Iraq is next
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.
Is this a good idea? Some question I have:
Was Iraq involved in the 9/11/01 terrorism? If not, should they be attacked anyway?
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?
Is the rest of the world going to support attacking Iraq? Could it radicalize Islamic countries even further, when we instead need to encourage their moderation?
Is this a good idea? Some question I have:
Was Iraq involved in the 9/11/01 terrorism? If not, should they be attacked anyway?
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?
Is the rest of the world going to support attacking Iraq? Could it radicalize Islamic countries even further, when we instead need to encourage their moderation?
Comments
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.
<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.
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>
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.
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....
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.
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."
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.
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
<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.
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.
<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?
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>
<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.
<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.
<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.
<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.
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>