Should America invade Iraq?

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Neither does Iraq. They have no navy, no air force

And neither does Al Quaeda. It doesn't mean they can't cause significant damage to our country. Hmmm, how many airlines have went bankrupt as a result of that?

Quote

We failed because they are not a country, they are a loose organization that ran away when we invaded.

Hmmm, I didn't realize we had failed. We have made Al Quaeda ineffective as an organization. We have stopped several terrorist attacks as a direct result of our operations in Afghanistan. Think Dirty Bomb if you're wondering.

Quote

Nope, they got it from us. We gave Al Quaeda billions of dollars and tons of weapons in the 80's. Want to do that again? Want to make sure we have another 9/11 in ten years? I'd prefer not to do that.

Actually, they got some of the money from us. Most of that money and the weapons aided in the fall of the Soviet Union if you will recall. The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was the first step in the collapse of Communism. A lot of Al Quaeda's current money was and is raised through fake charities within the United States and other Western countries. Foreign countries that support Al Quaeda also contributed.

Quote

I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda.

While you're doing that you should also credit him with winning the Cold War. I blame Clinton for failing to contain terrorism during his time in office. When he discovered that Iraq had funded an operation to try and assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait what do you think he did? Dropped a few bombs and withdrew. Yeah, that'll show em.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

No. You wait until you are threatened.

Man, have we not been threatened? Haven't you seen the news stories where there are terrorist training camps in Iraq? Many intelligence analysts believe that Saddam had a very heavy hand in the attacks on 9/11. You are not going to get the overt attacks that you are looking for. These guys learned to disassociate themselves from the attacks when Reagan almost killed Khadafi after one of his terrorist attacks. If you are waiting for the smoking gun then you are going to be disappointed.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 2,396]

>I don't think Americans are walking onto busses with dynamite and
> nails strapped to themselves. No comparison.

They are killing hundreds by bombing weddings. A pretty good comparison I think. Or are bus riders better than people at weddings?

>The "civilized" world so to speak knows we aren't being a bully.

Most nations in the Middle East and Europe are completely against a US invasion of Iraq. Are only the US and Canada civilized?

>We learned.. He is out of hand and now "we" have to deal with him..

Oh, we didn't learn. We did it with Hussein. We did it with Bin Laden. Now we're doing it with the Kurds. We create the monsters that threaten us, and we will continue to do so until we create one that _can_ get a few nuclear weapons into the US.

Personally, I would rather not deal with that. I would rather that we let the Middle East settle its own differences. Let them blow each other to bits.

>And if they don't like what we are doing they can swing their sticks..

Al Quaeda did. Want a few more 9/11's? I don't.

>For the sake of US Intelligence Congress doesn't know what the
> President and his advisors know. So how can they make an
> educated decision. The white house can't tell congress everything..

Wow. We can't tell Congress why we have to go to war . . . Well, I suppose Ashcroft doesn't have to tell anyone why he imprisons US citizens. And I suppose, one day soon, Bush will tell us that we can't know why the right to trial is suspended, or why he has to suspend elections for a little while. For the good of the country, of course. Secret stuff. Very hush-hush. American servicemen's lives in danger!

If we can't articulate the reasons to attack Iraq - even to the upper levels of our goverment - we shouldn't be doing it. We are a democracy, not a secret dictatorship. If we decide we have to become one, then Hussein has won without firing a shot.

[hagar 0]

Could America invade iraq?
Some fear that it will be like another Vietnam. I think it can be more like another Stalingrad if Saddam choose to keep his units inside the cities. Capturing Iraqi cities held by an determinant defender, or even a militia, will cause lots of casualties. Maybe more than a democracy has stomach for.

---
PCSS #10

[billvon 2,396]

>Man, have we not been threatened? Haven't you seen the news
> stories where there are terrorist training camps in Iraq?

And in Pakistan, and in China, and in Syria. Again, what order will you invade those countries? And I suppose you'll have to use biological weapons this time - otherwise they will just slip over the border like they did before.

>Many intelligence analysts believe that Saddam had a very heavy
> hand in the attacks on 9/11.

Well, first it was Bin Laden, but since they invaded a country and couldn't find _him_, I suppose they need another villian.

How many times are we going to make exactly the same mistake? Invasion doesn't work. We tried it in Afghanistan, didn't get us our man. We tried it in Iraq, it didn't topple Saddam. How many times are we going to screw up and kill thousands before we figure out that attacking a country simply does not stop terrorism? Unlike cities, terrorists have feet.

