Even in conservative Scottsdale, Arizona, many Republican residents argue against an American offensive into Iraq. www.nytimes.com/2002/08/03/politics/03VOIC.html The national debate rages on........
Why back that idiot at all. Hell, he came into office in the worst possible way, and has continued to dissapoint. I might add that it is hard to dissapoint those with no expecftions of the man. -malcontent democrat
Winston Churchill said. "If you are not a liberal by the age of 20 then you do not have a heart, however, if you are not a conservative by the age of 30, then you do not have a brain." Nuff said ! TAKE OUT IRAQ !! DD
But at how high the cost? Taking him out is guaranteed, no one can go up against our armed forces. But what then? How do we put in a govt. in Iraq that's an ally to us? "Nation building" is costly and not guaranteed to turn in our favor. Will we take out all the countries like Iraq (Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, etc.) and put in governments that are on our side? Plus, any U.S. military takeover will be seen as "American Imperialism" by a majority of Arabs. This could de-stabilize the region and put in danger governments who are our allies. Check this article out, it talks about the consequences of actions against Iraq: www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/iraq.senate.ap/index.html
US: Iraq we want to check your goverenment for weapons of mass destruction, let us in now. Iraq: We have none US: Well let us in to check Iraq: No US: Correction Iraq, there are weapons of mass destruction in your country in approximately 3, 2, 1.... Blow Saddam away. He has had every warning in the world about the agrrement on him making these weapons. He obviously wants a fight, so let's take it to him before he pulls an al-queda type event on our soil. I could care less how much innocent Iranian blood is shed. Their people have a choice, help throw out Saddam now or put on a hard had and be ready.
In the Soviet Union, there was very little public complaint and almost no risk of revolt. It's a threshold problem. The dominant strategy of action for an individual is revolutionary... but only if he believes others are as well. The cost-benefit analysis goes like this. If other people want a new regime, it is to an individual's advantage to "go into the streets." After all, he's unsatisfied with the status quo and wants Saddam/Stalin/Mussolini gone. However, if he does not know that other people want him gone, then it's by far to his advantage to stay at home, and not "go to the streets," since that could mean his execution. Thus, the key to an authoritarian regime maintaing power is in stifling the flow of information. If a citizen does not know whether or not his brethren want the dictator gone... well, it's better to be safe than sorry. And you can't exactly "check out the feelings" of others becuase of the typical # of "citizen informants" in such a society. Anyway, back to the Soviet Union... Gorbachev was forced to initiate reforms far, far faster than he desired. Why? Because once he let the media have some freedom over what information it reported, everyone realized that everyone else was disatisfied. So, it suddenly became safe to "go to the streets." It's usually that way during the breakdown of such societies.
