America Gone Mad

[SmallTown]

Lets all be honest here.. Bush has had a chip on his shoulder about iraq since taking office.. He is looking for ANY reason to start blasting away. Bush is not sending a good message to the world by trying to go against the UN.. He is already beginning to lose supposrt because of this idea. I am all for a change of command in iraq so that HOPEFULLY (no guarantees in the middle east) we won't have to go back there again..

But Bush is hsowing an itchy finger when it comes to this matter.. the UN sets a date for its report to the world, and Bush says it is not soon enough. The empty warheads are found, Bush starts foaming at the mouth saying this is all the proof we need, lets move in.. Blix says the find really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

And one can't help to think this is at least party political.. The conservatives blasted clinton for not taking care of foreign policy business while in office. Bush doesn't want to go into the next election with the same cloud over his head, which may help explain some of the urgency on Bush's part.

I think we can all agree there needs to be a change in Iraq. I just hope Bush follows the "UN lead" on this one, if nothing else to try and show the world we are a team player and not some bully trying to rule the world.. As much as we hate saddam, there are many people who hate Bush and Americans in general.. If we keep being the agressor, these anti-american numbers will only continue to grow. I normally say "F the UN" when it comes to these kind of issues, but considering how delicate this situation is, I feel it is best to go with the flow of the UN.. They will find reasons to attack iraq. Give them time.. And if that doesn't happen before the 2004 elections, dropping a few nukes on north korea should do the trick

 

[vraiblonde]

As much as we hate saddam, there are many people who hate Bush and Americans in general

Okay, Small, but Bush doesn't do to Americans what Saddam does to Iraquis. And Bush hasn't broken any UN sanctions. AND Bush doesn't have a history of invading other countries.

I truly don't understand the thinking here. Hans Blix is a stooge of the UN. The UN is decidedly anti-American. Therefore anything that's found, Blix is going to pooh-pooh. The chemical warheads found tell me that Saddam is building nuclear weapons - what else would they be used for? And that is strictly against the rather lenient sanctions the UN itself set for Iraq. He also kicked out the inspectors, which is another sanctions violation.

So here we have the UN giving the terms of surrender to Iraq. Iraq agrees to the sanctions, then says, "Screw you" and does what it pleases. The UN decides not to enforce the sanctions. So what authority does the UN have on the worldwide scene? None, that's what.

The peaceniks had 8 years of Clinton appeasing this guy and ignoring blatant attacks on Americans from other Arab nations. What we got out of that was 9-11. Bush thinks we should try something different. What part of this don't you understand?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, Small, but Bush doesn't do to Americans what Saddam does to Iraquis. And Bush hasn't broken any UN sanctions. AND Bush doesn't have a history of invading other countries.

I truly don't understand the thinking here. Hans Blix is a stooge of the UN. The UN is decidedly anti-American. Therefore anything that's found, Blix is going to pooh-pooh. The chemical warheads found tell me that Saddam is building nuclear weapons - what else would they be used for? And that is strictly against the rather lenient sanctions the UN itself set for Iraq. He also kicked out the inspectors, which is another sanctions violation.

So here we have the UN giving the terms of surrender to Iraq. Iraq agrees to the sanctions, then says, "Screw you" and does what it pleases. The UN decides not to enforce the sanctions. So what authority does the UN have on the worldwide scene? None, that's what.

The peaceniks had 8 years of Clinton appeasing this guy and ignoring blatant attacks on Americans from other Arab nations. What we got out of that was 9-11. Bush thinks we should try something different. What part of this don't you understand?

I didn't say Bush has broke sanctions or anything else. I'm saying they is already anti-american and bush feelings around the world, no need to throw more fuel to the fire by attacking when there is not atleast some resemblence of UN backing.
I agree with your views on the UN, which is exactly why I normally say "F the UN"

I am confident that we will find something there worth fighting over.. It just takes a little time.. People have very short memories, we can't help that.. We know what saddam has done to his people.. We know what he has done in the past with regards to attacking other countries.. But the world doesn't care about that right now.. All they care about is the here and now. And right now, all they see (smokescreen or not) is a small country trying its best to cooperate by letting the inspectors back in, letting them find access to most areas of the country, etc while the Americans are sending more and more troops over for an immediate war.. Saddam is playing this perfectly. If he gets toppled or not, it will appear that HE was the one trying to make good, and the Americans are the bad guys. This one time, I want to the process to work in our favor, and we have that chance

We have three options here.
1) Do nothing at all. Wrong answer
2) Attack now or before the UN finds a smoking gun. Saddam goes down and seen as the defenseless leader who tried to do the right things, and Americans are the evil agressors he has claimed we are from day one
3) Wait for the UN inspectors to find the smoke gun. Saddam goes down and seen as the one who lied to the world, and the US is seen as the good guys for exposing these lies and taking care of the problem.