[PhreeZone 15]

>Most of them chose to die fighting I think.

Last time around most of them just threw thier guns to the ground and gave up. The Royal Guard on the other hand will protect their leader untill the last person is dead.

The current tatics being used in Iraq include building chemical plants in cities, having large amounts of military in the cities and not in the desert, and even their arms plants have slowed the production of tanks and other large weapons to transfer it to small arms and other things that can be used in a urban warfare setting. When US (Porbally with out congress's approval, and therefore the representitives of the people of the US) does invade Iraq it will be a bloody war similar to Bosnia and way worse since the general public is likely to take up arms to repel the invading enemy that is there to kill them (US forces). It will probally be one of the most costly invasions there is because the entire arab world is already not trusting the US but they love our money...

Saudi Arabia will not let us launch attacks from their bases, neither will half the countries in the area (Including Kuwait)... what does that say about their supporting us? From their view point I don't blame them for hating us... all we do it tell them what to do, try to settle their fights, threaten to take away support if they don't agree to certian things (oil prices, etc)

The smart thing is to allow the UN to handle this and SUPPORT the UN.. no launching extra projects, no deciding to add additional conditions to anything... just prove to the international community why Iraq is such a threat and how why the UN should take over operations. If you can't convince the UN then there is little possibility of getting allies in other means. The only country that will publically support the US is England and even there its under a lot of protest. Russians think we are stupid.. the Arab world will just lap it up and use this to feed another generation of Al Quada, the Chinese have never supported the US so their support is out... who does that leave to match us on the financial and troop support?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[antimike 0]

Quote

That damned due process

I believe the President is allowed to Attack Iraq witout Congressional approval.

[billvon 2,396]

>Hmmm, I didn't realize we had failed. We have made Al Quaeda
>ineffective as an organization.

Bush claimed in a speech shortly after 9/11 that the war was intended to bring Al Quaeda and Bin Laden to justice. He didn't do that. They're still running around. Give them five years - you think that dirty bomb will be any problem for them?

From another speech:

"This is a conflict without battlefields or beachheads, a conflict with opponents who believe they are invisible. Yet, they are mistaken. They will be exposed, and they will discover what others in the past have learned: Those who make war against the United States have chosen their own destruction."

Well, apparently they were more invisible than previously assumed.

>We have stopped several terrorist attacks as a direct result of our
>operations in Afghanistan. Think Dirty Bomb if you're wondering.

I am wondering. Where was the radiological material recovered? Where were the plans for the attack? I didn't see anything on this in the news.

>Actually, they got some of the money from us. Most of that money
>and the weapons aided in the fall of the Soviet Union if you will
> recall. The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was the first step in the
> collapse of Communism.

Oh, come now. If Afghanistan hadn't fallen the USSR would have "won?" We won the cold war because we could outproduce the USSR, and keep our economy strong despite all our saber rattling. The USSR could not, and their economy collapsed. If you think military action rather than economic strength caused the collapse of the USSR, you haven't been watching the breakdown of that country.

> A lot of Al Quaeda's current money was and is raised through fake
> charities within the United States and other Western countries.
> Foreign countries that support Al Quaeda also contributed.

And much of it came from Saudi Arabia, who gets most of their money from us. Yet we will continue to give them money for decades to come.

And now we plan to give money to the Kurds, who will (supposedly) help oust Hussein. I wonder who we will give money to to help defeat the Kurds? And how long it will take us to figure out that we're just not going to win in the long run as long as we keep that up.

[billvon 2,396]

>The smart thing is to allow the UN to handle this and SUPPORT the
> UN.. no launching extra projects, no deciding to add additional
> conditions to anything... just prove to the international community
> why Iraq is such a threat and how why the UN should take over
>operations.

Agreed. We have a world government; we should support it. It will be a joke for as long as we don't. Once we do, people like Hussein will be a lot less likely to threaten other countries. It's one thing to have the US, a country half a planet away, threaten you with attack. It's quite another to have the whole world against you.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Hmmm, I didn't realize we had failed. We have made Al Quaeda ineffective as an organization.

Bin Laden Reportedly Back at Helm of al Qaeda
Tue Aug 27,10:12 AM ET

[antimike 0]

Quote

Nope, they got it from us. We gave Al Quaeda billions of dollars and tons of weapons in the 80's. Want to do that again? Want to make sure we have another 9/11 in ten years? I'd prefer not to do that.

