War with Iraq, Yes or no, cards on the table

F*** France, f*** China, f*** Germany!!!

Force is imminent and necessary because Iraq will hurt themselves, their own people, and the world.

They have not cooperated at all in the past 12 years.

Today, videos were released showing animal cruelty by using botulism toxin on dogs.

I think it's almost obvious there are ties between Iraq (Sadaam or his regime), Al Qaeda or bin Laden, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority.

Regardless of what the UN decides, war or force will occur, and hopefully, and I truly doubt it, there will be no repercussions.

Just my wacky opinion, though.

 

Yes like bush said his job is to protect us. that what this will be doing. Anything that will help prevent another event like 9/11 I am all for.

 

Watching Colin Powell give that terribly scripted, excuse of reasonging to war in Iraq, I found it funny that:

He kept mentioning that "Iraq wasn't complying to the will of the world"....but most nations are against the US. So how is that the will of the world?

And why did Bush say that N Korea possibly building Nukes is a matter of Territory policing, but Iraq is not?

Keep on being the worst administration ever.

By the way....unemployment has now hit 8.5 million. The economy is in a shamble, the debt is at an all time high (only his father has come closer to putting us into greater debt) Crime is back up....but lets go be hypocrites and "Territorily police" a nation that has really no ability to strike us, but not N Korea who it has been reported that they have the ability to hit America if they wanted to.

 

The President has not yet made his case to me in a believable manner that the threat is so imminent and cannot be handled without a military solution.

Yes. It would be wonderful if Saddam Hussein was out of power. Yes. I acknolwedge the possibility that no taking care of Saddam now might mean a larger war later. Yes. I even see that Saddam has not been following the Un Resolutions. And Yes. I see that the threat of a US attack probably has opened up doors to inspectors that were previously closed.

BUT I've still yet to see or hear anything that tells me that now is the time to take care of Saddam. I don't know that it's time to give up on the non-military solution.

Maybe I am just wishing our President was a better public speaker and could better articulate why all this was necessary now. But the President, to me, just came off as a guy who himself isn't all that certain that it needs to be done now. His answers last night were only marginally better than many of the answers given by protestors in that video that was posted on here not too long ago.

But that's just what I think.

 

Just my wacky opinion too......not that Im right.......its a forum for discussion.

 

Say someone was stealing your buddies lunches out of your lockers in school. Your group finds the culprit, and warns him that you'll kick his ass next time you catch him.

He does it again, but everyone decides to leave him alone.

Does the subsequent inaction indicate the groups will, i.e. that they want him to steal lunches?

What Powell meant by 'will of the world' is whether Iraq is complying with the destruction of WMD, not regarding military action or the timing of military action.

 

...apologies DaDa.

 

I voted yes because I like to value all human life, not just Americans, and from what I've heard on news channels, Saddam is responsible for killing many of his own people. He is a murderer.
The Iraqi people need to live in better suuroundings.

With what I said, I realize human life will be lost in a war, but that is why they call it war. If nothing is done, there will be more human lives at stake IMO.

People say no to war simply because human lives will be lost, but it's like they ignore that Saddam kills his own people anyway.

 

I voted no because;

a) I really do not believe a U.S victory and Saddams' ouster will truly "liberate" the Iraqi people. I'm basing this on past history, including most recently Afghanistan. That war-torn region isn't much better today sans the Taliban, and frankly I'm skeptical of any kind of puppet regime the U.S installs in Baghdad.

b) The underlying reasons behind this war for the Bush admin. is all wrong. On the surface they say they are protecting America as well as the Iraqi people, but the fact is there is has not been substantial evidence that Iraq is any bigger of a threat than say, N.Korea. And the resolutions Saddam is apparently breaking are no worse than say, Israel. The fact that Iraq is oil-rich and Bush has a personal vendetta against Saddam going back to his fathers admin. makes the purpose of war even more questionable, IMHO.