I personally hope for number 3. Sure, even with that scenario, there will be people who say we "set up" saddam or that we really didn't find anything and are just making up stories. But either way, I think we can all agree that #3 is by far the best way for this country to go.

 

[vraiblonde]

Small, the rest of the world has long relied on the US to fight it's battles and feed it's people. When the UN calls for donations to feed starving Ethiopians, who gives the lion's share of that aid? When smaller countries get invaded and their citizens are being killed, who comes in and protects them? The UN always comes to the US with it's hand out, wanting money, wanting military might - but when the US wants to protect itself, the UN says ##-hum.

Right now the North Koreans are coming with their hands out because they're having a rather significant economic crisis and millions of people in that country are starving. This is not the fault of the US, but rather the fault of poor policies by North Korean leaders. But guess who's going to end up bailing them out?

My personal solution would be to ditch the UN, tell all those other countries to fend for themselves and do what we have to do to ensure our quality of life in this country. If the peaceniks don't like it, tough. They can move to Iraq or North Korea and see how they deal with protestors over there. The US has played sugar daddy for too long - it's time to end global welfare and start taking care of our own interests.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I didn't say Bush has broke sanctions or anything else. I'm saying they is already anti-american and bush feelings around the world, no need to throw more fuel to the fire by attacking when there is not atleast some resemblence of UN backing.
I agree with your views on the UN, which is exactly why I normally say "F the UN"

“At least some resemblance of UN backing”? 17 UN resolutions, two Congressional mandates to use military force, and continued violations by Iraq are enough. If the UN is too pansy-@ssed to call for action should we wait until we are made to respond to a devastating attack?

I am confident that we will find something there worth fighting over.. It just takes a little time.. People have very short memories, we can't help that.. We know what saddam has done to his people.. We know what he has done in the past with regards to attacking other countries.. But the world doesn't care about that right now.. All they care about is the here and now. And right now, all they see (smokescreen or not) is a small country trying its best to cooperate by letting the inspectors back in, letting them find access to most areas of the country, etc while the Americans are sending more and more troops over for an immediate war.. Saddam is playing this perfectly. If he gets toppled or not, it will appear that HE was the one trying to make good, and the Americans are the bad guys. This one time, I want to the process to work in our favor, and we have that chance

Saddam is not playing this perfectly. He is doing the same old crap that we have seen for twelve years and is content to wait for the effort in the UN to unfold. As it has in the past. He doesn’t care about his people, only his power, and he is using his people as shields along the way. Perfectly playing the game would result in him allowing unfettered access, truly advising the world of his chemical/biological weaponry, and removing any doubt that he wants to comply.

We have three options here.
1) Do nothing at all. Wrong answer
2) Attack now or before the UN finds a smoking gun. Saddam goes down and seen as the defenseless leader who tried to do the right things, and Americans are the evil agressors he has claimed we are from day one
3) Wait for the UN inspectors to find the smoke gun. Saddam goes down and seen as the one who lied to the world, and the US is seen as the good guys for exposing these lies and taking care of the problem.

I personally hope for number 3. Sure, even with that scenario, there will be people who say we "set up" saddam or that we really didn't find anything and are just making up stories. But either way, I think we can all agree that #3 is by far the best way for this country to go.

There are only two options:
1) Saddam can come into full compliance with UN resolutions, or;
2) He and his regime will be destroyed.