I can not believe how you can twist things around. We gave the afgans money to defend their country from the soviet invasion. Because of that your blaming 9/11 on Regan. I'm sorry I'm going to quit posting on this subject because you can't debate the good of a Nation with someone who can't stand republicans. It's clear with your last statement that you really aren't concerned with what's best for America. It's politics I'LL bet if Bush wanted to stay out of Iraq and the congress wanted to go in you would be saying Bush was a wimp. DONE

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda.

I do too! In fact I blame Reagan for everything that is wrong in this world. It certainly wasn't Bin Laden and the extreme Muslim faction that created Al Quaeda. Martha Stewart's problems...Reagan's fault. All of Bill Clinton's scandals...Reagan's fault. Global warming (if there is such a thing)...Reagan's fault. The cancelling of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"...Reagan's fault. Hell, I bet the death of Mary Jo Kopeckne was also Reagan's fault.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 2,396]

>We gave the afgans money to defend their country from the soviet
>invasion. Because of that your blaming 9/11 on Regan.

No, read more carefully. Reagan helped create Al Quaeda in the 80's by giving them billions of dollars. That was a mistake; we should learn from our mistakes. That doesn't mean Reagan was evil, or that he was perfect. He was human and made a mistake.

>I'm sorry I'm going to quit posting on this subject because you can't
> debate the good of a Nation with someone who can't stand
> republicans.

Hmm! I usually vote republican. Odd, also, that several republican leaders in congress are also questioning the Bush war.

>It's clear with your last statement that you really aren't concerned
> with what's best for America.

Oh, I am, but unlike most republicans I look further than the next election. I don't want another 9/11 in ten years. I also look at reality - war is a horrible thing, and is really nothing like the action-adventure movie image that most people have of it.

To use your logic, though, it is quite clear you have no respect for the lives of our servicemen. I have no desire to see them die in a war that will fail to accomplish its objective for the third time.

>It's politics I'LL bet if Bush wanted to stay out of Iraq and the
> congress wanted to go in you would be saying Bush was a wimp.

No, heck, if Gore were president I'd be saying the same thing.

>DONE

OK. bye!

[billvon 2,396]

>I do too! In fact I blame Reagan for everything that is wrong in this
> world.

Ah, so you're one of those "America can do no wrong, because. . .. because . .. heck, we're the US!"

In fact, we've done some stupid things in the past. Japanese concentration camps come to mind, as does supporting Iraq as it was gassing the Kurds, as does having the CIA create Al Quaeda out of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Wise people learn from their mistakes; foolish people repeat them. In this case, the lesson is clear - don't give billions of dollars and tons of weapons to radical terrorist groups, even if they currently happen to be attacking someone you don't like.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

don't give billions of dollars and tons of weapons to radical terrorist groups, even if they currently happen to be attacking someone you don't like.

I have to agree with you there. Besides, we need to give all that money to the king, supreme ruler, whatever that dictator who just declared himself god of Pakistan is....after all, he helped us. Who cares if he's a despot that will probably someday be overthrown in a coup and replaced by people that he repressed. It's not like they'll hate us for supporting him.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Ah, so you're one of those "America can do no wrong, because. . .. because . .. heck, we're the US!"

Huh, this conclusion I fail to see. I definitely think Americans can do wrong...after all, Al Gore actually got 50 million votes!

_________________________________________
Chris

[rhino 0]

Agreed.. Don't think it will ever happen though..

[rhino 0]

Quote

They are killing hundreds by bombing weddings. A pretty good comparison I think. Or are bus riders better than people at weddings?

Again no comparison.. People strapping dynamite to their chests are terrorists.. Our intelligence came from the Afghanistans on the wedding deal.. And it was an accident not a cold blooded suicide mass murdering

Most nations in the Middle East and Europe are completely against a US invasion of Iraq. Are only the US and Canada civilized?

Quote

Possibly true.. Britain is with us.. Anyone else is just ranting to be a part of something.

Personally, I would rather not deal with that. I would rather that we let the Middle East settle its own differences. Let them blow each other to bits.

Quote

I couldn't agree more.. I think that possibility is long gone already though.

Al Quaeda did. Want a few more 9/11's? I don't.

Quote

They did because we ignored the signs. I don't believe it will happen again. I believe we are taking the preventative measures now that we should have taken before.. The question is will we follow through?

