iraqi people (there is no argument in favor of Saddam) don't deserve what we are proposing to do to them. Because of the sanctions, a million and a half Iraqi children and adults have died. They are the innocent victims. The purpose of the sanction was to get the people to revolt against SH. But they were powerless to do so. So the sanctions are, in essence, a form of genocide. Why do we treat Iraq different than we treat China? Or the way we treated the Soviet Union? Look at what they have done to other Soviet States and the human rights atrocities but we haven't starved their citizens to death.
The most important thing is that any soverign nation has the right to not be attacked and have its leader (democratic or not) assasinated just because some other country can't stand him. We don't like China's "leader" (also a dictator) but we are not terrorizing Chinese citizens by saying we are going to bomb them and kill their leader and basically take over.
The US has No RIGHT to kill foreign leaders without provocation.
If that logic holds up then other countries would be allowed to kill our President since we have nuclear weapons (we really do) that we "might"..."someday" use on them.
It's about the oil. And Israel. It's not about ANY legitimate US interest and it is definitely not going to make us safer. Those terrorists (none were from Iraq) will all the more inspired to kill US military overseas and here.
The worst part of all this is that the Bush people who are urging war have not served in the military so they are very cavalier about sending in US troops for something stupid and wrong like this.
Thanks.
Erin

Well, Iraq has done a little more then just attack their neighbors. They have also attacked their own people that aren’t aligned with the beliefs of the Hussein regime, dissention was and is met with brutal consequences. They have had a long and bitter war with Iran, which we supported as we saw the leadership of the Iranians move from the dictatorship of the Shah to the fundamentalist Islamic control of the Ayatollah. Something we viewed as very destabilizing to the entire Middle-East region. We welcomed their battle with Iran as it depleted the Iranian’s abilities and redirected their attention away from us.

The issue with the Iraqi regime is that their acts and behavior give indication that we should be wary of the worse they can do and if they obtain nuclear capability we should expect them to utilize it. They have already used the chemical weapons without regard to the impact of innocent lives. And as I have said earlier they continue to attack our forces performing their assigned peace-keeping functions. This, to me, is the same as attacking any city in the US of A.

Why do we care about the Middle-East? Well you’ve hit it several times, their oil reserves and Israel? Our gluttony for oil makes it vital territory, both economically and strategically valuable to our interests. This is a whole topic unto itself and definitely worthy of further discussion. Israel is a whole different ball of wax, but they are equally important due to our dedication to their existence and the foothold it allows for us, if needed for tactical purposes. Trust me, I am no favorite of what Israel is doing and I think that they are a very key component to the turmoil in the area that needs to be dealt with. Again another distinct and different topic.

Another reason why we are engaged is that historically we have become the world’s “big brother”, “body guard”, or “police force” (any of those terms describes our relationship with the majority of the world), right or wrong it is the way it has become. I believe that it is our stance on human rights and civility, our position on the basic inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the projection of that philosophy that is why everyone looks towards us to take on these tasks. Combine that with our military prowess and we become the nation best suited to do the job. We are driven by our desire to extend democratic principles and freedom to oppressed people wherever they may be so that they too can experience a better way of life.

Many people, in my opinion, are obsessed with the argument that Iraq’s weapons can’t reach us here at home. The fact that the movement of portable weapons is extremely easy, it wouldn’t take much of an analysis to conclude that they could use very simple, diverse, and covert means to bring the fight (and weapons) to our shores. We are, after all, a very open society that has ignored our security for a long time. So the question is do we sit around waiting for it to happen or do we do something about it?

I agree that the people of Iraq don’t deserve the suffering of war, but it seems that they have no will to join with the majority of the world in living in a peaceful environment. Mostly because this regime crushes any internal threat and deprives them of the ability to obtain a change towards a free society. I think they just don’t know how to go about it and lack the basic ability to bring about any reasonable change. Until the discovery of their vast oil resources, and the money that it brought to them, these people were truly in the dark ages. They had no understanding to most of the wonders we take for granted. They had no money to obtain anything more than primitive small arms. Their society has been a feudal one with tribal disputes as the norm of their lives. That was all they knew. I believe that due to the financial surge they have been launched into a new world that they weren’t prepared to handle.

Your comment about the sovereignty of a nation is true until that nation violates the foundation of the governing treaty, namely the Charter of the UN, which is what Iraq did when they attacked Kuwait. As a hostile nation Iraq opened the path for what they have suffered. At any time that Iraq complies fully with the resolutions the sanctions would be removed. Their failure to follow the terms of the cessation of hostilities dictated by the UN is their own doing and another indication that Hussein cares nothing about those that he supposedly leads. While you see it as an imposed genocide, I see it as the result of Iraq’s calculated move not to comply with the UN conditions placed upon them when they agreed to bring an end to the war that they started. Which, by the way, if the resolutions were complied with, they would have had their sovereignty guaranteed.

It is America's arrogance (what right do we have to force other nations to live like us?) that makes it hated in certain quarters. The idea that the United States, just because it's a superpower, has the right to wipe it's rear end with other countires, is an outdated one. We (CIA) assasinated the leader of Iran in 1951 and we have whacked the leaders of certain African countries to enable US corporations to continue to exploit the natural resources of those countries (oil, minerals, diamonds, etc). I hope you agree those things were wrong. Again, Iraq never committed ANY offense against the US and we have no right based in International law or common sense to whack their leader and cause more suffering to its population just because SH gave the finger to the United States.
Do you know how many treaties the US has broken over its history? Look what we did to the Native Americans? Look what we did to enslaved Africans. Look what we do to death row inmates who may or may not be guilty. This cowboy, bullying mentality we currently adhere to is going to lessen the respect civilized countries have for us and will give the terrorists more reasons to kill US citizens around the world, not that there is EVER and excuse to kill innocent people as a way to express your political views.
Under Bush's reasoning: "we are going to prevent terrorism before it starts around the world" I assume we are going to depose the Saudi goverment next. It's second biggest export is terrorists so it looks like they are going to have to go cause it doesn't please us that they are an undemocratic and uncivilized country (corporal punishment, oppression of woman, no free speech).
The "evidence" that Bush and Cheney (and now Blair) have would, if it were a criminal trial conducted against Saddam in the US, result in an aquittal. There is no evidence that he has nuclear weapons and no evidence that if he did he would use them on the US. Of course he wouldn't because if he did the Middle East would become a big piece of glass. There's no way he would attack us; it would mean the devastation of a whole civilization.
Bush's talking about Iraq violating the sanctions is just a bunch of hot air. He (SH) kicked the inspectors out in 1998; why is it just now a crisis to "deal with" Iraq?
The US should cease to be the worlds 911. Our policies on when intervention is necessary are hypocritical and racist. Look at what happened in some African countries a few years back with people arms and legs being chopped off? Getting involved in that would have been a just cause but we turned a blind eye. We turn a blind eye to human suffering and terrorization when there is nothing in it for big business for the most part.
It's no surprise that the only friend we have in this unjust adventure we getting ready to undertake is the Brits. Of course they have tried to colonize and oppress and exploit every country they ever came into contact with: Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, India, how many more ???? At least some of the other colonizers have come to the conclusion that imperialism is over. And we have to get along with other countries not try to own them which is what we are trying to do to Iraq. Starving their people will make it harder for them to fight back once we finally take over the country.
The other middle eastern nations are extremely nervous and rightly so, because they are thinking "are we next?"
And under Bush and Cheney, they might very well be. It would be more honest of Bush, instead of talking about violations of the UN resolutions as his reason for taking over, to just say "this guy has thumbed his nose at the Mighty USA for too long and it's making us look like fools cause we can't boss him like we can other countries" That would be far more accurate.
The US has no right to knock off the leader of any foreign country and no right to interfere in the domestic politics of any other country unless its invited. There is no moral or political argument in favor of the US invading a middle eastern country unprovoked, to kill it's leader and lock up or kill civilians. It's none of our business if he has nukes. So do we!! So does China! So does the Soviet Union! Why not lets go into China once we own the Middle East?

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Why does President Bush and Dick Cheney want to give the terrorists an excuse (in their minds!) to blow up Americans? Iraq never attacked the United States.

Ummmm..... think Germany and Hitler. Same same. As far as the attacks... they will do that anyway NO MATTER what. They hate us and always will. The reason we are going to do something now is to KEEP them from launching a nuke down our throats(which they are on the verge of getting) before it's too late. Do you think Saddam's crazy a__ will NOT use a nuke if he gets his hand on one? Think again. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Erin Berry
It is America's arrogance (what right do we have to force other nations to live like us?) that makes it hated in certain quarters. The idea that the United States, just because it's a superpower, has the right to wipe it's rear end with other countires, is an outdated one.

Sounds to me like you would be much happier in Bagdad, Yemen, or Kabul........... Adios.

Why would anyone born here be happier in a middle eastern country? An argument provides a list of reasons why your position is correct. An ad hominem attack just insults the person who takes a position opposite to yours. So what are your reasons for why the US should attack Iraq? Why don't they have the right to be left alone? Do you the US should be the supervisor of other countries? Do you think Israel should get us involved in its disputes with its neighbors? We shouldn't even have to rely on their oil. If we used other energy forms (some are actually viable... wind power, geothermal...) we wouldn't have to deal with any Middle Eastern countries we didn't want to. Most of their practices are abhorrent to the West...no free press, etc.....

Originally posted by Erin Berry
So what are your reasons for why the US should attack Iraq? Why don't they have the right to be left alone?

Well, if you would have read my post, it does say why I believe what I believe.

If it were up to you and people like you, we would sit back and let 1930' and 1940's Germany happen all over again. This country did NOT get to where it is today by laying back, eating granola, and hoping for the best.

Not sure what granola has to do with these important issues but I guess it's breakfast time. Anyway, I would like to see how you feel Nazi Germany is similar to the situation with Iraq. If the US lived right next door to Iraq and there were far far fewer of us and they decided our "kind" shouldn't be allowed to live and started building ovens for our extermination then I could see how they would be called similar situations. But I really cannot see the comparision. The Jews in Nazi Germany were a minority in the population and they were living in the same country as Hitlers supporters. We are a huge superpower with millions more people than Iraq and nowhere close geographically. Or are you saying they want to wipe the Jews in Israel off the face of the Earth? It's not clear from your answer. The only countries I know of they have have had serious battles with are their immediate neighbors: Iran and Kuwait.

Erin,

I don’t think it is arrogance to live by current agreements or to make others adhere to them. It was the international community that imposed these conditions on Iraq and not the USA by itself. It was the UN that said if they don’t comply with the cease fire conditions that they would suffer.

Your reference to the treaties broken with native Americans while interesting is of little relevance as we aren’t dealing with activities of the 19th century but the 21st. Times change and you need to catch up to how we deal with the international arena.

Slavery? Why are you bringing that up and what does it have to do with this debate?

How do we deal with “death row inmates”? To my knowledge we give them 3 squares a day, a place to sleep, facilities for education and entertainment, and allow them multiple appeals to get their cases overturned. Many states have placed a moratorium on the execution of sentence and most are now serving life sentences. They were after all found guilty in a court of law. Should we just let them go now? I don’t think so, but I do see the use of technology not available when many were convicted to overturn the verdict if such information is available. Whether you believe it or not some of these miscreants need to be terminated. But is this a death penalty discussion or one about what we are going to do with Iraq?

