War in Iraq

[SmallTown]

For those who feel that the people opposing an immediate war in iraq are only a select few yellow-backs, maybe you should reconsider. Not only is support for an immediate war losing ground in the states, but around the world. Looks like Bush should use this "down time" while the inspectors are at work to focus on things here like the economy. I'm not too concerned if Bush himself gets re-elected in 2004, but I would like to see his "dream team" at least partially stay together. Maybe he should go on a "crusade" to help the economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html

 

[justhangn]

Hmmm......very interesting and very reminiscent of the chatter that Reagan got when he was telling the Russians to “tear down that wall” and giving tax cuts. People in high places were whining that he was going to start World War 3 and drive the government bankrupt, neither of these things happened and he setup the most prosperous economic boom this country has seen in decades.

 

[Kain99]

Smalltown, What are people so afraid of? Is it World War like Just Hangn suggests? I don't understand? Hussein has been a long term problem. In my opinion he is a grave danger to society. If you get a second could you put it in a nutshell?

 

[alex]

War in Iraq at this time (IMO) is a ruse to divert the public from the lack of progress on the terrorism and other domestic issues. Most of Bush's "advisers" are left overs from his daddy's term. They realize they screwed up big time but not finishing Hussein off when they had the chance and now they are reaching for any excuse to do that. There was absoultely nothing Iraq could have done to avoid this. If they found weapons - War; If they don't find weapons - War; etc. Bush and his advisors are determined to go to war with Iraq PERIOD! There was absoultely nothing Iraq could have done to avoid this. If they found weapons - War; If they don't find weapons - War; etc.

Now some of the public is questioning that policy. That does not mean they won't support the troops that go. It doesn't mean that they are unamerican. Being an american does not mean you have to support everything your government does without question.

I personally think that North Korea is a bigger problem than Iraq. And if the South Korean's don't want us there then we just pull our boys out and let them fend for themselves.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by alex
There was absoultely nothing Iraq could have done to avoid this. If they found weapons - War; If they don't find weapons - War; etc. Bush and his advisors are determined to go to war with Iraq PERIOD! There was absoultely nothing Iraq could have done to avoid this. If they found weapons - War; If they don't find weapons - War; etc.

I personally think that North Korea is a bigger problem than Iraq. And if the South Korean's don't want us there then we just pull our boys out and let them fend for themselves.

I guess the first time you spewed wasn't good enough, you had to repeat yourself?

I agree that “daddy Bush” didn’t finish the job the first time around, but Saddam did NOTHING to prevent what is happening now.

Some words to live by:

It’s not always what you do as it is what it looks like you are doing

 

[vraiblonde]

France and Germany don't want war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26403-2003Jan22.html

"We agree completely to harmonize our positions as closely as possible to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis," Schroeder added.

I admit, I'm at a loss. I think we can safely say that nobody wants war. But at what point do we say that diplomacy isn't working? At what point can we say that Saddam is being unreasonable and there will never be peace until he and others like him are gone?

I'd be curious what the underlying factors are here. I find it hard to believe that France, Germany, etc. are taking up for Saddam because he's just a misunderstood cherub.

 

[Bruzilla]

I guess I'll stand in the minority and say that I am glad that we're going to war, and that I'm looking forward to it. I feel this way because...

1. We've been cow-towing to terrorists, dictators, tyrants, and other ner-do-wells since Desert Storm. I think that it's a good thing to just go and kick the living bejesus out of some of these folks from time to time. It sends a strong message out to the rest of them. Had we gone after these trouble makers over the past 12 years we wouldn't have had 9/11.

2. The military needs a chance to prove itself and its capabilities every decade or so. This also helps to remind the US of A of how valuable having a strong military is.

3. I like to drive a gas guzzling car, I like my gasoline cheap, and I am not alone. Therefore I expect my government to keep the price at the pump to a minimum. In my view it's in the national interest to interject a bit of stability into the Middle East.

Our World has been developed through the liberal use of arms, and the destruction and reconstruction of societies, and I see no reason to stop that cycle.

 

[tater]

Anybody who thinks we should not go to war with this idiot needs to sit down and watch a few hours of the Iraq/Saddam documentary on the history channel.. YES! He does have WMD and he used them on the Kurds. No it wasn't done with smoke and mirrors and it wasn't propaganda, they were right there on video, in there hospital beds, 12 years after the fact, with their skin falling off their faces.......still. He needs taken out. If only we would've dealt with Hitler at this early a stage.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
France and Germany don't want war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26403-2003Jan22.html

"We agree completely to harmonize our positions as closely as possible to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis," Schroeder added.

I admit, I'm at a loss. I think we can safely say that nobody wants war. But at what point do we say that diplomacy isn't working? At what point can we say that Saddam is being unreasonable and there will never be peace until he and others like him are gone?

