Well, waddya know? Saddam really IS trying to build nukes...

That's what was thought about Castro. He's still chugging away.

 

Disgusting and indefensible.

Doesn't sound that serious, until you think about how you would feel if you were responsible for feeding a family and someone just took your livelihood away.

Well I guess there will be another 500 or so kids ready to blow themselves up.

Both sides lose; nothing accomplished.

 

With all due respect, NJRocket, what's with all the gung-ho nonsense here? Just like a lot of the people that will be starting this war, you probably won't ever have to fight, or die for in this war you so desperately want to start. Hell, you won't even have to pay for it with the new tax cuts. Lucky you. You may not care about turning Iraq "into a sandtrap" but there might be a fare share of American blood in that sand. There will certainly be years and years of increased involvement in a region where the US isn't exactly loved as it is. Anybody who thinks this will be painless is delusional.




General observation: By the standards of the Bush Doctrine, isn't North Korea a more pressing issue? They have a far more advanced nuclear weapons program and have been much more bellicose than Iraq. We sure are bending over backwards to accomodate one of the axes of Evil, aren't we? See how that stupid rhetoric got us into this mess in the first place? North Korea has *nothing* to lose here after the US isolated them even more. They didn't have any trading partners to begin with...how do you leverage a country when they are already backed into a corner? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Ok, since containment of Iraq is no longer acceptable what are we invading them for again? Weapons of mass destruction? Can't seem to find any evidence of that....where are all of these intelligence reports Bush and Blair promised? What about the threat of Iraq to the region? The invasion of Kuwait worked really well last time...think they will tangle with Iran again? Hmm.. Other reasons...let's see...um, Saddam Hussein is mean to his people? Ok, so the US deposes all opressive regimes....are we going have after Pakistan next? What about China? Er, Hussein was, er, wasn't, erm *we are not sure* if he was involved with 9-11? Think the Bush Administration is sitting on the information linking the two? Didn't think so. Ok, another rationale: Saddam Hussein was really bad to the Kurds in 1988 and 1992....
ok, fair enough. The US certainly didn't lift a finger to help them then (or have anything to do with them now according to a recent article in Slate.com), but it is a fair point. So, we are overthrowing Hussein because although there is no evidence that he has any weapons of mass destruction of any significance right now he *may* in the future be a menace. Is this really a foreign policy doctrine at all?

If oil and the 2004 election *are not* two of the main reasons there isn't much of a rationale behind Bush's foreign policy right now. Invading Iraq makes sense from an oil perspective, no question. The country has the third largest oil reserves in the world. Bush, Chaney and National Defense advisor Condeleeza Rice have long standing ties to the oil industry and are clearly commited to having a strong petrochemical industry. This is not conspiracy theory BS..the facts are behind this. The Bush Administration struck down bi-partisan congressional proposals on setting higher gas mileage minimums, the Kyoto anti-global warming fuel emissions accord and today are giving a tax break for the purchase of fuel inefficient SUV's. They have also advocated opening up protected wildlife preserves in Alaska to oil exploration, despite evidence that the possible gains in oil reserves are minimal. Cheney has also thus far stonewalled attempts to reveal who in the oil, coal and nuclear power industry helped write the administration's energy policy. As governor of Texas and now as president, Bush has consistently sided for oil interests at the expense of environmental, or diplomatic concerns. I think many people in the administration feel that control of the oil in Iraq might offset the costs of the invasion, at the very least. Again, oil has to be a significant factor.
Politically, invading Iraq also makes sense for Bush. Invading Iraq means Bush is driving the agenda. First, it diverts attention from an economy that is barely above recession level (if at all) and a federal budget that is operating at huge deficits just a couple of years after an extended period of surpluses. A successful invasion of Iraq also enhances Bush's image as a great leader despite the lack of success of eliminating Al-Queda (remember them?). Like they did in the 2002 campaign Republicans will attempt to cast Bush's opponents as unpatriotic. Too many people in the Bush adminstration are coming out of the woodwork detailing how Karl Rove's political considerations are the driving force in all of the Bush administration's policy dictates for poltics not to be a factor in invading Iraq.

 

Sure...it could start that way...but the status quo will never be good enough for Hussein long term. Attempting to utilize that strategy long term will be akin to taking over and/or running Saddam into a proverbial corner. To think anything else is to live in the land of Oz (or some other place with no root in reality).

 

Ah...the obligatory "Bush is a chicken" post from glynch. Good thing that some things never change. It'd shake the foundation of my little world if glynch was to wake up to the reality that sometimes people must get the spine to do what is necessary for the long term good and security.

BTW...when we went after Milosevic, was your precious Billy-boy clinton also a "chickenhawk?" We all know he rushed right out to fight in Vietnam.

