Iraq is next

You pose some interesting questions, but I must tell you I doubt anyone here (including myself) has the information required to answer them properly.

As for Iraq, where do you get the idea that the "debating is over" as far as considering an attack? I sure wouldn't assume just because we're asking them to let weapons inspection teams back in, that this means we've decided we're going to engage them at some point.

It's probably fairly likely there will be more conflict with Iraq, but who knows when or how at this point. Too early to tell.

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>It's now pretty clear that the debate in the Bush administration about whether to attack Iraq has ended. It will happen, probably in a few weeks, IMO. And the goal will probably include getting rid of Saddam Hussein this time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You seem so sure of yourself yet you tag your post with "IMO".

I think the only thing that we can be sure of is that Bush is restating the case against Hussein to the world with fresh information.

That's about all we can be sure of IMO.

Was Iraq involved in the 9/11/01 terrorism? If not, should they be attacked anyway?


Hehe, this is all an excuse to attack Iraq again.
Does any one remember that Doonsburry where the reporter asks the soldier why they are here and the soldier starts to reply patriotically. He starts spewign stuff about "fighting na evil tyranny" and all that and BD turns and replies "No, were here for cheap oil. We here so that George Bush can drive around a Yacht that makes most drug smugglers envious".

Theres more truth in that then you may think.
Iraq had nothing to do with it. Also, do you really think that the US would go after Hussien? They could off him any time is they needed to, but then what would happen? One of his sons or some other psyco bitch would come along and, using him as a martyr, would just cause more trouble.

As for Iraqs involvment, I think that people are overlooking a very important thing amongst all this 9-11 terror: Innocence before proven guilty.
We have no evidence other than some anthrax sent to a few people (which, according to a group of independant researchers studying the anthrax that was found, was of a strain only made in the US, Europe and Russia. Iraqs anthrax is of a different nature, made so that you can fit it in missiles, etc.) that it was linked to Iraq, and such a leap of faith is a bold and stupid one to make.

[ 11-26-2001: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>

Yeah, we just have so much fun fighting Iraq, that's the only explanation. That and oil. Those are the only two possible explanations.

I mean, the Gulf War wasn't a UN action or anything. Just the U.S. off doing its evil thing. No other nations involved at all.

Kuwait was happy about an armed invasion by a large force.

[quote]Was Iraq involved in the 9/11/01 terrorism? If not, should they be attacked anyway?<hr></blockquote>

I haven't heard any information indicating Iraq's involvement in the Sept 11 attacks. Apart from that one hijacker who allegedly met an Iraqi official in Europe some time before the attacks, has anyone else heard anything re. Iraq? But we do know for sure exactly which other countries were involved:

Out of those 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi Arabian citizens, 3 were Egyptian, and one was from the United Arab Emirates. Al Qaeda also has bases in Saudi Arabia, right under the noses of the US forces stationed there. Seems strange that this nation, which appears have responsibility alongside Afghanistan in the deaths of 5000 Americans, is so far getting off scot-free. Could this change? So far, there hasn't been been even the tiniest squeak of criticism of Saudi Arabia. Hmmm....

[quote]Is this really a war on terrorism in general, rather than the specific people from 9/11/01? If so, who is next, after Iraq? Are only Islamic and Middle Eastern countries subject to attack? Are we going to attack terrorists that don't even attack the US?<hr></blockquote>

This will be a War On Countries We Don't Like.

Full of enough double-standards to satisfy the most pessemistic Liberal.

Israel certainly commits acts which fall under the definition of terrorism. Their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are illegal under international law and violate countless UN orders to withdraw. They use assasination of whom they decide has or may commit a crime in the future, torture is a way of life, they have engaged in ethnic cleansing in the occupied areas and the citizens who settle in the occupied areas are war criminals per the Geneva Convention. Their current prime minister oversaw the killing of countless unarmed POWs.

Will we force them to withdraw? Even critiize them?

Nope.