What you have failed to realize is that what Bush is doing is something that Congress directed over 4 years ago when it created PL 105-235. The President is doing nothing more then carrying out his duties as directed by Congress.

I see the threat that Iraq is to us and many other countries in the world, I saw it before I changed my position due to my discovery of the law mentioned above. I just didn’t see where the President had the authority to take action, which I now clearly see. He is doing nothing more then executing the law that had been previously ignored.

From what I can tell from your posts it seems that you have a serious issue with America and how we do things. I can offer you an easy solution. Move.

I will not insult someone because I have run out of arguments. Disappointing to hear the moderator engaging in a personal attack. Let's just stick to the issues; it more fun.
Slaver and what we did to the Native Americans and what certain states do to death row inmates who may or may not be guilty show the hypocrisy of the US and why Bush keeps bring up 10-year old charges saying that "Iraq has gassed the Kurds and Iranians" therefore they have committed human rights atrocities. The human rights abuses committed by China and the Soviet Union (in the past and present) and they both have nukes so why do we ignore their human rights problems and nuclear weapons. Because they are not neighbors of Israel and they are not sitting on a bazillion barrels of oil.
It is my (and your) right (some would say duty) to criticize the country we love. The right to argue these things with our goverment freely is what makes us the greatest country but you already knew that.
Why do you think Iraq would attack the US with nuclear weapons IF it ever developed any? I can't think of any reason they would since to do so would me annihilation of the territory we call the Middle East. And that certainly wouldn't help Saddam hold on to power.

Show me an attack? Show me, please as none was made. Me thinks someone is a little to thin-skinned. As the moderator I have not done anything. As the author of the article I have entered into debate with you. If someone doesn't agree with you it is an insult? Tch, Tch, Tch.

...saying "you should move"...... what does advising me to move have to do with these issue of whether the US should attack Iraq? In other words, if I move or not, is not relevant to whether or not the US has a right to attack Iraq. I am not diplomat or military leader; Im just a political junkie, so I don't see how it's relevant in any way to the issues being discussed here.

If that is an attack then I am the King of England. Besides what I said was "I can offer you an easy solution. Move." Doesn't say "you should", now does it? If you have that much of a problem with such an insignificant comment you might want to consider another arena. I suspect you will be "insulted and attacked" regularly.

Erin, I'm not trying to be mean to you BUT...you can't be much of a "political junkie" if you don't understand why Saddam is a threat to the US, as well as the other Arab nations, the Israelis and, frankly, just about everyone else.

Ken and Tater spelled it out pretty clearly, I think.

Attacking Iraq as a puniitve action of the United Nations makes absolute perfect sense. Bush woke them up when he suggested the League of Nations - if they lack the resolve to back up their warnings and resolutions with anything, then it becomes irrelevant in the face of someone who flouts those warnings. Prior to World War II, the League sat back and issued condemnations of the taking of Manchuria and Abyssinnia - but lacked the resolve to force the issue when their words were ignored.

At his meeting in Camp David recently - Bush mentioned that Iraq has broken UN resolutions 16 times. Sanctions aren't working, because he is able to go around them to acquire materials and weapons he shouldn't be able to acquire. Over the no-fly zones, he not only has not complied, but has attacked coalition aircraft at every opportunity. He has now perfected the mobility of his weapons of mass destruction such that he was only playing a shell game with the weapons inspectors.

Recent intelligence has revealed he has refitted Soviet aircraft to serve as drones to deliver biological weapons. He has always had these weapons, and chemical weapons -- because he has USED them before.

Recently an Iraqi newspaper showed a celebration of the 9/11 attacks on the front page, declaring it "punishment from God". We should not wait until he USES these weapons to stop him from doing so.

You're under the impression he would never use them. You are mistaken. Aside from nukes -- he HAS used them, and because he is harboring Al Qaeda forces, may well be arming them. He is weakened, and is indiscriminate in whom he kills for any reason - his family, his countrymen, his own staff. Try to imagine what Hitler would have been like, if we had left him alive after WW2, and he completed his nuclear program. Saddam will use them for one obvious reason - at this point, he has NOTHING to lose. More and more of the UN nations are beginning to realize this, and more are coming aboard. They may not all send troops, but world opinion IS shifting against Iraq.

This is not Cato the Elder and "Carthago delendo est" (for the non history types - Rome utterly destroyed a weakened and beaten nation who posed no threat to them. Cato ended every speech with the words "Carthage must be destroyed". They channeled funds to a neighbor of Carthage to attack and plunder it, and when Carthage fought back it was declared they had broken compliance with war treaties. Rome destroyed Carthage completely and plowed salt into their fields, so nothing would grow there again.). This is real.

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Disappointing to hear the moderator engaging in a personal attack.

Geez, you ARE a new member if you thought THAT was a personal attack:rolleyes: . Where were ya a couple weeks ago? :biggrin:

I think a stong case for correlating Hitler and Hussein can be made:

1. Both leaders created programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
2. Both leaders attacked and invaded neighboring countries.
3. Both leaders showed no reluctance to murder their own people.
4. Both leaders showed no problems with disrupting/destroying their economies and citizen's lives in order to build massive militaries and wage war.

Lastly, and most importantly, both leaders had/have deeply ingrained visions of a devine fate to be uniters of a particular people or land mass, that would be under their control, and that should be taken by any means necessary. This is what really makes the difference between Hussein/Hitler and leaders of India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. These countries may have WMD also, but they aren't led my leaders with a burning desire to control other countries or to conquer the world.

Erin, I notice that you didn't mention that Hussein has increased Iraq's Oil for Food program by 35%, and has reaped billions from illegal oil sales, yet the children are still starving and dying from disease? Where is all that money going? Iraq's people are still living on rationed amounts of food and many diseases are running rampant due to poor medical care. So where is all the money going? Hussein has found several profitable work arounds to get past UN sanctions and enrich his country, yet the money is getting to the people, who are told that their plight is the responsibility of the US/UN. So where is all the money going? Neither the US or the UN controls it, Hussein does. So if he chooses to spend those dollars on weapons that's not a US/UN issue, that's a Hussein issue.

I agree that Iraq poses little direct threat to the US, but they do pose a huge indirect threat in the form of oil. If Hussein gets his way and manages to take over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states, he'll have control over 60% of the world's oil, which will give him near 90% control over European oil and 50% control over our oil. I don't see Hussein nuking the US but I can see him using Nukes to force the Gulf States to fall under his control.

People can complaign about our gluttony for oil, but the fact is that we're an oil consuming nation and we're going to stay that way for at least the next 20 years. Do you want to pay $5 or $6 a gallon for gas? How about $10 for a gallon of milk or $6 for a loaf of bread. If the cost of energy goes up, so does everything in this country... everything except salaries. Do you want to see rampant unemployment and inflation occur just so some madman with delusions of godhood can threaten and intimidate the world? Not me.

Far more Germans died in World War II than Iraqis will if the US attacks. That's the price that you pay when you support a madman.

Erin's probably left us by now - people hate having their views challenged. But I highly recommend Vince Flynn's book "Separation of Power". I always think Flynn must be a CIA guy or something because he always manages to release his books in time for the plot to mirror some world event.

VRAIblonde or whoever...you are correct. The US has no interest in what Iraq does but for the fact that they possess a highly lucrative substance that we want for ourselves. Did you read in the Post yesterday about how the US oil companies are lining up to cut up the Iraq oil areas for themselves?
I don't want to pay for US companies enriching themselves by killing off the Iraqis. The only thing we are interested in in Iraq is oil. The nuclear weapons argument is a total joke. They have no nuclear weapons. And if they did they would aim them at Israel to intimidate them not us.

Frank-
Iraq doesn't harbor Al Queda forces. The Kurds in the northern part of Iraq have allowed an Al Queda presence. These are the same people whose name we invoke to show what a brutal dictator he is. Which of course there can be no doubt about that; he is a mass murderer. But his people have not done anything and even Hussein has never done anything to the US. Who cares about the UN sanctions ...... all those countries mostly let the US push them around since many of them receive foreign aid from us.

{Erin Berry "Iraq doesn't harbor Al Queda forces. The Kurds in the northern part of Iraq have allowed an Al Queda presence." }
:bs: :bs: :bs:
I am sorry you have taken this argument to a ridiculously low level, with inaccurate statements and accusations of those who would question your opinion.

Bruzilla- If Iraq's oil is under Iraq's sand , how are we entitled to it?

hard to argue with that sterling logic: "what he said..."

Uh, Erin? Did you by any chance come here from the Democratic Underground?

95% of what you've posted on this topic is pure :bs: and if you'd read something in the newspaper besides the Style section, you'd realize it. You obviously know nothing about the situation in the Middle East and have just decided to come on here and make up some fantasy situation that has no basis in reality.

There have been two Presidential Administrations saying that Saddam has nuclear capabilities and is a definite threat to the US - one a Democrat and one a Republican. Do you honestly believe they're both lying and only YOU know the truth?

Do you truly not understand the difference between the US putting violent criminals to death and Iraq torturing it's soccer team because it lost a game?

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Bruzilla- If Iraq's oil is under Iraq's sand , how are we entitled to it?
Because if it weren't for U.S. showing them how to drill for it, they would still be sleeping on top of it. (Not to mention, Hussein is a psychopath well-deserving of very bad things happening to his sleazy a_s.
Geez, I will bet my bottom dollar you are one of these people that sit around and criticize our actions toward an undisputed nutball hellbent on doing everything he can to kill Americans and our way of life (he LOVES that stuff, i.e. 9-11-01, in case you already forgot).... and then, when he or his minions set off a Ryder truck full of two hundred mysteriously "missing" nuclear warheads, have the GALL to say "WHY DIDN"T YOU DO SOMETHING". GRRRRRRRRR:burning:
AND, just so you know..... I can guarantee that our government has way way more intel than you do and have a VERY good reason for doing what they are (AND NEED TO BE) doing. It's not like we are just flying off half-cocked or something :rolleyes: (ouch, did I say that?)


P.S. - Are you of Iraqi descent or ever been to a Hussein family reunion? :confused: Just curious. :biggrin:

Even the reckless Bush administration doesn't say that Iraq has nukes.It only says that "IF" it got some aluminum tubes "THEN" it "MIGHT" be capable of producing (not launching) nuclear weapons. There isn't anyone who think Iraq has the capability to launch nuclear weapons at the US even if they can produce them at some point in the future.
You are being manipulated by the bush administration's demonization of an unpopular "leader" (HS). He doesn't want you to spend too much time thinking about how he cashed in his chips at Harken energy a month before they went down the tubes (it earned him I think $40 million, perhaps more.?) or how Cheney did the same thing with Haliburton, the defense contractor and how those things make him singularly unprepared to deal with corporate accountability. These are the things we SHOULD be talking about. Do you think it's a coincidence that he wants a UN resolution for the US to attack Iraq BEFORE the November elections?

Thanks for asking.....actually I am redneck-American of white alcoholic Irish descent & from E. Kentucky..... So no, never been to the middle east, not the most hospitable place for women I understand though Saudi Arabia is the worst from what little I know.

It only says that "IF" it got some aluminum tubes "THEN" it "MIGHT" be capable of producing (not launching) nuclear weapons.
a-HA! You're Scott Ritter, aren't you? C'mon, fess up!