I'd be curious what the underlying factors are here. I find it hard to believe that France, Germany, etc. are taking up for Saddam because he's just a misunderstood cherub.

I don't think we can safely say that nobody WANTS war. There are pressures to go to war- oil companies, military suppliers. OK, maybe they don't WANT war, but if somebody seems willing to bring one on, they wouldn't hesitate to get behind it.

Anyway, if most of the other anti-war (including France and Gremany's leaders)people believe the same thing I do, we are not opposed to war under any circumstances, we are just opposed to this one because we just disagree with the premise that Saddam is enough of a threat to warrant it. I know some of you disagree, and none of us have enough info to say for sure. That's jsut the way we see it.

We also believe that getting rid of Saddam and those like him is an unachievable goal. And trying makes more enemies. There certainly is a limit to unacceptable international behavior. We just disagree as to whether we have reached that threshold with him. We feel that containment, monitoring, embargoes, etc. are preferable. Even if they never end. So what. I hesitate to mix in the terrorism thread but... we also feel that we can do a better job preventing potential terror threats through monitoring our known enemies than trying to identify and contain a whole bunch of new ones.

 

[Bruzilla]

BTW... can someone tell me what's so bad with the economy? We are experiencing 3% growth, which isn't fantastic but it's not that bad especially given current world circumstances. Also, I keep hearing about 2,000,000 jobs being lost since Bush came into office, but how many jobs have been created? I never, ever, hear that number mentioned.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
BTW... can someone tell me what's so bad with the economy?

I'm not an expert in the field, but when the president keeps saying the economy is still in a major slump and he is trying to do whatever he can to fix it, I would like to think he knows what he is talking about. Sheesh, look what happens when you listen to the president.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry, SMC - not a political censure, just a language one.

 

[MGKrebs]

Uh, yeahhh. That's it. The economy is good..... thanks to our former President and Commander in Chief?

Choice #1. The economy is bad, it's Clinton's fault, and shrub's gonna fix it.

Choice #2. The economy is fine, but not because of anything Clinton did.

Choice #3. The economy is OK, but fragile and teetering, and whatever we do now will either strengthen it or wreck it.

 

[smcdem]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Sorry, SMC - not a political censure, just a language one.

Right I'm sorry, but it sure is thetruth!.

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Also, I keep hearing about 2,000,000 jobs being lost since Bush came into office, but how many jobs have been created? I never, ever, hear that number mentioned.

result of a lay off due to government budget cuts and the slump in the economy. Work for a DoD contractor, and they're steadily getting rid of people.

 

[Tonio]

I agree 100 percent that Saddam needs to be taken out. He's a menace.

However, I question the wisdom of a full-scale invasion of Iraq right now. There's a chance that could destabilize many other governments in the region, especially with the Israeli/Palestinian situation still unresolved. We could end up at war with every Muslim nation from Morocco to Indonesia. Sure, we could blow all those countries off the map without blinking. But is that what America is all about? We're supposed to be the good guys. We won't start a fight, but we sure as hell will finish it -- a lesson the Japanese learned.

Saddam is in a much weaker position than Hitler was in 1938, so I don't see this as another Munich. Saddam knows we can take him out anytime. In fact, that's what I'd like to see instead of an invasion. Either we keep the pressure on so Saddam abdicates, as has been suggested by other Arab countries, or we engineer a coup to topple him from power.

I also worry about expending military power in Iraq while that monster Bin Laden remains free to plot more mischief. As far as I'm concerned, Al Qaeda is the larger threat because these guys are on a holy mission. We need to finish the job we started in Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong--if we have to invade Iraq, then Bush has my full backing. I just hope he knows what he's getting us into.

 

[demsformd]

We definitely need to go into war with Iraq with allies, not just ourselves. What is the rush anyway? And there still is no proof of a smoking gun yet.

I can't wait to watch Bush fall in the next election to John Edwards. I'm gonna love it!

 

[MGKrebs]

Greenspan and the Fed are running out of room though. Their main tool is interest rates, and they can't go much lower.

Amateur opinion: One of the unfortunate things about capitalism is that apparently it MUST grow to survive. 2% growth is considered NOT good. So we must always find new markets and consumers. Increasing efficiency helps too, but it's not always enough.

I think this was a big part of the reason for NAFTA and increasing trade with China. At the time, the economy here was pretty strong, unemployment low, everybody making and spending money. But there was no more growth to be had domestically. We had to go get new markets.

The first priority now (in my opinion) is to reduce unemployment (somehow).

 

[Frank]

Re: WHAT A DORK!!!

Originally posted by bluto

Really?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.htm

Either didn't happen, or briefly happened, and it's been done before (to Clinton).

Just an aside - doesn't everyone check Snopes whenever they see something just a little *too* weird?

 

[demsformd]

Just remember that Mr. Democrat here wasn't the one to bring the whole GWB and monkey familiarities. I don't think that it stops at looks either .