But we will give them 3 billion dollars of tax payer funds to support their "War On Terror". ie: fighting the people who they stole land from.

This will be a conflict where the U.S can hurt anyone it doesn't like under the guise of "fighting terrorism". We've done it before and we'll do it again.

We bombed Lybia for boming a discotheque, while supporting Saddam Hussein after he gassed his own people.

Hypocrisy will rule the day, even more than it already does.

[quote]<strong>Will we force them to withdraw? Even critiize them?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes and yes, actually.

We aren't in there with troops pushing them out but Sharon has gotten quite a few diplomatic bitch slaps.

Don't keep up with the news, do you?

Oh wait, you already answered:

"Nope."

[quote]Yes and yes, actually.

We aren't in there with troops pushing them out but Sharon has gotten quite a few diplomatic bitch slaps.<hr></blockquote>

I disagree.

Writing a 3 billion dollar check and telling them to play nice is hardly "forcing them out".

Send in the troops.

They had 30 years to comply with the UN orders.

[quote]Don't keep up with the news, do you?<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I do. Sharon has been dragging out the Nazi references with regard to the U.S. And Powell has called Israel "our best friend".

They don't deserve our support. If they were engaged in a legal and most of all, moral struggle, then I would think otherwise, but they have shown nothing but contempt for us, for their neighbors and our support for them is immoral and definately much more trouble than it is worth.

You say they show contempt for us, then what are we to do? Invade?

I thought England was our best friend. Uh-oh, England and Israel are going to get pissy with each other fighting to see who can be our main toadie.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/23/middle.east/index.html" target="_blank">(clicky)</a>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/26/meast.violence/index.html" target="_blank">(clicky)</a>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/22/us.middle.east/index.html" target="_blank">(clicky)</a>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/11/07/mideast.withdrawal.1103/index.html" target="_blank">(clicky)</a>

and so on and so forth

I have a sister that lives in Jordan (peace corps.) and she says that the Jordanian family that she lives with and all the people in the town are outraged when ever the US threatens Iraq. In their eyes (they are probably correct) the US is the bully of the world and use our military might to fulfill our economic gains. When we attack countries like lraq and there are civilian casualties, there will be a huge uproar from Jordan and other middle eastern countries. I personally think that the Bush administration are being pompous ***** about the whole situation. If it were terrorists that we were really after then it would be much to our benefit to negotiate with Iraq rather than taking on the whole middle east (except Israel, God forbid we say a bad word against Israel here in America). The only reason we see this hatred from middle eastern countries is because of our horrible foreign policy in the region.

My friends from Jordan are the other way. They think the middle east is one ****ed up place.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

I haven't heard any information indicating Iraq's involvement in the Sept 11 attacks. Apart from that one hijacker who allegedly met an Iraqi official in Europe some time before the attacks, has anyone else heard anything re. Iraq? But we do know for sure exactly which other countries were involved:

Out of those 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi Arabian citizens, 3 were Egyptian, and one was from the United Arab Emirates. Al Qaeda also has bases in Saudi Arabia, right under the noses of the US forces stationed there. Seems strange that this nation, which appears have responsibility alongside Afghanistan in the deaths of 5000 Americans, is so far getting off scot-free. Could this change? So far, there hasn't been been even the tiniest squeak of criticism of Saudi Arabia. Hmmm....</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the difference is that Saudi Arabia's government doesn't openly support Al Qaeda. So there is really no excuse to attack the entire country. I do believe if the CIA finds out where Al Qaeda has it's training camps and such in Saudi Arabia that the US will "ask permission" to send the SEALS or some elite forces in to take them out.

Don't forget that the US needed Saudi Arabia during the gulf war and again now. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are not countries with a government that supports terrorism so I guess that is the difference.

Attacking Iraq would be a dumb move though.

I think the best thing to do now is make sure that they sort Afghanistan out first. Make sure the government there will be made up of moderates and not extremists or you'll have the same situation 3 years from now. Then sit down with the Arabian Liga and reiterate that you mean business. So let's talk. But let's definitely listen, that's the signal the U.S should send out to that corner of the world for it ever to quiet down.