Did you bother to watch any of the other guests they had on CNN that spoke of this topic? The only ones who have gone public with that line is Ritter, a few Harvard professors and now you.

I'm disturbed that you think we "should" be more worried about Haliburton/Enron/Harken than Saddam Hussein. Who died as result of CEOs tanking their stock? And so far there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of either Bush or Cheney, except for a few wishful thinkers like you.

Saudi Arabia is the worst from what little I know.
Did you happen to catch when the Saudi Prince's wife was in DC? Did you happen to see any pictures of her or read any interviews with her? It so happens that she's Palestinian, well-educated and knock-out gorgeous. She travelled and spoke freely in this country, then willingly went back to her husband. When was the last time you saw anything about Saddam Hussein's wife? Ever see a picture of her? Do you even know her name?

And what does that tell you about women's roles in Saudi vs. Iraq?
Amendment: I'm not trying to say that Saudi is some bastion of equal rights. All I'm pointing out is that, in the grand scheme of worldwide treatment of women, Saudi is NOT the worst.

What Tater said is the truth - any wealth the Arab nations have is a direct result of the US coming over, drilling their oil, and paying them enormous sums of money to do so THEREBY enabling them to not only sell their oil to the US, but to other countries as well.

Do some research - it's all there.

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Even the reckless Bush administration doesn't say that Iraq has nukes.It only says that "IF" it got some aluminum tubes "THEN" it "MIGHT" be capable of producing (not launching) nuclear weapons. There isn't anyone who think Iraq has the capability to launch nuclear weapons at the US even if they can produce them at some point in the future.... The problem isn't that he might "launch" a weapon at the U.S. it's that he would smuggle one in, by way of a proxy group (i.e. Al-Queda, Hammas etc.), and detonate it in some U.S. city or Israel, giving him plausible deniability.
... You are being manipulated by the bush administration's demonization of an unpopular "leader" (HS). He doesn't want you to spend too much time thinking about how he cashed in his chips at Harken energy a month before they went down the tubes (it earned him I think $40 million, perhaps more.?) or how Cheney did the same thing with Haliburton, the defense contractor and how those things make him singularly unprepared to deal with corporate accountability. These are the things we SHOULD be talking about. Do you think it's a coincidence that he wants a UN resolution for the US to attack Iraq BEFORE the November elections? Zzzzzzzzzzz Well that's certainly an entertaining hypothesis... :lmao:

Another subscriber to "Conspiracy Weekly" I see. :really:

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Do you think it's a coincidence that he wants a UN resolution for the US to attack Iraq BEFORE the November elections?

Do you think he wants to wait until November? Hell no, Bush would like to have had a UN Resolution already in place (oh, wait, they are already there). The only reason Bush is asking for the UN Resolution is to allow the UN to save face and try to regain the credibility that they have lost over the years from whining sniveling peaceniks that don't understand that there are some really dangerous people in our world that need to be dealt with. Today the UN is as impotent as any organization can be, they will remain that way until they realize that when they make a decision it must be carried through. All they have recently done is condemn; now it is time to back their talk with a little action.

I think this article by MSNBC (see link below) pretty much explain how Saddam came to power. Be sure to read it all. This article should at least 'educate' Erin Berry. It covers everything - Israel, Anthrax, kurds, Russia, Iran, middle east, British power in 1920s, chemical weapons, sarin, VX ....etc.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/807688.asp?0cl=c1

President Bush only says Iraq has nuclear (he says "nuke you ler")weapons CAPABILITY. So we can go kill anyone who's resources we want by stating that they MIGHT be a threat to us in the future? In you opinion should other countries be allowed to kill our leader and take over the US because me might be a threat to them someday?

The fact that whoever- you- said's wife is gorgeous is certainly highly relevant to the topic of the Middle East's oppression of women (Israel is a large exception). Of course the "leader's" official wives get better treatment than ordinary Saudi women. Women in SA aren't allowed to vote; can only go so far in school; have to wear black sheets covering everything but their eyes when they go out; aren't allowed into most jobs since those are reserved for men and the list goes on. Iraq, by contrast, allows women as much education as they want; doesn't require them to wear anything when they go outside and has universal suffrage.
Not that either place is "woman-friendly" by any means.

Erin,

If you don't understand the threat that Hussein is to us, our allies, and the rest of the world by now you probably will never get it. Some people are just that way. The need to see a mushroom cloud before they believe.

Also the President has said consistently for some time now that Iraq has WMD in the form of chemical and biological, has used them against others and his own, and is working hard to obtain a nuclear capability. Making fun of how he pronounces it doesn't diminish those facts.

Hussein is today's Hitler and we know what happened when nothing was done about him. He is very sneaky and probably will be impeding the inspectors if in fact they are ever allowed into the country. His track record on matters such as this is very clear, besides our going after him to bring him into compliance with the many UN Resolutions has already been determined to be in our best interest. Like they say at NIKE, it is time for us to “Just do it”.

I find it annoying and petty when people make fun of Bush's pronounciations like kids in a schoolyard. "HAHA" sez Erin, "He said nuke-you-ler!! HAHA!" like that kid on the Simpsons. You'll find that most people from the South do pronounce it "nuke-you-ler". Curious where you're from?

So we can go kill anyone who's resources we want by stating that they MIGHT be a threat to us in the future?
Erin, again, this isn't some straw dog that Bush has pulled out of his ear. Saddam has shown in the past that he has no qualms about invading other countries (or are you too young to remember the Gulf War?). He tortures and kills his own citizens for fun. There is evidence that he was invloved in the 9-11 attacks. He has used chemical weapons in the past. He is a ruthless dictator who is certifiably insane. Now he's building nukeyouler weapons. Explain to me again why we shouldn't be concerned?

My personal feeling is that the whole Middle East, with the exception of Israel, is a snakepit and needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. People are always crying about World Peace, yet they don't want the US to do the things that will help bring it about. I don't understand that.

I wish with all my heart, Erin, that people like you would quit trying to read newspapers and quit trying to make "intelligent" comments on things you clearly don't understand. Just live your life in peace, thankful that there are people making sure you can still watch "Survivor" and drink Zima. Because there is NOBODY doing that in Iraq.

If I am not mistaken - Carter also said "nook ya ler" -- and what's worse, he *studied* nuclear engineering. If he was really our smartest President, why couldn't her pronounce a word he knew very well?

Check this out:

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2071155

I look at it this way -- imagine we beat Germany in WW2, but for some reason, we have mercy on the Nazis, because world opinion thinks it was all just a big misunderstanding, and Hitler was left alive. We check up on him, and ten years later, he has a couple nuclear bombs. But, you know, that wouldn't make him *dangerous* would it? Would you have been comfortable, knowing a crazy dictator from a beaten impoverished war torn country had nuclear weapons, and no reason not to use them? Oh wait - we HAVE that.

Originally posted by Frank
I look at it this way -- imagine we beat Germany in WW2, but for some reason, we have mercy on the Nazis, because world opinion thinks it was all just a big misunderstanding, and Hitler was left alive. We check up on him, and ten years later, he has a couple nuclear bombs. But, you know, that wouldn't make him *dangerous* would it? Would you have been comfortable, knowing a crazy dictator from a beaten impoverished war torn country had nuclear weapons, and no reason not to use them? Oh wait - we HAVE that.

You saw the Germans compared Bush to Hitler today? They are in a position to know.......who the real Hitler is. The Iraqis have never attacked us. You agree with this statement? If no, give proof.

Erin, you say "Germans" - plural - when it was only one German that said it.

The Iraqi government has been very clear about their feelings toward the US. Should we wait for them to attack us before we neutralize Saddam? I think if an attack could be prevented that would surely be the best way to go. There is some evidence that Saddam Hussein helped finance the 9-11 attacks. Would that count?

Yes but the German population is against us attacking Iraq. They have done polls; the Germans are using the attack on Iraq as an election issue.
You say their feelings about us have been made clear? I am not aware of any instances of Iraqi people trying to come here to blow us up are you? I only know about Saudi and Egyptian men (& others) who want to kill us. Even the Bush administration backed off statements linking Iraq with Al Queda because there is no proof and they have looked high and low for it.
Do you know we were friends with Iraq most of their existence? Meaning we were relying on them to contain Iran. (Iran had a right to be mad at us; we (CIA) whacked their president in 1951)
We sold Iraq anthrax and allowed them to get other weapons-grade biological materials. Its only now (4 yrs after the weapons inspectors were kicked out) that its a CRISIS. Coincidence I am sure that Bush's Enron and other golden boy friends have ruined our economy for now. Personally I blame the British for dragging us into their problems with the middle east (i..e the conflict created by Israel and Palestine fighting over territory divided by the British when they left) The British have issues of dominance and control. And it is rubbing off on us much to our detriment.

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Yes but the German population is against us attacking Iraq. They have done polls; the Germans are using the attack on Iraq as an election issue.


Fortunately, the U.S. isn't about to let what the Germans think rule our actions. Do you decide what you plan to do based on what some person thinks?


You say their feelings about us have been made clear? I am not aware of any instances of Iraqi people trying to come here to blow us up are you? I only know about Saudi and Egyptian men (& others) who want to kill us.


Oh, you mean, like sending out assasins to kill the former Bush (and others)? If we have an enemy who is not supposed to have nerve gas or anthrax or nuclear weapons, and he has mouthed nothing but hate against me after we kicked his butt - I am not about to stand by idly while he breaks every rule, shoots at our planes, sends out assasins and gives safe haven to terrorists. You plan to wait until he actually nukes DC first?



Even the Bush administration backed off statements linking Iraq with Al Queda because there is no proof and they have looked high and low for it.


There IS no question that they are providing terrorists safe haven. That, we know with certainty. That some of the terrorists met with high officials from the Iraqi government? That is also know for certain. Fortunately, this does not even have to be about terrorism - we're dealing with a country that has not complied with the surrender conditions of the last war.


Do you know we were friends with Iraq most of their existence? Meaning we were relying on them to contain Iran.


Did you know that this country you mentioned before - Germany - we fought two devastating wars with? Our closest ally, Britain, invaded us several times, tried to crush us, and we fought two wars with? That we fought a war with France before the Revolution, were allies with them during the Revolution, and fought a ten year war with them *right* AFTER that? That's life.

(Most of their existence? More like, since the 80's.)


Its only now (4 yrs after the weapons inspectors were kicked out) that its a CRISIS. Coincidence I am sure that Bush's Enron and other golden boy friends have ruined our economy for now.

This I almost find funny. You know, it's not as though Bush has been quiet about the "axis of evil" all year (remember? State of the Union address? January?). So you're saying, in an election period, we can't make war plans, because of politics? Why? Because Democrats will lose? There's an EASY way for them to defeat that - they're for the war -- vote for it NOW. Stop stalling. We have Daschle, all full of piss and vinegar, 4 years ago, now stalling. They want to avoid an election maneuver? Stop dragging it out. Solved. Done.

The other one is the whole Bush and Enron thing. You know, you want iron-clad proof for a war with Iraq, but speculation and innuendo appears to be all you need for linking Bush, to Enron. Guess what? You think all this stuff just started in January of last year? You know - when Bush BECAME President? It didn't - we know this - but surprise! these bastards are going to jail under Bush. So which administration is cozying up to these guys?

You saw the Germans compared Bush to Hitler today? They are in a position to know.......who the real Hitler is. The Iraqis have never attacked us. You agree with this statement? If no, give proof.