c) Yes Saddam is a horrific leader and what he has put his people through is horrendous. But call me ignorant but surely there is a more viable alternative to overthrow him than war? Why not just assasinate him and his cronies? The people of Iraq have been living in grief over the past decade due to short-sighted sanctions placed on the country which only hurt the people and had no effect on Saddam. Who knows how many Iraqi civilians will needlessly perish if a war breaks out.

d) I may have missed something here, but when did the U.S Gov't prove any link between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government? Saddam runs a government that is not based on religion, which runs counter to Osama's beliefs. I just don't see the connection. My sense is that Bush is using 9/11 to justify attacks on Iraq, knowing full well that Americans want some sort of revenge for the atrocities that occured here. He was going to get Saddam back anyways, now he has a reason.

Whatever the case, it looks like this war is inevitable. If and when it happens, I sincerely hope it is short and painless as possible for both the U.S government and the Iraqi people.

Azim da Dream

 

Yes. Oil. WMD, human rights, ok ok. We could just as easily hit Cuba or Burma or Rwanda. Oil. The region needs to be stabilized by force so the oil can flow. Opportunity knocks.

 

Since the US will likely war with Iraq without UN approval, I voted no. UN approval for a "just" war with another nation is the minimum bar.

You know in a coule of years somebody is going to do a documentary about Saddam, Iraq, and the US (from 1980s to 2003). I suspect that presidents Reagan through Bush Jr will look like boobs of the highest order (or at the least down right unpresidential).

 

No...not yet.

I don't know if everyone realizes how big a deal war is. I was only a tot during the Gulf War, and wasn't alive for any others, but I know that war is not something you just do. Retaliation, American backlash, even worse foreign relations...there's a number of things that could go wrong as a result of a premature attack.

Extend the deadline, and stick to it. Make it clear that if they aren't disarmed by the deadline, war is a reality. Scare them...

Sometimes it's better to bark than bite.

 

I don't see the need as I do not feel threatened by Saddam. I think an complete pullout, lift all sactions would have a better effect at long term (and short term) peace than a war to put in regime change. However, if he attacks another country - consider it done. But I think he wants to stay in power and he's not quite the madman some think he is.

 

I voted no... It just doesn't feel right to me. Give me more facts about the threat to the USA I'd change my vote in a second. They seem to want us to think it's all about WMD and the stablitliy of the Region, but I can't help thinking it's all about Oil. Prove to me it's not about Oil and I'll sign on regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

 

I voted no because, as of this moment, I have yet to hear an argument/see the evidence proving Iraq is an eminent threat to the US. I want to see Saddam go down, just not outside the UN. The 12 years of cat and mouse is a UN issue about the releveance of the UN and its security council. Seemingly, the UN's permanent members are divided becasue half have a (monetary/political) stake in Iraq continuing to exist and the other half have a (monetary/political) stake in making sure Saddam can't threaten the region (and the global economy based on oil).

If Iraq is a threat to the US, the President should just present the evidence and then kick ass. But he hasn't proven anything or even presented anything yet, and "he gasses his own people" is not a cogent argument. Dictators all over the world are doing vile things to their own people, but we aren't getting involved in their matters. I only support a war outside the UN if Iraq is really a threat to the US.

 

I vote for yes because we're going to do it anyways and I'm a cynic. I have the possibility of being drafted, and I don't want senseless death, but it seems inevitable. I also see the infrastructure of the Middle East as needed to be taken care of. This is probably Americas best chance of changing the region for the better before we become weaker.

Powell put all of his clout pushing for UN multilateral action to Bush. He believed that other countries would fall in line and make the war have the appearance of being sanctioned, and fostering goodwill at the same time.

When Powell said it in his speech, he meant that Iraq wasn't complying to the UN resolutions dating back from the Gulf War. He meant the UN as the will of the world. Powell also assumed that we'd pass another UN resolution for war if need be. Now that American foreign goodwill has been flushed down the toilet, it could mean that the US will be the one not complying to the will of the world. Powell gets screwed again.

And I thought Albright had the appearance of being incompetent. It just wasn't in their cards.

 

Do I really need to say anything?