[quote]Israel certainly commits acts which fall under the definition of terrorism. Their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are illegal under international law and violate countless UN orders to withdraw. They use assasination of whom they decide has or may commit a crime in the future, torture is a way of life, they have engaged in ethnic cleansing in the occupied areas and the citizens who settle in the occupied areas are war criminals per the Geneva Convention. Their current prime minister oversaw the killing of countless unarmed POWs.<hr></blockquote>

That's what I thought as well. Apparantly though, or so I was informed yesterday, when our friends kill civilians they are atrocities not terrorism. See, when it's an atrocity we don't have to do anything about it.

Now to be fair on Israel, they have been attacked quite often themselves and just because your average Palestinian doesn't have an AK47 in his house and has to do with rocks doesn't mean that they can't arm their forces with guns.

Maybe they should duke it out in Texas? That way they can both have guns and Groverat can get us all front row tickets.

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>My friends from Jordan are the other way. They think the middle east is one ****ed up place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's why your friends from Jordan live in the U.S and not Jordan. Obviously, people that stay there either love their country or are too poor and opressed to leave. Although I couldn't imagine someone in the latter situation to be so positive about the gaf.

I understand that Jordan is actually quite liberal?

[quote]We bombed Lybia for boming a discotheque, while supporting Saddam Hussein after he gassed his own people.

Hypocrisy will rule the day, even more than it already does.<hr></blockquote>

That's true but do you really believe that the rednecks and hardcore republicans on this site will see the light?

Terrorism was never so bad until 6000 of "our own" died.

That has always been the way. You didn't come in to WWI until that was almost over. Not in to WWII until Japan attacked. Vietnam and Korea was to eradicate the world of the evil called Communism. Grenada was pretty much the same thing but smaller schaled and then there was the gulf war were Iraq was never mentioned until they threatened our oil supply.

All wars have always been for selfish reasons. The U.S is no better or worse in that than anyone else. The problem is that they make it out to be for a just cause to make it look that this war is a good one. That is what sickens me. No war is good.

I wonder what these "they kill us so we kill these idiots" have to say when the next plane hits a building. They'll probably start shouting that they were right after all. Woohoo! More killing!

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: macoracle ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

That's true but do you really believe that the rednecks and hardcore republicans on this site will see the light?

Terrorism was never so bad until 6000 of "our own" died.

That has always been the way. You didn't come in to WWI until that was almost over. Not in to WWII until Japan attacked. Vietnam and Korea was to eradicate the world of the evil called Communism. Grenada was pretty much the same thing but smaller schaled and then there was the gulf war were Iraq was never mentioned until they threatened our oil supply.

All wars have always been for selfish reasons. The U.S is no better or worse in that than anyone else. The problem is that they make it out to be for a just cause to make it look that this war is a good one. That is what sickens me. No war is good.

I wonder what these "they kill us so we kill these idiots" have to say when the next plane hits a building. They'll probably start shouting that they were right after all. Woohoo! More killing!

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: macoracle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Rednecks and Republicans only? Wow, so nobody but rednecks and Republicans actually want us to retaliate for the 9-11 attacks. That's amazing.

Do you have any idea what would happen if we left the terrorists to their own designs and did not retaliate? It has already happened, 9-11. We have been letting them bomb us then slapping their hands for years. I should not have to name the litany of terrorist attacks. This has to stop, and the diplomatic sanctions and so forth are not helping. So the only thing left is to destroy the networks that carry out the attacks. Show me a better solution that does not make the US look like a soft target to those who would be perfectly happy dropping a nuke in YOUR back yard if they had one.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

I think the difference is that Saudi Arabia's government doesn't openly support Al Qaeda. So there is really no excuse to attack the entire country. I do believe if the CIA finds out where Al Qaeda has it's training camps and such in Saudi Arabia that the US will "ask permission" to send the SEALS or some elite forces in to take them out.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

After the US was attacked on it's OWN soil..they don't need to "ask permission" to do anything to the people that are involved.