Do you think we should care what the German population think we should be doing? I don't. Also, I disagree with your statement, for proof watch the news, read a newspaper, talk to those that know, and you will see that the Iraqis have and still are shooting at our aircraft performing the UN directed mission in the No-Fly Zones. That is an attack against us or do you think our military personnel deserve to be shot at while performing this mission?

I only know about Saudi and Egyptian men (& others) who want to kill us.

Really, seems to me we have been the target of many different nations and terrorist groups. I must be living in a different world than what you do.

(i..e the conflict created by Israel and Palestine fighting over territory divided by the British when they left)

The UN, not the British, divided the area. The British concluded (via the Peel Commission) that the partition of the territory into two countries would never work. This was one of the reasons the British bailed out and left the mess to the newly formed UN. The UN, in my opinion, has screwed it up even more then the British did.

They shoot at our planes because we are flying over their country. If there military planes were flying over the US trying to shoot at target or spy I am certain we would shoot them down too.
The first attack on Iraq was wrong as well. It's their oil now; it will be their oil tommorow and for eternity whether anybody likes it or not. We are not entitled to attack them just because we want to exploit their natural resources.

No one has answered my question about whether or not if the US "feels threatened" by a country and grants itself permission to assasinate another country's leader to install a puppet of the US, if other countries should also be allowed to exercise that same right by killing our leader and taking over because it "feels threatened" by us.

The first attack on Iraq was wrong? You mean, the Gulf War?Tell that to the coalition of nations, the UN and half the world that helped the process. Did you forget a little something about Kuwait? The hundreds of thousands of troops poised along the Saudi border? The Scud missiles launched at *Israel*, who was not even involved?

If your premise is that THAT war was wrong, you're in opposition to the U.N. and practically everybody else. They slaugtered Kuwaitis, plundered the nation, set the oil fields ablaze and dumped massive amounts of oil into the Gulf in an attempt to foul Saudi's few desalinzation plants - their source for water. Are you serious?

Did you see this?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20020920/wl_nm/germany_hitler_dc_7&printer=1

Originally posted by Erin Berry
They shoot at our planes because we are flying over their country. If there military planes were flying over the US trying to shoot at target or spy I am certain we would shoot them down too.
The No-Fly Zone was established by the UN per chapter 41 of the UN Charter as a condition of the cessation of hostilities against the Iraqis. It has been continued because the Iraqis have not complied with the many UN resolutions. This continued violation of these resolutions is of their own doing and the coalition aircraft are just performing their legitimate and authorized mission. The fact that the Iraqis continue to try to shoot the aircraft down is a demonstration of their continued hostile intent.
The first attack on Iraq was wrong as well. It's their oil now; it will be their oil tommorow and for eternity whether anybody likes it or not. We are not entitled to attack them just because we want to exploit their natural resources.
Really, so in your mind, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was justified? Please elaborate, if you can. This has never been about taking their oil, as we were satisfied to simply purchase it on the open market. It is about reigning in an evil and hostile country and the man behind the acts.
No one has answered my question about whether or not if the US "feels threatened" by a country and grants itself permission to assasinate another country's leader to install a puppet of the US, if other countries should also be allowed to exercise that same right by killing our leader and taking over because it "feels threatened" by us.
Based on the passage, by Congress, of PL 105-235 that is obviously evident. Hussein has threatened to use whatever means available to inflict damage to our nation and citizens, wherever they may be, and those of other nations non-supportive of his beliefs. This includes the use of terrorism and WMD. To do nothing invites him to act aggressively.

I guess you feel that the actions we are taking in Afghanistan (removal of the Taliban) are unjust too.

Afghanistan was a just cause......because those people (not even Afghans, just guests) were trying to kill Americans on our soil and did kill Americans on US soil. Iraq and its people have never done anything to show any aggression against us.
Why is it our problem that Iraq invaded Kuwait? Why wasn't it a problem for Saudi Arabia or Iran? Or Israel?
Still looking for an answer about whether or not if we are allowed to kill foreign leaders because they pissed us off, if other countries can also make up a bunch of BS about what a threat we are and kill our leader too. If you say we should be exempt from this new rule we will apply to other countries, please state why we should be exempt.
Yes, them shooting at our planes is evidence of hostile intent. IT'S THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!! They SHOULD be protecting their country from being attacked, just like we would if ours were attacked.

We should not have been there harrassing them before and we shouldn't be there (since we have no right to be there) attacking them now. To say we should kill them because they might be a threat in the future is like saying I should be allowed to shoot people who have automatic weapons and who are mentally unstable because I feel threatened by them. And that's not legal under domestic criminal law so why should it be legal under international law? OR common sense?

Originally posted by Erin Berry
Afghanistan was a just cause......because those people (not even Afghans, just guests) were trying to kill Americans on our soil and did kill Americans on US soil. Iraq and its people have never done anything to show any aggression against us.

By your statement do you think we are done in Afghanistan with the Taliban and Al Qaeda? I certainly don’t think so and I would say it still is a just cause.

Why is it our problem that Iraq invaded Kuwait? Why wasn't it a problem for Saudi Arabia or Iran? Or Israel?

It was a “world” problem, it was a problem for Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi forces were part of the coalition (are you old enough to remember that?) and Israel was asked to stay out of the fray because of other problems with them and the Arab world. It had been a problem for Iran for the ten years the Iraq/Iran war was going on. The current events going on with Iraq are again a “world” problem because of the continued violation of the UN Resolutions and Hussein’s intent.

Still looking for an answer about whether or not if we are allowed to kill foreign leaders because they pissed us off, if other countries can also make up a bunch of BS about what a threat we are and kill our leader too. If you say we should be exempt from this new rule we will apply to other countries, please state why we should be exempt.

Okay, I’ll attempt to answer this question. First off, notice the phrase is regime change as no one has said the US policy is to kill Hussein. If a foreign leader fails to comply with the agreements they have entered into and act in a gregarious and hostile manner against their own people, neighboring nations, and our country, if they fail to comply with UN resolutions concerning what they are doing in regard to WMD then a regime change seems appropriate. BTW no one is making any of this up, those are the facts as determined by many different people and not just the US. If our leader was to act like Hussein (unlikely with our form of government) I believe that we would take care of the problem ourselves long before it became an equivalent of what is going on in Iraq.

Yes, them shooting at our planes is evidence of hostile intent. IT'S THEIR COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!! They SHOULD be protecting their country from being attacked, just like we would if ours were attacked.

The reason for the No-Fly Zone is to protect the region from the known hostile intent of Hussein. Please educate yourself on this matter, go to the UN website and do a little reading. Find out why it is we are there and what it is we are doing.

We should not have been there harrassing them before and we shouldn't be there (since we have no right to be there) attacking them now. To say we should kill them because they might be a threat in the future is like saying I should be allowed to shoot people who have automatic weapons and who are mentally unstable because I feel threatened by them. And that's not legal under domestic criminal law so why should it be legal under international law? OR common sense?

Harassing them? We were there at the request of the world to quell an invasion. We are there to keep the Iraqis from repeating this event or something equally as horrendous. The 16 UN Resolutions that Iraq is in violation of are still a problem for the world. That is why we are still a presence in that theater, we have been requested by the UN to be there and it is our obligation under the Charter of the UN to do so.

Unless you decide to learn what is going on you might want to refrain from spewing your rants upon these pages or at least find a topic that you have a modicum of knowledge about.

If it is so critically important to kill Iraqis now howcome it wasn't important when they first kicked the inspectors out in 1998? We have no new evidence that they have done anything to invade any other countries since then.

Terrorists contacted Hussein a few years back to get some biological (I think) weapons from him and he didn't want to have anything to do with them because he doesn't want them messing up his dictatorship......they might challenge him someday I guess is what he was thinking.
Iraq has a secular forms of government; much more "liberal" than Saudi arabia....and they would at some point, want him and Iraq to become more of a fundamentalist Islamic government and SH is not interested in that.

So I really don't think he would cooperate with terrorists.
I think Bush has succeeded in getting the American people to stop talking about the corporate scandals. He changed the subject and is manipulating the public by saying Iraq is a threat to us. He is playing on our fears of terrorism "those terrible, evil Arabs" by trying to link the attack against Iraq with 9-11-02. I lost someone I knew in the attacks so I am for aggressive tactics to prevent terrorism but NOT attacking people who haven't done anything to us.

If Bush attacks Iraq, what will the consequences be? First is the loss of life to our military personnel and then innocent Iraqis who have already faced more than a decade of starvation under the sanctions.
Then is the confusion that will reign since we are trying to keep an eye on terrorists still in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. etc.
If we hit Iraq, first thing they're going to do is attack Israel who they blame for this aggression we are talking about. Then what? A middle east nuclear war? It's like Bush is just trying to stir up even more #### for no apparent reason.
I guess he wants to give Israel a reason to nuke Iraq so they can both split the profits from the oil.
Then how can we do all of these things at once? Watching and stopping Al-Queda and attacking Iraq? And we are not in good economic times. Do you know how much this is going to cost us? To kill all these Iraqis? First, it's wrong and second, we can't afford it!!!
Also I would like to know (didn't get an answer) if anyone thinks that if we set a precedent of being able to kill foreign leaders we don't like (SH is not going down alive, let's get real) because they "might" be a threat "Someday" then can other countries, using that same rationale., kill our leaders and say they "might" have become a threat if they weren't dealt with now? Like we're saying?
If we have a right to keep nukes to intimidate our neighbors from attacking us why don't other countries have that same right?

Again the only information I have heard (from someone other than Bush) about Al-Queda being harbored in Iraq is that the Kurds in northern Iraq (who have their own govt.) have allowed Al-Queda to hang out there at some point.
Saddam does not trust the Islamic extremists- the want to make secular governments (like Iraq's) into fundamentalist Islamic governments. So he does not trust them is my understanding.
If they really are harboring Al-Queda we would have bombed the areas where they are as soon as we had the information. I don't believe Bush.........If Al-Queda is in Iraq like you say howcome none of the hijackers (or later co-conspirators that have been caught here and overseas) were not Iraqis? NONE OF THESE TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN FROM IRAQ.
I can't say it suprises me you would question my patriotism but its still a weak substitute for an ARGUMENT.

When someone starts protesting that we should leave poor Saddam alone, I typically think either:
[list=a]
They're putting me on and saying that just to make an argument
They're politically motivated - some politician trying to get his mug on the TV
They're not reading the papers and truly don't understand the threat OR
They completely and totally hate George Bush and will disagree with anything he says, regardless or what it is
[/list=a]

Anyway, debating with Erin is pontless since she doesn't even have any facts and keeps insisting on points that are simply not true. Erin is trying to convince us that only SHE knows the truth and that the media, our President, various security organizations (such as Janes) and eveything else is WRONG.

Attention, you idiots liberals: it's very tedious to watch you all make things up and ignore facts in order to attack the Republicans. Since you are not armed with any intelligence and cannot find legitimate things to skewer Republicans with, let me hand you a weapon:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak26.html

Keep in mind that Novak is not some left-wing nutcase. Therefore I put some stock in what he says. Is it true - who knows? You'd think the media would have jumped all over this.

Where is your case, your argument in that post??? All I can see is "Erin is a ______ fill in the blank.