 

Okay, this is a great conclusion to a discussion. Let me send it back at you: since you have beliefs different from mine, this means you live in Oz too. Now we're both there with our different opinions, banished. At least we have freaky monkeys and stuff to look at.

Now, let's see here. Which poster is which? I guess, since I don't want to kill people if I can avoid it, I'm the cowardly lion! Who are the other three? ...

 

ARTICLE LINK POSTED TO BEFORE:

Israelis flatten West Bank shops


The market was used by Palestinians and Israeli Jews

Israeli bulldozers have demolished more than 60 Palestinian shops and small businesses near the West Bank town of Tulkarm.
It was one of the biggest Israeli demolition operations of recent times, says the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Jeremy Cooke.

Israel is again destroying the Palestinian economy. It is a starvation policy. The shops in the village of Nazlat Issa were demolished because they had been built without permits, the Israeli civil administration in the West Bank said.

But Palestinians have accused the occupying Israeli army of destroying their economy as a collective punishment to suppress the Palestinian intifada.

The incident provoked demonstrations by Palestinians who were dispersed by troops using tear gas.

The bulldozers, guarded by Israeli forces, moved in during the morning and by lunchtime the area was covered in twisted metal.

Palestinians say they were given 24 hours to empty buildings which included shops, a pharmacy and a medical centre.

They say the local economy has been left in ruins.

'Starvation policy'

Our correspondent says the Israeli action has left the Palestinian population furious and deeply bitter.

Ziad Salem, head of the local municipal council, said: "The Israelis are waging a war on the economic front as well.

"Israel is again destroying the Palestinian economy. It is a starvation policy."


Israel demolishes homes belonging to extremists

The village, which is on the edge of the West Bank, contains a market of 170 shops and is the main source of income for Nazlat Issa's residents.

The shops cater to Israeli Arab customers and some Israeli Jews who come from Israel because prices are low.


There were also rumours that the shops were cleared to make way for a security fence being built to protect Israel from suicide bombers, but this has been denied by officials.

The Israeli army has said more demolitions would be conducted in the area.

Israel has also demolished dozens of homes in the West Bank and Gaza because they belonged to Palestinians involved in bombing and shooting attacks on Israelis.

The World Bank in Gaza declined to comment on the Nazlat Issa incident, but noted that it has been "vocal" about the impact of Israeli measures on the Palestinian economy.

Nigel Roberts, director of the World Bank in the West Bank and Gaza, told BBC News Online last year: "Very little thought is given to the severe economic implications and the impact on reconciliation."

 

I wanna be the tin man.

 

BB,
Iraqis are dying everyday, either by Saddam twisting the embargo (damn I hate to be the first to bring up the embargo) for his own political purposes, or through torture.

 

I forget, heartless or stupid?

 

Ok, I see, since I, personally, won't be in combat, I can't be gung ho about going to war. That's like me telling someone who didn't lose a friend or loved one in the WTC that they can't campaign against war.

Khan- enough with your pro-Palestinian rhetoric. Do you really think that the Palestinians would be forced out of their homes and businesses if they weren't playing GI Joe on school buses and in wedding halls? What am I thinking...of course you do.

 

Regardless how you feel about the war and politics, don't you hope that all of our military personnel is as thoroughly indoctrinated as Treeman?

If we get into a war, justified or not, I want every soldier in my army to be as unquestioning and ready to go as Treeman.

 

I'm not Pro-Palestinian, i am simply anti-oppression. I feel that there are many repurcussions to the Israeli occupation that is felt by Americans because the US financially supports Israel. The country would collapse without US funding. I think i'd prefer a tax break or billions spent on education rather than the funding of Isreali settlements. The question is where does your loyalty lie? With Israel or the US?

 

Don't embarrass yourself...you know the answer to that.

 

Dorothy and the Scarecrow are still available. Anyone? Anyone?

 

According to US military planners, we're currently incapable of engaging in two "Persian Gulf" sized wars simultaneously. That's the supposed goal of the US Armed forces, but at the rate we've been cannibalizing the armed forces for more than a decade... unlikely.

I don't know how long it would take to restore the US military to that kind of capacity. Right now, too many resources are being devoted to waste in the military. You could actually accomplish the mission if you eliminated all the parochial projects, cut man power, and out-moded equipment that the military doesn't even want.

 

I'm pretty sure Israel would not collapse. It has a westernized economy and is probably on par with many European nations.

 

MC, Israel's economy isn't the best, in fact it is crappy to be quite honest. The only export that I can name on the top of my head are Uzis, and we don't need those being sold. The import a lot of things.

 

Ever heard of diamonds? software?