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
<strong>
We bombed Lybia for boming a discotheque... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Where off-duty U.S. soldiers died. Funny how you left that little detail out.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
That's true but do you really believe that the rednecks and hardcore republicans on this site will see the light?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bigot.

[quote]<strong>That's true but do you really believe that the rednecks and hardcore republicans on this site will see the light?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I quote David Banner:
"You. . . don't want to see me. . when I'm angry."

[quote]<strong>Terrorism was never so bad until 6000 of "our own" died.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is ridiculous. Did you sleep through the 70s are do you just not remember them? At least *act* like you know something about what happened before September 10th, 2001.

[quote]<strong>That has always been the way. You didn't come in to WWI until that was almost over.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're damn right we did. There was no reason for us to. Hell, it might have been wisest for us to never have even helped out at all in WWI.

[quote]<strong>Not in to WWII until Japan attacked.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What grounds would we have had for participation at that point?

Wouldn't it have been unilateral and further evidence of us being the world bully?

[quote]<strong>Vietnam and Korea was to eradicate the world of the evil called Communism.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah. . . Vietnam was not the brightest thing we've ever done and quite possible the biggest cluster**** in American history, but in case you haven't been paying attention Communist regimes were quite evil.

[quote]<strong>Grenada was pretty much the same thing but smaller schaled</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think anyone really knows what that was all about even today. Something about an embassy and mean people. Stupid gov't thrown in for good measure.

[quote]<strong> and then there was the gulf war were Iraq was never mentioned until they threatened our oil supply.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Analyze it. Why was our oil supply threatened?
*hint*Saudi Arabia*hint*

2) They invaded a sovreign nation. That's not how we do things in the U.N. world. You get slapped for doing that.

[quote]<strong>All wars have always been for selfish reasons.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, the same reasons that we take 99.99% of our actions as human beings. Gandhi was selfish.

There is virtue in selfishness.

[quote]<strong>The U.S is no better or worse in that than anyone else.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Umm, false.

U.S. is just as bad as. . . the Khmer Rouge? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia?

You don't think things through very well.

[quote]<strong>The problem is that they make it out to be for a just cause to make it look that this war is a good one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So our involvement in World War II was morally equivocal to our involvement in Vietnam?

There are no degrees, eh, only black and white?

[quote]<strong>That is what sickens me. No war is good.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ooooh sanctimony, I like it.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Rednecks and Republicans only? Wow, so nobody but rednecks and Republicans actually want us to retaliate for the 9-11 attacks. That's amazing.

Do you have any idea what would happen if we left the terrorists to their own designs and did not retaliate? It has already happened, 9-11. We have been letting them bomb us then slapping their hands for years. I should not have to name the litany of terrorist attacks. This has to stop, and the diplomatic sanctions and so forth are not helping. So the only thing left is to destroy the networks that carry out the attacks. Show me a better solution that does not make the US look like a soft target to those who would be perfectly happy dropping a nuke in YOUR back yard if they had one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are those people who want to bring Al Qaeda and its supporters to justice, the people who are right.Then there are the people who go around shouting we should bomb them all, calling the whole of Islam and middle east "terrorists" because they're too dumb to tell the difference, the rednecks and hardcore republicans.

[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Bigot.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No offense but that doesn't mean much from someone who thinks Islam is the same as Bin Laden and who sees this entire campaign as revenge for the crusades.

Anyone else find it ironic that more western journalists have been killed in Afghanistan than western troops? They weren't kidding about it being a media war.

Oracle, care to point out any instance of this supposed redneck anti-Islam trogolodyte in this thread on "this site"?