If Saddam is a threat now why hasn't he been a threat sinc 1998 when the inspectors were there last? In other words, why is it just "now" a crisis? Is it because corporate scandals caused by Bush's chosen few are wrecking our economy?
Enron met with the White House enery committee (whatever it was called) abotu 17 times before they went under. So they had ALOT of access to the Bush administration.
Personally, I don't disagree with everything Bush does, it is not about partisanship; I wrote Clinton bitter letters about the things he was wrong about (like continuing sanctions on Iraq). I don't care what party a politician is in, they can still be just as wrong, as Gephardt and Daschle are now by agreeing to roll over and play dead so the President can go kill Iraqis. I don't think killing Arab people, in and of itself, is being patriotic. Far from making us more secure, these attacks will make the terrorists even more eager to blow us up, not that there's ever any excuse for it whatsoever.

He (Bush)says he wants to bring freedom and democracy to the poeple of Iraq.....by killing them? That doesn't seem very liberating. It seems like the opposite of liberty.

Erin, I'm not going to debate you on things that are a figment of your imagination.

Bush has never said once that he's going over there to "kill Iraqis". That's never been the policy of the US and I highly doubt that it is now.

Saddam has been a threat since waaaaay before the Gulf War. This sort of thing is a common and recurring theme with this guy and it is not "just now" a crisis. History did not begin when you got old enough to read a newspaper, chickie. Lots of stuff happened prior to that.

There you go again - saying that everyone is wrong about Iraq but YOU. The Senate is wrong, the President is wrong, the CIA is wrong, the media is wrong - everyone is wrong but you, Erin. Since you know more about this situation than anyone else in the world (except Saddam Hussein himself), why don't you trot up to the White House and offer your wisdom?

"Get out of the country" ..."you're not patriotic".....these are not ARGUMENTS my young friend. These are non-statements! It is ideas that are important, not the people saying them.
Where is your argument????????? I see nothing in there but a bunch of whining.
If we are allowed to kill Hussein because he "might ' be a threat "someday" "if" he gets nuclear weapons , doesn't that give other countries the right to kill our leaders because they "might " be a threat to them "someday"?
Yes or no. If so why do we except ourselves from this rule we are imposing on the Iraqi people?
What reasons do we have to not allow other countries to do the same thing? Is it more of a crime to kill white Westerners than Arab people? If so, why?
He probably wants nukes for the same reason we have them and Israel and Russia and China have them: to indimidate other countries into never attacking us ... remember "M.A.D."...mutually assured destruction? The cold war?
What threat, based on actual evidence, does Iraq pose to the United States? Answer: NONE. Threat to Israel: minimal but more real. I am not saying we should stand by and let Israel get nuked; of course we would have to defend them but I see no evidence that Iraq is doing anything other than trying to obtain nukes and they have not succeeded so far.

VRAIlblonde- of course I do contact the White House with my opinions. Weekly. Senators and Congresspersons about every few weeks. Someone has to keep them real.

Your slur "chickie" does nothing to add to the credibility of your arguments. In fact, it makes them alot less credible. Don't get so emotional that you need to use a slur. Stick with logic to make your arguments.
If you actually THINK about it; there are alot of unanswered questions about what would happen if we attack Iraq:
1) the precedent we will set and how we will be able to say "no' with a straight face to other countries that want to do the same thing (assasinating foreign leaders cause they don't like them)
2) how it will harm our efforts to track down Al-Queda everywhere
3) how it will take our attention away from helping stabilize Afghanistan to prevent someone like Taliban to take over again, not that we should be telling Afghans how to vote.
4) how the Arab countries will blame Israel for the attack on Iraq and may cause chaos in the middle east (other than the current chaos between Israel and Palestine.)
5) how other countires in the West will lose respect for the US for engaging in an unprecedented and unprovoked attack on another country.

He wants to kill SH since he wants to follow in his father's footsteps wrongly thinking the American people will think he's a hero for killing a foreign leader. Then, by coincidence I am sure, all his oil buddies can cut up Iraq and make another fortune by exploiting THEIR natural resources.

Erin, the term "chickie" is not a slur nor was it meant to be. If you see it as such, that's your problem, not mine

Rebuttals:

1) It is not US policy to assassinate foreign leaders. Neither Bush nor anyone in his administration has said anything about assassinating Saddam Hussein. He needs to be removed from power not because we don't like him, but because he is a threat to the world economy and the free flow of oil. Yes, there's been a lot of talk about threats to the US and its citizens but I think that's Bush trying to dumb things down for people like, well, YOU, Erin, who can't understand things like world dependency on oil and economic issues.

Also, the US also does not get to decide whether foreign countries assassinate other leaders or not.

2) Not sure what you're talking about here - please clarify.

3) Saddam Hussein is a much bigger world threat than the Taliban.

4) If you read the papers, you'll know that the other Arab countries have a tenuous, at best, relationship with Saddam. Most of them would love nothing more than to get rid of him because he's causing them problems as well. There's already chaos in the Middle East. Why? Because those countries are run by dictators and absolute monarchs - history shows us that that type of government set-up is almost never a good idea.

5) Other countries will lose respect for us if we keep letting this business with Saddam drag on without a resolution. The attack on Iraq is not unprecedented nor is it unprovoked.
He wants to kill SH since he wants to follow in his father's footsteps wrongly thinking the American people will think he's a hero for killing a foreign leader.
I'll offer you another theory: that Bush wants to take out Saddam because his father took a serious amount of heat from the voters for not doing it. But again, please show me where Bush or anyone in his administration has said they want to kill Saddam. Another figment of your imagination. If, in fact, Bush is able to neutralize Saddam, you watch his approval ratings go through the roof. Not everyone thinks like you do, Erin.
Then, by coincidence I am sure, all his oil buddies can cut up Iraq and make another fortune by exploiting THEIR natural resources.
So what? They weren't doing anything with it until we came along anyway. And they've gotten rich from US ingenuity and capitalism, while decrying those very same things. Where do you think their money comes from?

If it is so critically important to kill Iraqis now howcome it wasn't important when they first kicked the inspectors out in 1998? We have no new evidence that they have done anything to invade any other countries since then.

Erin,

I’ll type this real slow just for you. While Iraqis might die if and when we go to war, it isn’t about killing them. It is about removing the regime that has been in continuous violation of many agreements established due to their acts of war. I don’t see how it is so difficult for you to comprehend what it is that this is about. To borrow a line from the movie “Forrest Gump” when he is talking with Bubbas mother, “Is you stupid?” Based on what you have been spewing Forrest’s response of “stupid is as stupid does” seems to fit you to a tea.

The inspectors have been subjected to delays, harassment, and other tactics of non-compliance since the very beginning of the process. We withdrew American inspectors in 1998 due to security considerations, they were not kicked out as you claim. In 1998 PL 105-235 became law authorizing the President to take any and all action necessary to bring Iraq into compliance. I guess you have decided not to read that law to see what it encompasses. Also I notice that you don’t question the previous administrations failure to comply with the law that they put into place. Why is that?

Furthermore, we don’t need evidence that Iraq is attacking other countries. The UN resolutions specifically directed that Iraq destroy all stockpiled Biological/Chemical weapons and live up to other agreements they have entered into concerning the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as additional requirements contained in the 16 Resolutions that they are in violation of. I guess that isn’t important to you. Intelligence sources (ours and others) have determined that Iraq has an ongoing nuclear weapons desire and active projects to obtain or create weapons grade material for the same goal. How many warning signs are needed before it becomes clear as to the intent of this out of control regime?

The fact that the UN and other nations of supposed character have failed to do anything about this problem doesn’t detract from the fact that all we are doing is what the world has already demanded. Because we suffered a very weak foreign policy during most of the 1990s doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t get back to doing what is right, as was determined by the world. This being insuring the Iraqi government complies with the resolutions that determined how and when hostilities and sanctions would cease against them and when they would be allowed to once again participate with the rest of the world in an unfettered manner.

Do we legally need additional resolutions before taking action? I say no, but this President is asking for them, not to justify his actions, but to re-enforce how nations are supposed to interact with each other. He has even asked for Congress to reiterate the sentiment of the nation and the demands contained in PL 105-235, though the need is dubious as the law already exists. Our President is going above and beyond what is needed prior to the engagement of hostilities to appease those who feel this is an unworthy endeavor, not because he needs to do it, but because he knows that it carries a very high price tag, namely the lives of our military members. He is very aware that lives can be lost to execute our nation’s and the world’s will. Sadly for Iraq he doesn’t have a limp wrist or isn’t pre-occupied by heavy-set interns.

I suggest that you educate yourself to the law, the Resolutions being violated, and the UN Charter and then explain why we shouldn’t do this just deed. Oh, by the way, the argument that we are still dealing with Al Qaeda and haven’t completed that yet doesn’t fly either. We have previously faced multiple challenges when the situation dictated it and that is what we are facing now. It certainly doesn’t make it easy, but sitting around waiting to see what will happen is a sure fire way to guarantee that something disastrous will happen. Doing nothing about Iraq is simply not an option, just as dealing with Al Qaeda, which we are still actively engaged in. We can, should and are going to do both.

I truly have to commend Ken King, BchBns, Vraiblonde
Tater, Kyle and the rest(Sorry to leave anyone out). Guys and gals, you have tried your best to put up credible arguements as to why we are and should be doing what we're doing.
I think the old saw,"preaching to the choir" is most apt, and this - wow! how to describe someone like this, argumenter, maybe correct, is pointless. I've actually read all 4, or was it 5 pages of replies. People, for every argument any of you make, she either glosses over it, or ignores it, and raises a new one, or regurgitates an old one. Have you not seen the traits of a professional debater?:barf:

penncam

Originally posted by BchBns


yea, but a "professional" usually makes sense, or at least a good point. Ms. Berry has yet to do either, IMHO. :lmao: :wink: Yes, you're right; I was attempting to give her the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Oh, yeah, Frank was in there on the conversation with the rest of you, tried to reason with this(still having trouble characterizing her), person, but
as I said in my last post, there was an answer for every rationale
you folks brought up, fact, fiction or otherwise. There appear to be some people out in OZ that like to argue for the sake of it, and you're basically wasting time on them. They're never going to get it. Hell, Ken was quoting UN Resolution documents, in fact, and they carried no weight at all with her. What are you going to say to someone like that?
penncam

Originally posted by BchBns


the only thing you can say to her that she'd likely understand: Get a Damn Clue! :bonk: OR, MOVE to Iraq and see what kind of privileges you receive when you get there. And, better yet, go out in a public square and voice your opinion!!! That would be a REAL kick.

penncam

Erin your missing some critical points here. From reading your posts it is clear that you have lived in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood just a little to long!

Saddam Hussein seized power in 1979. The list of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime is a long one.

This is a man who routinely tortures and kills his own people! Saddam is comparable to Hitler he is guilty of genocide against Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. This includes the destruction of over 3,000 villages.

Saddam has internally displaced 900,000 citizens throughout his own country. Iraqi Government consistently rapes and disfigures women, burn homes and fields, demolish houses with bulldozers, and deliberately drain and poison local marshes in an effort to cut off food and water.

Thousands of civilians have been and continue to be summarily executed.

Since Saddam Hussein is capable of all of this - What makes you think he wouldn't gladly use his weapons of mass destruction against America?