Wow. We can't tell Congress why we have to go to war . . . Well, I suppose Ashcroft doesn't have to tell anyone why he imprisons US citizens. And I suppose, one day soon, Bush will tell us that we can't know why the right to trial is suspended, or why he has to suspend elections for a little while. For the good of the country, of course. Secret stuff. Very hush-hush. American servicemen's lives in danger!

Quote

No it's not like that at all.. It's on a need to know basis. And right now they don't need to know..

If we can't articulate the reasons to attack Iraq - even to the upper levels of our goverment - we shouldn't be doing it. We are a democracy, not a secret dictatorship. If we decide we have to become one, then Hussein has won without firing a shot. ***

We have a reason.. He trains and sponsors terrorism. Including the Al Queda and about 10 other terrorist groups. We should, we have to and we will bomb him out of that seat..


Rhino

[billvon 2,396]

>Again no comparison.. People strapping dynamite to their chests are
> terrorists.. Our intelligence came from the Afghanistans on the
> wedding deal.. And it was an accident not a cold blooded suicide
> mass murdering . . .

So that first attempt to blow up the WTC years back wasn't terrorism, since Ramzi Yousef lived, it didn't kill many people and he failed to bring down the building? Come now, Rhino. Incompetence is no defense against being labeled a terrorist, nor is the desire to live or where we got the misinformation from. We killed hundreds of men, women and children at a wedding. You might quibble over how that was "better" than the first WTC bombing that only killed half a dozen, but I doubt the families of the victims of either event is willing to go along with your definition.

I know, I know, anyone the US kills is an unfortunate accidental casualty, anyone an Arab kills is a victim of terrorism. Beware that someday someone uses the same definitions on us - and might just have nuclear weapons to back up their definitions, which of course will be just as valid to them as ours are to us.

>Possibly true.. Britain is with us.. Anyone else is just ranting to be a
> part of something.

Tony Blair is not with us. "When asked specifically about the issue . . . he repeatedly says no decisions have yet been taken with regard to action against Iraq." (LA Times)

>They did because we ignored the signs. I don't believe it will happen
> again. I believe we are taking the preventative measures now that
> we should have taken before.. The question is will we follow
> through?

I agree that our measures will be better than before. Still, nothing we've got will stop a submarine, or even a boat from motoring into, say, the LA harbor with a cargo of ANFO and nuclear waste. And the more families we kill, the more people who can tell the story of how their mother was blown in half by a US bomb, the more terrorists willing to die for revenge we will create. And we're about to create a few thousand more. Think anything we can do will stop every single one of them from buying a boat?

>No it's not like that at all.. It's on a need to know basis. And right
>now they don't need to know..

The US government has no need to know why the US military is about to take an action that could at best kill thousands and involve us in an invasion of another country, and at worst start World War III? (Remember, Iraq has ties with several countries that _do_ have ICBM's) If that's not something they need to know, then I don't know what is.

>We have a reason.. He trains and sponsors terrorism. Including the
> Al Queda and about 10 other terrorist groups. We should, we have
> to and we will bomb him out of that seat..

Again, so do half a dozen other countries. So do we - we're sponsoring Kurdish terrorists right now. At some point we have to learn how diplomacy works, so that a) we kill fewer people b) we don't create Al Quaeda II and c) we have to watch fewer of our own people die. Other countries have figured it out. Even Iraq is learning; they just sent envoys out all over the world to drum up support for their defense. Bush's antics aside, surely we can learn to do the same.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Ours is a bigger stick and we will win.. It will allways be that way.

Pick your quote:

"We will bury you!"

"The sun never sets on the British Empire."

Whoops. Kruschev was wrong. And the sun did set on the British Empire. Egypt used to rule a fair chunk of the world in its prime also. Ditto for Rome. Ditto for Greece. Etc.

I'm not blind enough to think that the United States will maintain our current geopolitical position forever either. My lifetime, maybe. Maybe not. In the greater scheme of things, we are still a young, upstart nation. We haven't had the mantle of leadership for long enough to wear it with mature confidence. As a nation, we don't have enough of a past to give us the perspective for a clear vision into the our role in the future.

History has plenty of lessons, if we are willing to learn from them.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I wonder how long until people start accusing Bush of attacking Iraq to improve his dropping popularity?

Well, here's the first report I've seen. This one out of the mouth of the German Justice Minister, as carried on Associated Press: http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2002/09/19/hitler/index.html

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[christoofar 0]

If I had to pick a cliche, it would be:

Quote

History is destined to repeat itself.