The UN inspectors have already confirmed that the Iraqi declaration was false when the chemical/biological warheads were found. This supports the contention that Saddam is continuing at his ploy without regard to the consequences for his country and people. The fact that they already found illegal items should be all the warning flag that is needed to start making Saddam comply by force. Trying to locate all the possible storage facilities in Iraq by such a miniscule inspection team, while fool hearty in my opinion, has provided the answer that we knew already. What more is needed before we start doing the right thing? How many times does the case have to be made that Saddam is a madman that will do whatever he wants regardless of world opinion? Enough is enough, “Let’s Roll!!”

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I didn't say Bush has broke sanctions or anything else. I'm saying they is already anti-american and bush feelings around the world, no need to throw more fuel to the fire by attacking when there is not at least some resemblence of UN backing.


There has always been strong Anti- American sentiment in the world. Bush has nothing to do with it. Would it be easier to enter into military action with U.N. support? Of course! But let's face it, the easy road is not always the wisest option.

To date, the countries who are not backing U.S. action all have a personal vested interest in leaving Saddam alone. They base their reluctance on selfish reasons.

To put it simply, It's like ignoring a neighbor who is beating his children. Many peope would prefer to just look the other way. Much to uncomfortable to get involved.

We are not playing follow the leader - WE ARE THE LEADER! As a leader we need no permission or approval to step in and take care of business.

 

[SmallTown]

Just curious..

I see a lot about how the UN is a joke, how we should go with out them, we are the leader, we take care of business..

Yet.. The main reason stated for us going in is because iraq hasn't followed UN resolutions..

So the UN is only good for things we want them to be good for?

 

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Lets all be honest here.. Bush has had a chip on his shoulder about iraq since taking office.. He is looking for ANY reason to start blasting away. Bush is not sending a good message to the world by trying to go against the UN.. He is already beginning to lose supposrt because of this idea. I am all for a change of command in iraq so that HOPEFULLY (no guarantees in the middle east) we won't have to go back there again..

But Bush is hsowing an itchy finger when it comes to this matter.. the UN sets a date for its report to the world, and Bush says it is not soon enough. The empty warheads are found, Bush starts foaming at the mouth saying this is all the proof we need, lets move in.. Blix says the find really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

That is proof for anyone that isn't a wimp about this whole thing. Quite frankly the entire region is a wild west show. there is nothing stable about any of them. Foaming at the moth you say, well bush is just expressing everyones frustration the country feels. Since clinton did nothing.... i repeat nothing... on the attacks on us, We require a very hardline at this time. I believe 10 years to come into compliance is plenty of time. We should have moved in long ago but the last presented was to worried about his bedroom than to ensure our saftey.

Originally posted by SmallTown

And one can't help to think this is at least party political.. The conservatives blasted clinton for not taking care of foreign policy business while in office. Bush doesn't want to go into the next election with the same cloud over his head, which may help explain some of the urgency on Bush's part.

You would think this, You can not see past the nose on your face. I can't believe you guys think this guy does not need to be taken care of. and by the way... the losing support you spoke of is only a 5% change in the polls... WOW what an impresive change.....

Originally posted by SmallTown

I think we can all agree there needs to be a change in Iraq. I just hope Bush follows the "UN lead" on this one, if nothing else to try and show the world we are a team player and not some bully trying to rule the world.. As much as we hate saddam, there are many people who hate Bush and Americans in general.. If we keep being the agressor, these anti-american numbers will only continue to grow. I normally say "F the UN" when it comes to these kind of issues, but considering how delicate this situation is, I feel it is best to go with the flow of the UN.. They will find reasons to attack iraq. Give them time.. And if that doesn't happen before the 2004 elections, dropping a few nukes on north korea should do the trick

The entire region is anti american because of thier faith, Don't be so moronic. The anti-american stance has more to do with faith than it does with political motivations. As far as north korea. It made the Japs act right, I am all for it. But then agian you probably would have handled Hitler differently too..

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Just curious..

I see a lot about how the UN is a joke, how we should go with out them, we are the leader, we take care of business..

Yet.. The main reason stated for us going in is because iraq hasn't followed UN resolutions..

So the UN is only good for things we want them to be good for?

It’s good to be curious.

The joke is that the UN is impotent. They make these resolutions but fail to actively follow up on them or they are milked down to such a weak demand that no good can come from them at all. When a nation, such as ours, decides to do exactly as what was resolved we are looked upon as an aggressor and ridiculed for executing the world’s will.