You have tunnel vision, It's time to wake up and smell the coffee! Saddam is a Dictator! His people live in terror. If left to his own devices you will live in terror too! :frown:

Originally posted by Kain99
Erin your missing some critical points here. From reading your posts it is clear that you have lived in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood just a little to long!

Saddam Hussein seized power in 1979. The list of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime is a long one.

This is a man who routinely tortures and kills his own people! Saddam is comparable to Hitler he is guilty of genocide against Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. This includes the destruction of over 3,000 villages.

Saddam has internally displaced 900,000 citizens throughout his own country. Iraqi Government consistently rapes and disfigures women, burn homes and fields, demolish houses with bulldozers, and deliberately drain and poison local marshes in an effort to cut off food and water.

Thousands of civilians have been and continue to be summarily executed.

Since Saddam Hussein is capable of all of this - What makes you think he wouldn't gladly use his weapons of mass destruction against America?

You have tunnel vision, It's time to wake up and smell the coffee! Saddam is a Dictator! His people live in terror. If left to his own devices you will live in terror too! :frown:


I would also like to add that he had his brother in law killed when the brother in law tried to over throw him a few years ago.

Originally posted by cariblue
you could have added that without quoting the entire post.

Yea, but then I wouldn't get to see your complaint! :lmao:

Originally posted by cariblue


Just like you don't see the ones that are made privately about this particular habit.

:confused:

Lets face it Cari, you've been whining about me on here since I came on here, I have no idea about your whining privately, that's your issue.

Originally posted by cariblue


You can call it whining if you like. I just think it's rude to take up so much space the way you do when you quote a post just to make one little response to it. Did you think no one would know what post you were referring to? Geez, you even qouted someone once and didn't even respond to it. What was that?

this
this is
this is the
this is the way
this is the way to
this is the way to take
this is the way to take up
this is the way to take up space.

:wah: :wah: :wah: :wah:

May I interest you in some Brie??

:lmao:

On another forum I’ve noticed that you have quoted entire messages too, but I guess you just choose to fuss about me.

:cheers:

Originally posted by cariblue


Please direct me to that post. I'll edit it immediately.
Easy boys and girls! justhangn - take a hint. cariblue is only being her sweet young self, I think. We had a little snit ourselves, but it wasn't something we couldn't talk over in our PMs. justhangn, you might try her out like me. It's just her style.
We just lost sight of what the subject thread was. BTW, I don't see Ms Berry coming back to the subject matter, do any of you? I think she came in here to stir up some
s**t and left. Maybe she decided to try Iraq after all, and voice her ideas with 'ol Saddam. You know, people who live in a free society like ours can't seem to b**ch and moan about it enough.
Is that the great American way, or what?
:moon: penncam

Originally posted by penncam
PMs penncam


You said a mouthful there!!

:roflmao:

huh? I'm lost......people arguing about how to quote posts or something. Anyway, back to the subject at hand:

George Bush's actions are going to make the US an international pariah. France, Germany , Russia, China and almost all of the Middle Eastern countries are opposed to us attacking (unprovoked) Iraq.

If they are so horrible and scary (this isn't about Saddam H.-he is a homocidal maniac) then why aren't any of their middle eastern neighbors (including Kuwait who harbors terrorists) scared? The Saudis, Iran, Jordan, none of their neighbors perceive this "immediate threat" that the US (much farther away) feels so strongly about. Why do you think that is?
Probably it's because it's a fake issue that the President created to divert attention away from the economy going to hell and most importantly to keep people from paying attention to the investigation of the intelligence failures of 9-11 which killed my 32-year old doctor.
No one more than myself wants to prevent terrorist from killing Americans.
The measures Bush has taken are Ok but many don't go far enough. For example, why even allow any males from Saudi Arabia into the country? We can always revisit the ban in a few years but it's not like they can't get a Western education somewhere else like Canada or Europe. The reason is the $$$ (influence) of the Saudi unelected male leaders. No one has a right to come to the United States but I would like to know how just fingerprinting and photographing all men from middle eastern countries coming here is going to protect us.

But Iraq has precisely nothing to do with terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction? They don't even have any. We even sold them all the germ warfare agents they have.
They may be enemies of Israel and Kuwait but they (Iraqi people) are NOT enemies of the US. Bush is hoping that a gullible American people will think they are Arabs (Iraqis) so the MUST be "haters" and terrorists. But they are neither. If they were a threat to Americans, why do so many US members of Congress and other Americans keep going over there? They aren't even on the warning list the State Dept. keeps to prevent Americans from traveling to dangerous countries.
Ask yourself, THINK (try for a moment to put aside all Bush's demonization of SH...) what is this unprovoked attack REALLY about? No one but Bush thinks they are a threat to the United States. He is out there by himself and the rest of the world is scratching its head wondering"WHAT is doing THAT for?"

Originally posted by Erin Berry
huh? I'm lost......people arguing about how to quote posts or something. Anyway, back to the subject at hand:

George Bush's actions are going to make the US an international pariah. France, Germany , Russia, China and almost all of the Middle Eastern countries are opposed to us attacking (unprovoked) Iraq.

If they are so horrible and scary (this isn't about Saddam H.-he is a homocidal maniac) then why aren't any of their middle eastern neighbors (including Kuwait who harbors terrorists) scared? The Saudis, Iran, Jordan, none of their neighbors perceive this "immediate threat" that the US (much farther away) feels so strongly about. Why do you think that is?
Probably it's because it's a fake issue that the President created to divert attention away from the economy going to hell and most importantly to keep people from paying attention to the investigation of the intelligence failures of 9-11 which killed my 32-year old doctor.
No one more than myself wants to prevent terrorist from killing Americans.
The measures Bush has taken are Ok but many don't go far enough. For example, why even allow any males from Saudi Arabia into the country? We can always revisit the ban in a few years but it's not like they can't get a Western education somewhere else like Canada or Europe. The reason is the $$$ (influence) of the Saudi unelected male leaders. No one has a right to come to the United States but I would like to know how just fingerprinting and photographing all men from middle eastern countries coming here is going to protect us.

But Iraq has precisely nothing to do with terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction? They don't even have any. We even sold them all the germ warfare agents they have.
They may be enemies of Israel and Kuwait but they (Iraqi people) are NOT enemies of the US. Bush is hoping that a gullible American people will think they are Arabs (Iraqis) so the MUST be "haters" and terrorists. But they are neither. If they were a threat to Americans, why do so many US members of Congress and other Americans keep going over there? They aren't even on the warning list the State Dept. keeps to prevent Americans from traveling to dangerous countries.
Ask yourself, THINK (try for a moment to put aside all Bush's demonization of SH...) what is this unprovoked attack REALLY about? No one but Bush thinks they are a threat to the United States. He is out there by himself and the rest of the world is scratching its head wondering"WHAT is doing THAT for?"

Sorry Cari (I had to).
As far as this big quote above, to be honest..... I didn't even read it. It's just gonna be more of the same stupidity. Hey Erin, we're gonna blast a HUGE friggin hole in the the space where Iraq used to be. :dude: :getdown: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Good God in heaven.... Are we still interacting with this mornon? Erin go home stick your head in the comode and flush!

Originally posted by Kain99
Good God in heaven.... Are we still interacting with this mornon? Erin go home stick your head in the comode and flush! Amen, Kain99! No one could have a beef with that thought. Ms Erin Berry hasn't had an original thought since the day she first posted here.
For your info, Ms Berry, the countries you mention in your post about not wanting to side with us - they all are either into Iraq big time for paid services(public or private), that they don't want the apple cart upset. As for the rest of the Middle Eastern countries, they are scared sh*tless he(Saddam) might lob a missle in their direction, should hostilities break out,
and they are on the wrong side.
Jesus, folks, I did they same thing - I mentally swore I wouldn't converse with Ms Berry, BUT I did! DUH!!!
penncam

Originally posted by Erin Berry
George Bush's actions are going to make the US an international pariah. France, Germany , Russia, China and almost all of the Middle Eastern countries are opposed to us attacking (unprovoked) Iraq.
I take it by your comments you have not yet read the Resolutions against Iraq. The provocation by Iraq is in non-compliance with those same resolutions. Please read them and then comment once you know what the hell you are talking about.
If they are so horrible and scary (this isn't about Saddam H.-he is a homocidal maniac) then why aren't any of their middle eastern neighbors (including Kuwait who harbors terrorists) scared? The Saudis, Iran, Jordan, none of their neighbors perceive this "immediate threat" that the US (much farther away) feels so strongly about. Why do you think that is?
Come on you mental midget, ask anyone from Iran if they fear Saddam and his weapons. Bet you will get a different answer then you idiotically spew. The same question placed to folk from the other countries you mention will obtain a similar response. They know what he has done, what he will do, but lack the fortitude to act upon it.
Probably it's because it's a fake issue that the President created to divert attention away from the economy going to hell and most importantly to keep people from paying attention to the investigation of the intelligence failures of 9-11 which killed my 32-year old doctor.
No one more than myself wants to prevent terrorist from killing Americans.
There is nothing fake about this issue, again read what is out there. Your continuous insinuation is nothing short of absurd. Hussein wants us hurting and will do anything within his power to achieve it. He has stated it and he tried to affect it when he started Desert Storm and he continues it with his attacks against our aircrews. Please, wake up and look at what it is he is doing.
The measures Bush has taken are Ok but many don't go far enough. For example, why even allow any males from Saudi Arabia into the country? We can always revisit the ban in a few years but it's not like they can't get a Western education somewhere else like Canada or Europe. The reason is the $$$ (influence) of the Saudi unelected male leaders. No one has a right to come to the United States but I would like to know how just fingerprinting and photographing all men from middle eastern countries coming here is going to protect us.
Now the above is really stupid. Not all persons from Saudi Arabia are bent on bringing us pain and suffering. There are many that would rejoice at it but there are many more that see Hussein as the thug he is and would love to see his regime toppled. Granted the process implemented by Clinton's administration made it too easy for many to gain access to visas. Bush is changing that and getting fingerprints and photos is a good idea to identify those that stay beyond the limits of their authorized visit. What you suggest is simply ridiculous.
But Iraq has precisely nothing to do with terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction? They don't even have any. We even sold them all the germ warfare agents they have.
I guess you actually believe the ignorance that you are posting. Biological and chemical weapons are WMD. He had them prior to attacking Kuwait and he still has a stockpile of them in violation of UN Resolutions and treaties.
If they were a threat to Americans, why do so many US members of Congress and other Americans keep going over there? They aren't even on the warning list the State Dept. keeps to prevent Americans from traveling to dangerous countries.
Get real please, those two slimy Congressmen that went to Iraq are doing so to further their own agenda. They aren’t concerned with learning the truth just furthering their careers.

You are the one that needs to do some thinking and a lot of it, that is if you possess that ability. Bush is just complying with our laws and will as to what we do with those that thumb their noses at the world. He is taking on a criminal that happens to have at his disposal many varieties of weapons and the inclination to use them at will against anyone that gets in his way. Your failure to recognize this threat doesn’t mean that your opinions are right or wrong, just ignorant. Your failure to read what it is we are doing (with regard to our laws and UN Resolutions) indicates that you are just blowing smoke to stir things up.

Whew! What a long thread to read! It took me nearly an hour to get through it from the beginning. I've seen an awful lot of circular argument involved here, back and forth on both sides. Obviously, no resolution is ever going to be made. I vote to close this thread down since the only principal opponent in the debate (Erin) is arguing from a factless position.

