Rocketbooster: I don't know how did you get the impression of my rationalizing wars. Bottomline is, you don't need to talk about humanity while you are against wars everytime. The absence on that part does not indicate that I don't care about lives lost in wars. I do. It's just sometimes, as you might see, talking about casualties in wars doesn't elicit any response at all, as some people don't care about lives lost as long as it's not theirs. Why cast pearls in front of pigs(no implications here)? On the other side, I do believe under some circumstances wars should be carried out, as a means of punishment, instead of precaution. Such being the Normandy invasion, the Gulf war... . You can go ahead calling me as cowards rationalizing wars, but I don't care. There's sometimes good reasons for launching a war, such as helping people get back the land they deserve. In this case, I think pre-emptive wars for self defense is not a good reason. Peace.
I forgot to say that launching a war for the sake of oil without regard to lives makes one in the same species of expantionists, aka, Adolf Hitler...
you throw out a word like Peace there at the end. You dont even know what peace is. Your words are cotton. one day you may be a gret debater, the clutch crew may honor you with a mostavern award with that garbage..,,but sir know this, im not concerned with MY LIFE...there is no Me. I speak out of love for a little piece of creation ive been blessed with(neice). When you try to rationlaize our ancestors wars you lose me. Cause one could go on and on till infinity saying mankind took a wrong turn here or there, but where and when he took a wrong turn is irrelevant if one is really serious and passionate about the present. But I want no part of that confusion. shoot me in the heart or put me in prision if you wish, it makes no matter to me, i want no part of your silly perceptions abuut land or borders or titles or distinctions.
Just seeing Dick Armey's name makes me laugh. BTW, did anyone see the thing on SNL making fun of him? They were calling him all sorts of names like C.ck Navy and whatnot.
I disagree that it's a foregone conclusion. In fact a lot of people believe that he wouln't use them because he knows that would be the end of him and Iraq if he did. Some people say the only way he would those or chemical weapons against the U.S. was if he knew he was losing a war with them, and wasn't going to survive anyway. I've said it before if we could contain the Soviets, the Chinese, etc. both of which already have nukes, and unlike Iraq have delivery systems which would allow them to reach the U.S. With Saddam hemmed in so tight, and the U.S. keeping such an eye on him, as well as the No-fly zone, he won't be able to much for too long that we don't know about.
ROCKETBOOSTER: Ya know, I agree with some of the stuff you said, but you really need to lay off. Your attitude in this thread, no what your political leaning, is WAY out of line. Consider yourself warned.
Though we and the media have completely demonized Saddam Hussein, I still wonder what has he ever done to the U.S. that makes us think he will "nuke us" He invaded Kuwait, which was once part of Iraq. We bombed the hell out of the country and sanctioned them for over a decade destroying the social, economic and political structure of the country. And now we are attacking again on the basis that he will attack us? The "evidence" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with a WTC terrorist has been found out to be a farce, he has never even stated that he will attack the US, or made any such inclination. Honestly there are some that just like conflict and war, but I truly see no reason for it. Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al-Queda.....hell they had it coming!! But I just can't justify sending our troops, our tax dollars and our blood to Iraq. Maybe its just another favor to Israel. Haven't we done enough for them. We've tarnished our international reputation, gotten voted out of the Human Rights Council for them, walked out of a Human Rights expo for them, given them our weapons and technology which they actually turned around and SOLD to the Chinese, they've spied on us : Jeffrey Pollard, and cost us billions a year in support. Let them fight their own battles and stop wasting my tax money.
Khan, that was great. I would have wanted to say the same thing, but it would have taken me five times as much space and typing to do it. Excellent job.
<A HREF="http://www.kuwait-info.org/Gulf_War/history_kuwait_iraq_border_dispute.html">History of the Kuwait-Iraq Border Dispute</A> If Iraq wishes to revive some type of historical basis (Basra administrative claim), shouldn't they also act to help Turkey resurrect the Ottoman Empire under which that claim is made? Iraq has a precedent for breaking boundary treaties....... <i>.........Iraq and Iran had engaged in border clashes for many years and had revived the dormant Shatt al Arab waterway dispute in 1979. Iraq claimed the 200-kilometer channel up to the Iranian shore as its territory, while Iran insisted that the thalweg--a line running down the middle of the waterway--negotiated last in 1975, was the official border. The Iraqis, especially the Baath leadership, regarded the 1975 treaty as merely a truce, not a definitive settlement......... </i> <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm">Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)</A>
I could be wrong, but I don't think that he was saying Iraq was right in invading Kuwait, he merely stated that they did it, and what the response was.