Iraq asserts that the United States is attempting to dominate Middle Eastern politics. That's probably true, considering most of the exports of the Middle East (namely, oil) are going to the United States, Europe, Japan and China. These countries have become rich off of their natual resources.

But left to its own devices, Iraq would attempt to dominate the Middle East through its use of its military and the persuasiveness of Islamists. Qatar, Dubai, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are well aware of this fact and have solicited the United States to ensure their protection. Iraq's original intent in capturing Kuwait was to influence greater control over oil prices so it could enrich its military and resources after the long war with Iran.

Will the United States win a war with Iraq with no support from Europe? Of course it will. Turkey and Kuwait already provide plenty of oppourtunity to launch attacks. It is also in most of the Middle East's best interests to see Saddam replaced. You might see these Arab dignitaries running from camera to camera speaking about how unjust the U.S. is in attacking such a "poor impoverished nation." But secretly, everyone wants to see Saddam gone because when he is left to himself, he is sure to attack another country again in the name of Allah in order to pilfer it.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda.

You are confusing Al Queda with the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were the freedom fighters who were attacking the invading Soviet troops who were invading Afghanistan. These are the people who we gave the shoulder-wearing Stinger missles to in the 1980s that devastated the Soviet Air offensive.

Although it is true that many Mujahideen became Taliban, many others did not. The Taliban did not emerge until after the Soviets pulled out and the country returned to it's regularly scheduled programming of civil war and ethnic killing.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[billvon 2,396]

>>I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda.

That was me, not Kenny. He and I disagree often on this topic, so I'll take the blame for the above statement.

>You are confusing Al Queda with the Mujahideen.

Not confusing them, just linking them:

"Bin Laden's military career began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Bin Laden, a Saudi exile, moved to the Afghan frontier to join the guerrillas, or mujahideen. During this time, the US launched a vast effort to support the guerrillas. This effort, carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency in cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, was the largest operation in CIA history, involving billions of dollars of weapons, training, and other support."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0925/p9s1-coop.html

"Toward the end of the war in Afghanistan, bin Ladin split with MAK co-founder Azzam in the late 1980s, and in 1988 formed al-Qaida to continue the work of the Jihad."

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=74

"After a decade where Afghanistan was ravaged by war, the USSR finally pulled out and left a country in ruins. The Mujahideen then became the most powerful force in the country, and over the next five years consolidated their power by assuming governance of Afghanistan."

http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Terrorist-Attack&116

Reagan's orders to the CIA to fund the Mujahideen did not require the creation of the Taliban or Al-Quaeda. The desire was to fund terrorists so they would attack a huge military power (the USSR) and give the USSR, in one US official's words, "their Vietnam." They succeeded in their efforts; the money financed the creation of Al-Quaeda, which played a role in the USSR's retreat. Needless to say, Al-Quaeda's attacks on world powers are not always to our liking. I hope we bear this in mind if, in the future, we decide to give billions to another terrorist group. Such moves can backfire rather badly.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

>>I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda.
That was me, not Kenny.

Al Quaeda though was a force 100% orchestrated by Bin Ladin. The Mujahideen was not. The stories you cite aren't entirely accurate as to what Taliban and Mujahideen are. The Mujahideen are "muslim holy warriors," like we would label the Christian militia here in the U.S. The Taliban on the otherhand was the theocratic rulers of Afghanistan, many of whom were Mujahideen. There are lots of Mujahideen in Kashmir fighting against India, and I'm sure some are also hiding in southeast Asia. China has problems with them (they call them "radical Islamists").

Al Queda did not only get money from Mujahideen, but also indirectly through the Saudi royal family and other groups in the area like Islamic Jihaad in Egypt and who knows where else. I would not blame Reagan for "creating" this terror group.

Many people claim it was the failure of the U.S. to help clean up the mess after the Soviets left Afghanistan that led to the emergence of the Taliban and Al Quaeda. I'm sure that looking back on it that is probably somewhat true, but who is to say if the Soviets did manage to conquer the region that the terror groups would not have sprang up anyway (but their attention would have been focused elsewhere).

Russia has the same problem the U.S. has with these terror groups. The Chechyn terror groups have been bombing apartment towers in Moscow and St. Petersburg for quite some time. Many people in the capitol live in constant fear. Looking back on history, terrorism doesn't seem to be anything new. It's just more deadly, that's all.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.