Do you think Saddam would want nothing to do with those wanting to inflict heavy casualty to the United States?...Especially if Iraq has the means to accomplish this?... I want to safeguard your future heirs by eliminating this most potent threat...I know there are other means for suicidal type terrorists to gain regarding WMD, (North Korea, heck even resources in China or Russia), but the most clear and present danger is Iraq...If we disable this crazy dictator, it will be one less worry and better international stability... 9/11 showed there are people who will strive to hurt us,...we must cut off their means.
There was no political agenda behind the Khakis, if that's what you thinking...other than promoting the general idea of juvenile silliness.
This is a very good post. I understand your '100%' agreement, but I'm not quite there. Sometimes, you know a threat exists, but are limited in your response by international law and lets face it, politics/pr. Does that mean if you know someone is planning on using a nuke on you, you sit and wait till they 'break the law' and that it's now obvious to all of the world? Definitely not, but there is a balance that must be achieved or the negative effects of the action can be greater than the original threat. That is also the problem I have with the Anti-War movement. No one can guarantee me that if we left Saddam alone, he won't provide WMD to terrorists. None even address that issue. My hope is that IF we move ahead without UN support, that once this is all over, it is CLEAR that it benefitted the Iraqi people. I.e., that democracy is implemented and all of their oil is used to rebuild their country. If handled properly, the only criticisms should come from muslim fundamentalists.
Ah yeah...well, the majority of people is against it if there is no UN resolution. I have a hard time making up my mind, but bigtexxxx's post sounded reasonable to me. What I don't like is that I get the impression that some (very few) people who posted in this thread seem to be almost looking forward to a war. My thinking would be this: 1) I believe that Saddam is a potential threat to the rest of the world. I believe that he would use weapons of mass destruction if he had the chance and if he thought he could do it. Therefore he needs to be disarmed, which will not happen, so his government must go. 2) I do not think that this potential war is "all about oil". This implies a rather naive notion of "if the US wins this war, all the oil is theirs" which is pretty ridiculous. I think this is about Saddam being a threat to the rest of the world on a global scale. I understand that some people make comparisons to other dictators who killed hundreds of thousands of people in their parts of the world. I know that any human life is worth as much as another human life, but I think that, from a global perspective, they are probably not the same threat as Saddam is. 3) I would prefer if Saddam's government could be overthrown without a war because a war would most probably mean significant civil casualties. 4) If that is not possible, I believe that at some point, the UN will have to have a resolution that permits action against the Iraqi government. 5) If a war is to happen, I hope it is as short and "clinical" as possible - although there is no such thing. I hope that the number of civil casualties could be kept as low as possible. In summary: I am of course, as almost all of us, against war in principle. But I think that possibly, a war might be necessary to prevent even greater evil on a global scale. Any action should be authorized by the UN. Now comes the tricky part, if the UN does not authorize, but the US government has truthful information that they have to act to prevent greater evil...then I don't know. One other thing, I do not think that peace activists are extremists. I think that some of them are very naive. But I do believe in their good intentions.
I'm very active? My 2.5 posts per pales in comparison to most of you dorks. Also, when have I started a politically slanted thread recently (and I certainly don't promote your dumb dem vs. rep stuff)? Hell, when did I last start a thread of any kind? There are much better candidates than me to pick for your mortal enemy, but I guess I am flattered. Freak, Do a search for "Clinton" and "protest" or "peace protest" and you should see that such things go on regardless of who is president. That should settle your argument with RM95 more than any of his responses thus far.
If you were directing that to me, I meant websearch, not cc.net. Dumb commie German. Oh, I forgot, TJ, glynch thinks I am conservative so that also muddies my association with Jeff, RM95, etc.
You mention me in one thread as a conservative and not in another, I take offense to that! I challenge you to a duel! Not that I know anything about whether Iraq was in on 9-11 or not, but what if the US Govt gave evidence that Saddam helped fund it or plan it? Would everyone think different about a war then? The SOB is a tyrant, he would gladly hurt the US in any way possible. I am for a peacful solution and I actually don't like the way Bush seems to keep pressuring Iraq. Unless he has some knowledge that Iraq is about to get the bomb, I think we should allow the inspectors to do their jobs. If we know as much as we say we do, then why not let the UN know and let's go remove Saddam. If not then let's wait and see, Saddam is not a threat right now as far as we know? I am hoping that this massive buildup is more of a threat than anything. Saddam should go though, how is he different than Noriega in Panama? Swap terrorism for Drugs (war on drugs/war on terror). The Iraqi citizens would be much better off, nobody can argue that. Noriega used to be on our payroll just like Saddam, when he got out of hand, they took him down. It's not like the man is a saint, he rules by force and is feared by his people.
Duhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you know who you are talking to? Now I am pissed! http://www.lardlad.com/assets/quotes/season11/eieidoh.shtml