The main reason that we are contemplating taking action now is due to the increased and continued threat that Iraq has become to our security, interests, and way of life. The continued threatening of doing harm to us by Hussein and his attempts to acquire greater weapons of mass destruction to carry out that task are why we are gearing up for the confrontation. Nothing has changed since the requirements were laid upon Iraq at the end of the Gulf War, other than Iraq’s attempts to rebuild and strengthen their forces. How long should we let this go on? More importantly, why aren’t the other member nations of the UN willing to execute this collective will?

If they want to leave it to us to do it then they shouldn't be concerned about how we accomplish it. If they want any say then they should step forward and put their money (and people) where their mouths are.

 

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Just curious..

I see a lot about how the UN is a joke, how we should go with out them, we are the leader, we take care of business..

Yet.. The main reason stated for us going in is because iraq hasn't followed UN resolutions..

So the UN is only good for things we want them to be good for?

uh: The UN resolutions are what we agreed to in order to quit kicking his but the last time. Has nothing to do with what the Quote UN laid done on him. It was what we wanted. and he is not doing what we want. So he will be smacked down yet agian.

 

[SmallTown]

Biscuit.

I said he NEEDED to be taken care of, why say I don't want him taken care of?

I said nothing about the local support for bush, or his drop in the polls.. I was talking about people against americans, and not just in the middle east which you suggest.

Try actually reading my posts before expressing such idiotic responses to "phantom" posts by me. Thanks.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Biscuit
uh: The UN resolutions are what we agreed to in order to quit kicking his but the last time. Has nothing to do with what the Quote UN laid done on him. It was what we wanted. and he is not doing what we want. So he will be smacked down yet agian.

Anyone have the English translation of this?

 

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Biscuit.

I said he NEEDED to be taken care of, why say I don't want him taken care of?

I said nothing about the local support for bush, or his drop in the polls.. I was talking about people against americans, and not just in the middle east which you suggest.

Try actually reading my posts before expressing such idiotic responses to "phantom" posts by me. Thanks.

The only thing phantom here would be your backbone. If you want him taken care of, Quit suggesting that we can only do it if everybody agrees. That is ridiculous. Haven't you ever heard if you want something done, Do it yourself.

The wishy washy way you would go about this is to hope he dies of old age and then hope things would get better. It is not in our interest to allow it to go on and on. Be for real, quit saying things you don't really mean. If you really wanted him taken care of you would support this. At what point do you think he should be taken Out?

 

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Anyone have the English translation of this?

No, but perhaps you should see if spanish would help you understand. Since thats what you prefer for america.

Nice try to slam though, I like how you skate around what i siad. Is it really taking you that long to come up with something. Oh, I know, you are probably surfing for some witty come back.

 

[SmallTown]

Biscuit,

I'm not skating around things you post.. Seems you are doing that to my posts..

You feel the shoot first, ask questions later is the right approach, I do not.. That is pretty cut and dry. Nothing I say would ever make you see it another way, and the same goes for me. I've stated my opinion and why I feel that way, and you stated your opinion and why you feel that way. Neither of us is running the country, so we should just leave it at that and pray Bush makes the right decisions for America.

Cute spanish comment. Again, grasping for air with the notion I want that for America.. Spend more time grasping Kain and not thin air.

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Biscuit,
Spend more time grasping Kain and not thin air.

Uh Oh..... Don't drag me into this mess. I Love ya both!

 

[Biscuit]

look, I was just stating my opinion as well, I actually Like you. Your fun, Probably the guy i hope is on here when i log on. So don't ever take anything personally.

Its just in fun razzing you. All though we do disagree at least you have the Balls to play.

BTW, Grasping Kain has never been a problem.

 

[Biscuit]

Originally posted by Biscuit
look, I was just stating my opinion as well, I actually Like you. Your fun, Probably the guy i hope is on here when i log on. So don't ever take anything personally.

Its just in fun razzing you. All though we do disagree at least you have the Balls to play.

BTW, Grasping Kain has never been a problem.

I have reconsidered my Last Post

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Biscuit

BTW, Grasping Kain has never been a problem.

Yea, I hear.. She told me about that one time when you two rented that cabin in the mountains, and.. oh wait, this isn't a PM is it

 

[Kain99]

DOH!!!