She refuses to acknowledge known information from the last two or three decades concerning the Husseini dictatorship. She blames the entire Iraqi quagmire on the suggested greed of George W. Bush and his "oil buddies". She wrongly assumes that the US and Allies are acting brutishly in their ground attacks targeting Iraqi weaponry in the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. She ackowlegdes that Hussein is a terrible despot of a leader, yet fails to see how that should beg the attention of the UN and US. On and on, ad nauseum...

Obviously, no one is going to convince her to change her opinion, nor motivate her to argue from an informed position.

And Erin, don't take this as a personal attack. It's not. But after three weeks of back and forth, it's a dead issue.

Obviously, any war is a bad thing. But you know what? The US didn't rise to numero uno in a little over two centuries by sitting back and allowing tyranny to prevail. Think about it. And as long as the rest of the world relies on US leadership, because of its military capability and prowess at solving international conflicts, we will always have to put up with the harsh criticisms that governments like France love throwing at us.

I wonder what the world would be like today if the US and Allies had truly chosen a path of imperialism at the beginning of the 20th century, instead of helping to liberate, then support the people of countries we helped free from tyrannical governments. We'd be enjoying our bratwurst in Bonn, our crepes in Paris, our primavera in Italy. But we don't. That should tell you something of American diplomacy.

Nope, I'm going to leave it open. Not because of Erin or anyone else, I just think that at some point someone might post additional new information. I might reconsider it after we take care of this little matter over in the land of sand.

:biggrin: Ken, in one sense I can appreciate your rationale and in another, the perverted side is experiencing a love/hate kind of mentality.
Call it warped or whatever, I sometimes can't wait to see what trash Ms Berry is going to offer us next, and the other side is when I read her ignorant, juvenile and naive banter, that I wonder what kind of(there's that word again)warped world she lives in that she's so skewed in her beliefs.
She obviously does NOT read or watch the news programs, has no idea what the U.N. Resolutions are all about, and thinks if we ignore Saddam Hussein he will go away, if we do not bother him. I once read a story a long time ago about an Ostrich who would stick it's head in the sand whenever trouble arose. Could it be THIS is Ms Berry's world?:rolleyes:
penncam

Originally posted by penncam
:biggrin: Ken, in one sense I can appreciate your rationale and in another, the perverted side is experiencing a love/hate kind of mentality.
Call it warped or whatever, I sometimes can't wait to see what trash Ms Berry is going to offer us next, and the other side is when I read her ignorant, juvenile and naive banter, that I wonder what kind of(there's that word again)warped world she lives in that she's so skewed in her beliefs.
She obviously does NOT read or watch the news programs, has no idea what the U.N. Resolutions are all about, and thinks if we ignore Saddam Hussein he will go away, if we do not bother him. I once read a story a long time ago about an Ostrich who would stick it's head in the sand whenever trouble arose. Could it be THIS is Ms Berry's world?:rolleyes:
penncam

It’s nothing about love or hate in my mind, it is just the nature of a debate. I also agree about the naivete' of her position and her total disregard of what has and is going on in Iraq.

I really like the ostrich analogy and have a visualization of her head buried in the sand with her backside exposed to all sorts of dangers. :lmao:

Originally posted by Ken King
I really like the ostrich analogy and have a visualization of her head buried in the sand with her backside exposed to all sorts of dangers. :lmao:
You know, it didn't occur to me at the time I posted my reply where I inserted the Ostrich story, but doesn't Iraq have a great deal of sand, as a matter of fact large expanses of it? Perhaps Ms Berry has a predeliction with it. I'm not an analyst, but there does seem to be a pattern emerging. We, the U.S, the big bully on the block, are preparing to kick sand in the face of Saddam Hussein, and it just doesn't seem fair.
I have but one piece of advice for Ms Berry - "At your earliest convenience, go pound sand"!
penncam
:bandit:

Originally posted by cariblue

I thought that was pack sand.
:cheers: I could be wrong, but I think that's what you tell a guy to do when he's being obnoxious. Also, it might depend on your point of view.
penncam :dance:

Originally posted by Erin Berry
They aren't even on the warning list the State Dept. keeps to prevent Americans from traveling to dangerous countries.


Is that so? Have you read the Consular Information Sheet of 10/01/2001? The following are just a few excerpts:

In light of Iraq's continuing challenges to the U.S./Coalition enforcement of the no-fly zones, and the potential for retaliatory action by the Government of Iraq against U.S. citizens, the U.S. Government urges all U.S. citizens to avoid all travel to Iraq, and those in Iraq should depart.

With the exception of the passports of American professional reporters or journalists on assignment in Iraq, and Americans residing in Iraq as of February 8, 1991, U.S. passports are not valid for travel to, in or through Iraq, unless they are validated by the Department of State.

Without the requisite validation, use of a U.S. passport for travel to, in or through Iraq may constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1544, and may be punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. An exemption to the above restriction is granted to Americans residing in Iraq as of February 8, 1991 who continue to reside there and to American professional reporters or journalists on assignment there.

The categories of individuals eligible for consideration for a special passport validation are set forth in 22 C.F.R. 51.74. Passport validation requests for Iraq should be forwarded in writing to the following address:

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services
U.S. Department of State
2401 E St., NW, 9th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20522-0907
Attn: Office of Passport Policy and Advisory Services
Telephone 202-663-2662, Fax 202-663-2654.

The request must be accompanied by supporting documentation according to the category under which validation is sought. Currently, the four categories of persons specified in 22 C.F.R. 51.74 as being eligible for consideration for passport validation are as follows:

[a] Professional Reporters: This includes full-time members of the reporting or writing staff of a newspaper, magazine or broadcasting network whose purpose for travel is to gather information about Iraq for dissemination to the general public. Professional reporters or journalists on assignment are specifically exempted from the passport restriction for Iraq and need not apply for a passport validation.

[b] American Red Cross: The applicant establishes that he or she is a representative of the American Red Cross or International Red Cross traveling pursuant to an officially-sponsored Red Cross mission.

[c] Humanitarian Considerations: The applicant must establish that his or her trip is justified by compelling humanitarian considerations or for family unification. At this time, "compelling humanitarian considerations" include situations where the applicant can document that an immediate family member is critically ill in Iraq. Documentation concerning family illness must include the name and address of the relative, and be from that relative's physician attesting to the nature and gravity of the illness. "Family unification" situations may include cases in which spouses or minor children are residing in Iraq, and dependent on an Iraqi national spouse or parent for their support.

[d] National Interest: The applicant's request is otherwise found to be in the national interest.

Sure reads af if warnings and restrictions are in place. Can you provide your source that is different then this? That is if you can.

:biggrin: Ken, you are truly awesome! :notworthy Where do you get this info from? The depth and relative facility you display in spewing this stuff out on the screen make me humble in the presence of such greatness. I know:barf:
I just wanted you to know it's appreciated.
penncam

Penn, that stuff is readily available on the various government websites. The difference between Ken and some other people is that he will actually look it up and get his facts straight.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Penn, that stuff is readily available on the various government websites. The difference between Ken and some other people is that he will actually look it up and get his facts straight. :cheers: Thanks vraiblonde, It is as you say; I generally get my info from the Washington Times and/or the USA
TODAY papers. I'm impressed with his prowess, I guess. It may have sounded a bit cheeky, but it's not what I intended. My hat is off to Ken for his dedication to getting it right. BTW, I agree with most if not all of what he says, and I applaud in silence when he
shoots down some other would-be know-it-all's tripe.
penncam:cool:

Penn, I hope you don't think I was referring to you when I said some other people. Reading it back, it sounds like I was being insulting to you and I didn't mean it that way. What I meant by other people are the ones who just get on here and start spewing fictional situations that have no basis in reality. You know who I'm talking about :bandit:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Penn, I hope you don't think I was referring to you when I said some other people. . You know who I'm talking about :bandit: :peace: No offense taken, vraiblonde,
I do know exactly the individual you are refering to. When, as you say "some people just get on here and start spewing fictional situations with no basis in reality", well, I've seen a few like that, but in recent days there's little to be left to the imagination, I think?
Like I said when that happens, it tickles the heck out of me when Ken brings truth to the table!!
penncam

It's not going to happen....there will be no unprovoked attack on Iraq. The tide is turning as more reasonable people are FINALLY speaking up to stop this agression.

The State Dept.'s warning on traveling to Iraq didn't mention any terrorist attacks on Americans.
Compare that with Pakistan's travel warning where terrorism against Westerners is a REAL threat, not an IMAGINARY one.
___________________________________________________
Pakistan - Travel Warning
August 12, 2002

Several recent attacks on Christian facilities indicate that they are being targeted by terrorists. The U.S. Consulate in Karachi is closed indefinitely for security review. Coupled with the July conviction and sentencing of four men charged with the kidnapping and murder of an American reporter and the ongoing concern for further terrorist actions against American citizens in the region, the Department of State again reiterates its warning to American citizens to defer travel to Pakistan and strongly urges American citizens in the country to depart. Although the high level of tension between India and Pakistan has subsided, the risk of renewed tensions cannot be ruled out. This Travel Warning supersedes the Travel Warning for Pakistan dated July 19, 2002.

Assailants recently have attacked several Christian facilities resulting in deaths and injuries. On August 9, 2002, a Christian hospital in Taxila was attacked, killing at least four and wounding as many as 20, some seriously. On August 5, gunmen killed six individuals in an attack on a Christian missionary school in Murree. On March 17, an attack on worshippers at a church service in Islamabad resulted in the deaths of two Americans and the injuries of several others. On October 28, 2001, gunmen killed 17 people at a Christian church in the eastern city of Bahawalpur.

On July 15, 2002, Pakistani authorities announced verdicts against four persons involved in the kidnapping/murder of American citizen Daniel Pearl in early 2002. One person was given the death penalty and three others life imprisonment. These verdicts have been appealed and the hearings are scheduled to begin on August 13. While we have no specific information concerning possible retaliation by sympathizers, the potential exists for such action against U.S. citizens and interests.

The possibility of other threats to Americans, Christian facilities and other civilian targets continues. The June 14 car bomb attack against the American Consulate in Karachi resulted in the loss of life of many Pakistani citizens in the vicinity of the consulate building. The trial of several suspected attackers now in custody is expected soon.

Hi Erin,

Now everything is perfectly clear... Your ticked off because you wanted Bush to Blow Pakistan to kingdom come! :roflmao:

At least you have a reason for all of this nonsense.

Good! Then while we're in the neighborhood, we should take out Pakistan too!

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Good! Then while we're in the neighborhood, we should take out Pakistan too! OH... And Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Iran... They better get more hardware, this could take some time!

:lmao:

Originally posted by Kyle
OH... And Yemen, Oman, Sudan, Iran... They better get more hardware, this could take some time!

:lmao:

Let's start with Oman...then we could say it was an "Oman" of things to come!

Originally posted by Erin Berry
It's not going to happen....there will be no unprovoked attack on Iraq. The tide is turning as more reasonable people are FINALLY speaking up to stop this agression.

Finally, you have said something that I can agree with. There will be no unprovoked attack, as the provocation has and is already occurring. Attacking the Iraqi regime is a just cause and we should know in a little while how the House voted on the matter.