Or are you the only one with overpowering prejudices?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

There are those people who want to bring Al Qaeda and its supporters to justice, the people who are right.Then there are the people who go around shouting we should bomb them all, calling the whole of Islam and middle east "terrorists" because they're too dumb to tell the difference, the rednecks and hardcore republicans.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Trying to justify your bias does not change the fact that you are wrong and over-simplifying the issue. Sure there are rednecks and republicans saying that all Islamic people are terrorists, but there are just as many Democrats, African Americans, Hispanics, Etc, saying the same thing. It is not a question of Party Politics or Upbringing as it is a questions of mental laziness. Like someone who broad brushes a group as mentally lazy with nothing but his own bias and the bias of other to back him up.

Speaking of blacks (sorry, but African American is a horrible term), polls have shown that blacks support racial profiling in regards to terrorism.

They don't like "Driving While Black" but they like "Flying While Brown".

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
Anyone else find it ironic that more western journalists have been killed in Afghanistan than western troops? They weren't kidding about it being a media war.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]They don't like "Driving While Black" but they like "Flying While Brown".<hr></blockquote>

Well glad to see some people are still able to smile...

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Oracle, care to point out any instance of this supposed redneck anti-Islam trogolodyte in this thread on "this site"?

Or are you the only one with overpowering prejudices?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Come on, that is just weak.

There are what? 3? 4? threads on this subject already. Were you reading them? You were at least commenting...

I would love to hear who I am prejudice against though?

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Well glad to see some people are still able to smile...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It wasn't an attempt at humor. I was pointing out the irony - hence my use of the word "ironic".

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
No offense...</strong><hr></blockquote>

In order for me to be offended I'd have to respect your opinion. I don't.

[quote]<strong>... but that doesn't mean much from someone who thinks Islam is the same as Bin Laden and who sees this entire campaign as revenge for the crusades.</strong><hr></blockquote>

In order for you to glean these ideas from my posts you must have been reading them in braille. I never said or implied anything of the sort but little details like that don't seem to bother you too much.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
It wasn't an attempt at humor. I was pointing out the irony - hence my use of the word "ironic".</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then maybe you should ask Santa for a dictionary before you start using big people words. Ironic means funny in a way that something is typical.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Then maybe you should ask Santa for a dictionary before you start using big people words. Ironic means funny in a way that something is typical.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd go have a good look in a dictionary yourself.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

Double post

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>

[quote]In order for me to be offended I'd have to respect your opinion. I don't.<hr></blockquote>

I don't think that needed any pointing out. You seem to have the same thing with everyone that doesn't agree with you.

I guess...here it comes....

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

I'm sorry but in order to have an discussion you must be able to not become personal.

Just because I don't share your opinion doesn't mean I think you're a total idiot. I bet, if we talk long enough we'll find something that we can agree on. Politics is obviously not one of them.

Ah well, I guess I'm just a lot better than you for seeing that.

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I'd go have a good look in a dictionary yourself.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I may not be too hot a speller but at least I know what the words that I use mean.

Anyhoo, if you can't handle a dig, don't start throwing them around.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>Then maybe you should ask Santa for a dictionary before you start using big people words. Ironic means funny in a way that something is typical.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sheesh, getting a bit testy there. Could be funny as in Strange, not funny as in HA HA. (what you've never seen SNL?) Funny how you missed that definition and its funny little nuances.

[quote]<strong>Originally posted by macoracle:
I may not be too hot a speller but at least I know what the words that I use mean.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh dear, I didn't want to have to get so literal, but here we go...

Irony is "the use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning."

..."ironic" does not mean "funny in a way that something is typical." It can, however, be used to comic effect.
[quote]Anyhoo, if you can't handle a dig, don't start throwing them around.<hr></blockquote>
I was neither handling a dig nor throwing one... merely suggesting you check a dictionary.

[Edited for accursed UBB problems.]

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
I don't think that needed any pointing out. You seem to have the same thing with everyone that doesn't agree with you...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, you apparently haven't read very many of my posts. And yet you make these "shoot from the hip" kind of judgements. This is why I don't respect you.

Iraq= next week