I find it interesting that people are analyzing what Saddam will do by using logic. The man is a little crazy and a lot of his actions are devoid of logic. He views the US as the devil, as many fanatics do. I don't like war more than anybody else. It scares me. But if this guy has nuclear weapons that he would be inclined to use against us or our interests overseas, then I am willing to bend the rules a little bit so that all of the nieces in the US can live a little more secure. It's not about borders or petty differences, and from my point of view it certaily isn't about a favor to Israel...they have enough nukes to destroy all of their enemies. I believe there are damned good reasons to go after Saddam. A lot of you disagree. That's cool. I'm just not really swayed by talks of the moral high ground when I fear an attack that will make 9/11 look minor. If I sound scared about this, then good, I have made my point...because it scares me to death.
Wow, ROCKETBOOSTER. Are you trying to get kicked off the board? I'm with Jeff. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the tone is out of control. He really was pretty gentle with you and you come back with this? You must be having a bad day. Refman: Yes, Bush said he would attack other nations with ties to terrorism. And everyone knew that was going to be his excuse to attack Iraq pre-emptively. Doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the international community. As concerned as we all might be about terrorism, it doesn't give Bush a blank check to attack anyone he feels might be a future threat to us and it doesn't give Ashcroft a blank check to roll back civil liberties or due process. I know they think it does. They will learn otherwise. And I can't wait. North Korea is dangerous, too. Should we attack them? What about China? Saudi Arabia harbors terrorists. Should we bomb them? Or assassinate Arafat? Or Sharon? When Bush was running he lambasted Clinton's military policies, saying that it was arrogant to get involved all over the world (obviously referring to Bosnia, Somalia, etc.) and that we should ONLY get involved when there's a clear exit strategy. I guess 9/11 gave him license to blow off the exit strategy thing. It did not give him license to blow off the Geneva Convention. I used to have a neighbor with a vicious dog. It barked ferociously at me whenever I drove up my driveway. It tried to jump the fence to eat me. I tried diplomacy with it's owner and it didn't work. The dog even crippled a kitten I was watching when it got into the neighbor's yard. Should I have shot the dog?
Did we ask the international community before entering the Korean War? No. I agree with you on this to a point. There are some so called civil liberties that we part with in order to live in an ordered and safe society. Might not be a bad idea. The bottom line is that when fighting terrorism if you do it half assed...you will not get results. Plain and simple. You are fighting a fanatical enemy that knows no rules. Under those facts...honestly...I would have. There was a Rottweiler down the street from my parents that took a chunk out of our Springer Spaniel. My mother was walking our dog on a leash at the time. My dad presented him with the vet bill and I told him that if his dog attacked anything of mine ever again I'd put a bullet in the dog.
This reminds me of that "Everybody Loves Raymond" episonde where someone said something bad about Raymond's mom's lasagna and everyone around took a few steps back waiting for the caca to hit the fan. Well I'm takin' a few steps back!
I really wanted to shoot that dog. And I yelled at my neighbor plenty. But if I'd shot the dog at a time when it wasn't attacking, I'd have gone to jail. Those are the rules. What I was meant to do is call the cops or the pound or whatever. And what we're meant to do is rely on the UN. Attacking unilaterally without clear provocation is vigilantism. And it will be punished. You know the various differences between this situation and the Korean War. I won't list them all. Here's the main one, though: Korea wasn't smack dab in the middle of the most volatile part of the world. Getting involved there didn't mean the threat of Holy War with an entire region. I agree with you that we have a big, big problem. But if we're going to get involved, in the words of Bush (or actually his handlers), we'd better win. As unsavory as some of them might be, we need our friends in this situation. And we cannot afford to make new enemies. Bush the elder understood this. His son does not. Daddy Bush also understood that we could no more assassinate Saddam to end the Gulf War than we could assassinate Hitler to end WWII. It just isn't done. Except in covert operations by the CIA and such. And those actions are covert precisely because removing a recognized leader of a recognized nation, when he's not literally pointing a gun at your head, is UNACCEPTABLE. Period. But if any of this foolhardy plan is to proceed, these guys damn well better have a hot smoking gun which ties Saddam to 9/11. I think it's pretty clear that they don't have that kind of evidence, or we'd know about it by now. First Bush dismantled all Clinton'd done for the economy and took us back into deficit spending. Now he's working hard to dismantle his father's coalition. People were worried this guy would be incompetent. Considering his policies, they should have been more worried he'd be competent.
That Rocketbooster is one funny guy...er, child. Jeff and Batman , You both mentioned that you agreed with some of what he said...but why did you even bother reading it? It became too painful for me after about two sentences. Maybe it is just because I am insecure, though. So people who like good grammar are just insecure about their own education? Lol... I like and respect you two - uh - too, Refman and Batman (sorry, couldn't help it). Spread the love. If a lawyer and theater guy can come together in peace and harmony, why can't the Middle East...and the USSR and the US (and Rocky), and the terminators and humans...
what you don't know is that lawyer has a little "theater guy" living inside of him... i'm posting 45 minutes from the time of my post for how long it takes Rocketbooster to be booted permanently from these boards...any takers? GO!!!