Now back to the rest of your post. Can you please explain how a travel alert for Pakistan indicates that there isn’t one for Iraq? I won’t hold my breath because I know you won’t respond directly to the question asked but will try to wiggle around it by bringing up some other unrelated nonsense.

Out of simple curiosity, are you experience problems with the changes of puberty or are you at the other end of the spectrum and senility is the issue?

...... or are you at the other end of the spectrum and senility is the issue?


Ken, Ken, Ken --- people who live in glass houses. I wouldn't want to TOUCH *this* one!!

Originally posted by Frank



Ken, Ken, Ken --- people who live in glass houses. I wouldn't want to TOUCH *this* one!!

What glass house are you referring to Frank?

Originally posted by Ken King

Out of simple curiosity, are you experience problems with the changes of puberty or are you at the other end of the spectrum and senility is the issue?
:clap: In olden days gone by sir, I believe one would have remarked that your quill is indeed sharp. How in the heck can we equate that quote in modern-day times ?
I'm having a bit of difficulty in describing it, But BRAVO!!, Well DONE, Sir! I've been wondering myself where she's coming from.
penncam

Originally posted by penncam

:clap: In olden days gone by sir, I believe one would have remarked that your quill is indeed sharp. How in the heck can we equate that quote in modern-day times ?
I'm having a bit of difficulty in describing it, But BRAVO!!, Well DONE, Sir! I've been wondering myself where she's coming from.
penncam

Would something along the line of "your bytes have bite" fit the bill?

:cheers: Yes, I would agree, most exceedingly well!
penncam

When Dee Jay first offered me the chance to do an article on a regular basis she asked if I had a title. I wanted to call it "Byte Me", but she felt that was a little too much and she came up with the "King's Corner" tag. :lmao:

I wanted to call it "Byte Me", but she felt that was a little too much and she came up with the "King's Corner" tag.

Darnit! I wish you guys would have gone with "Byte Me" it's so appropriate! :lmao:

I think the "Byte Me" banner would be a :yay: as well.

I was begining to think you might have to start calling it "Berry's World."

Originally posted by Kyle
I think the "Byte Me" banner would be a :yay: as well.
Most definately! Maybe we should petition DJ. :wink:

Originally posted by Erin Berry
It's not going to happen....there will be no unprovoked attack on Iraq. The tide is turning as more reasonable people are FINALLY speaking up to stop this agression.

H.J.Res. 114 (Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq) passed both the House and Senate. Finally the reasonable people have spoken and this threat will soon disappear.

To our men and women in the services - Good hunting and God's speed.

Originally posted by Ken King


H.J.Res. 114 (Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq) passed both the House and Senate. Finally the reasonable people have spoken and this threat will soon disappear.

To our men and women in the services - Good hunting and God's speed. :mrt: I'm not sure the passed resolution gives the green light to a pre-emptive strike, but hey, anything is possible now. It sure as hell gives Saddam more to think/stew about; maybe if the Iraqi citizens learn of this, it might precipitate some militant type to discern which Saddam is present, and dispatch him to Allah with with a 7.62mm gift.

penncam

Originally posted by penncam
I'm not sure the passed resolution gives the green light to a pre-emptive strike, but hey, anything is possible now. It sure as hell gives Saddam more to think/stew about; maybe if the Iraqi citizens learn of this, it might precipitate some militant type to discern which Saddam is present, and dispatch him to Allah with with a 7.62mm gift.

penncam

Well, reading the authorization I would say the green light is on.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Originally posted by Ken King


Well, reading the authorization I would say the green light is on.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(. I stand corrected - the green light IS ON! I had not seen the actual resolution that Congrss passed, just what was on the news and headlines on my website. Holy S--T! They actually passed on the wording of this thing? I thought it would be watered down more. This is pretty direct; There is not a lot of wiggle room in these words. Pres Bush CAN pre-emptively attack Iraq at his pleasure. I'm stunned!
penncam

Originally posted by penncam
I stand corrected - the green light IS ON! I had not seen the actual resolution that Congrss passed, just what was on the news and headlines on my website. Holy S--T! They actually passed on the wording of this thing? I thought it would be watered down more. This is pretty direct; There is not a lot of wiggle room in these words. Pres Bush CAN pre-emptively attack Iraq at his pleasure. I'm stunned!
penncam

I avoid depending on the media for the facts and go to the Library of Congress site. Searching can be a little more difficult but once you find what you are looking for you have the correct information.

The League of Nations and Benito Mussolini
Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler
Aggression must be stopped, justly.
To make those who believe it's all over oil happy - Japan attacked us because Roosevelt and Hull denied them oil. So oil is bad, too.

Dennis you are correct. Aggression must be stopped. The US has no business attacking Middle Eastern countries and stealing their oil.
The Israel lobby also wants us to attack other middle eastern countries for them too. Iran, Syria and others are next on their list for the US taxpayers to wipe out so they will feel safer and so Bush's friends can make zillions stealing their oil.
You don't have a problem with that? And with the fact that unelected persons (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) are deciding that US foreign policy is synonomous with Israel's foreign policy?

stealing? lucy, you have some splainen to do.

Not this thread again....! I say Nuke em! Just get this crap over with and wipe the slate clean!

Originally posted by red
stealing? lucy, you have some splainen to do.

:biggrin: Yo! Erin, you weren't by any chance out in the Point Reyes locale, (that's California), last week, were you? Heard some ladies went all out in the "au naturel" fashion, to protest the upcoming conflict with Iraq, and I thought I might have spotted you in the lower right hand corner of the word "Peace" that they were spelling out.

penncam

Originally posted by Kain99
Not this thread again....! I say Nuke em! Just get this crap over with and wipe the slate clean!

:biggrin: I don't suppose you meant "get this over and wipe the shiek clean!", did you?

penncam

Great "Arguments"!!!

I'm paranoid

Erin,

Whose oil have we stolen? And it still isn't about oil. Why you can't see the threat that Iraq and its weapons are, to not only us but the world, is mind-boggling.

Would you like to live in Iraq? I've briefly read some of the replies and the answer is no. Do you enjoy the freedom of voting for whoever you want? I imagine so. The people of Iraq primarily voted for Sadaam in fear. He is a very powerful man and will do what it takes to stay in power. As corrupt as you think our government is, it's worse over their. When Sadaam was re-elected he stated in his words that if Clinton thought he had problems, wait until he gets to Bush. That would be a verbal attack on the U.S. from a hostile nation who doesn't have much to live for. They are not at all a technological nation. They are not at all a wealthy nation. Not near as many percentage of the people are well fed, literate, or even that happy as here in the U.S. Us being the superpower of the world try to make the world a better place for mankind. We often involve ourselves in problems not even related to the U.S. because we know what makes people happy. Dropping food in third world countries, putting a stop to terrorism, and making things right for others is our job. I don't look at it as Bush continuing a legacy, I look at it as something that should've been taken care of a long time ago.

Truly yours from Korea,
Doug

Erin,
No, Iraq has not threatened us directly, nor has Saddam directly attacked anyone outside of his borders, lately. No, supporting Isreal is probably not the best policy if the US wants to be liked by everyone and I question if it does any American besides politicians any good. However, Saddam has not only stated his desire to take the whole of the Arabian Peninsula and Southwest Asia by force, he has demonstrated it. He attacked Iran, he attacked Kuwait, he was poised to attack Saudi Arabia.
For those who believe this is 100% over oil, let me ask a question. Why aren't we attacking Canda (#1 source of US oil imports) Mexico & Venezuela (both nearly tied with Saudi Arabia last year), Nigeria (which supplies more oil to the US than Iraq) or Great Brittain (which supplies almost as much as Iraq)? http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/fact.shtml
Is it ok with you to let Saddam take over his neighbors for their oil? He'll sell it to us. Is it ok to let him support the terrorists who kill innocents? He's not killing them himself, he usually only kills friends and family personally. Is it ok with you if he destroys millions of lives, Arab as well as others, for his desire to control? Yes, he'll eventually die. So, would you let him kill because it's none of our business that he wants to be a Hitler and he will eventually die? Isolationism and appeasement do not lead to world peace, people. We had no business stopping Hitler, he didn't attack us. We had no business attacking N. Korea, they didn't attack us. They did kill my wife's father and many thousands of others, but that was none of our business because they were Korean and not American, right? It's ok for Saddam to use children to clear Iranian land mines because he's not attacking us, right? It's ok for Saddam to kill Kurds because they're not Americans, right? It's ok for Saddam to kill innocents as long as he's not invading the US, right?
FDR and JFK told us the US had a responsibility to defend the world from aggression. JFK escalated our involvement in Viet Nam. BUT, don't let a Republican want to defend freedom abroad, he's only looking at personal, monetary profit, right?

The thread is open so...

Are we still justified to attack Iraq?

Originally posted by Steve
The thread is open so...

Are we still justified to attack Iraq?

:frown: I just do not see a real solid alternative. Saddam has been playing this "shell game" with the world for too long. He's trying to make fools out of the international community. It is HIS responsibility to PROVE he's destroyed all the WMD devices banned by the UN, and he is not doing it. All we get is stall, stall, stall. Then the rhetoric speeches about how the inspectors are really intelligence/spy types. Enough already!
And to ratchet up the ante, go in there and wipe out the Nuclear capability of North Korea. Not one, but all the news channels are reporting that North Korea has said any more UN sanctions will result in another war. Then they say they want to sit down with the U.S., and negotiate. Negotiate what? They signed a Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in 1994(I think?), and now they have broken away from it,, kicked out the UN Inspectors, and are sabre-rattling! BS! Take 'em out!!
Just my humble opinion.
penn

Charles Krauthammer had an interesting piece in the Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35858-2003Jan9.html

It's more of a busting on Powell piece (which I agree with) but he makes some great observations about sanctions and Hussein.

Has anyone noticed that "Stormin Norman" has kept a very low profile during all of this? I always wonder if he's really out fishin or if we've pulled him back into the fray somehow. (I wish I wish I wish!) :wink:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Charles Krauthammer had an interesting piece in the Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35858-2003Jan9.html

It's more of a busting on Powell piece (which I agree with) but he makes some great observations about sanctions and Hussein.
:frown: I'm still mulling over in my mind the points the article relates; Is Powell content to merely "contain" Iraq? That is surely at cross-purposes with the president.
Krauthammer makes good solid sense about the results of the - what? - 17(?) UN Sanctions against Iraq. What good if any, have they accomplished?
The only thing I'm seeing is his people are starving worse and medical conditions are in decline.
Dumb thought maybe: Could this be a "bad cop, good cop" routine?

:confused: penn

Originally posted by penncam
Dumb thought maybe: Could this be a "bad cop, good cop" routine? I hope that's not dumb because I was wondering the same thing. But I distinctly remember Powell and Schwartzkopf being at odds with each other during the Gulf War. It doesn't seem strange that Powell would be a peacenik these days, too.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I hope that's not dumb because I was wondering the same thing. But I distinctly remember Powell and Schwartzkopf being at odds with each other during the Gulf War. It doesn't seem strange that Powell would be a peacenik these days, too.
:cool: What I'm entertaining here is this: As Mr. Krauthammer states, the president should not be out there taking the hits on this in public(being forceful/hawkish), while Mr. Powell seems to want to let sanctions work, yet he also admits he (Powell)was a driving force behind the president going forcefully to the UN, and demanding that they either get their collective #### together and deal with the Iraqi issue or we would!

:wink: penn