A valid reason for a war?
 

I am wondering if we Americans have ever changed Presidents during a war?

Vietnam.

Get ready to change again. This is going to be a costly, long and unpopular war.

Korea too.

It sure is nice have a leader with the gut's to do what is right regardless of popularity amongst mercedes owners.

Hopefully Bush will have more guts than Truman did in Korea. If that moron had allowed the army to send planes over the Yalu river (NK's border with China) they could have seen the Chinese coming and a phone call to Bejing reminding them of Hiroshima could have stopped them. There would be no North Korea today. It is pretty clear that avoiding possible conflit today because it is convenient can lead to decades of suffering. If there is a war it should be pretty damn thorough.

In both Viet Nam and Korea, the President in office served the maximum number of back to back term permitted by law. The American people have never voted out a President during a war.

I agree.

One more thing

I base most of my decisions on fact, although I have been credited to have great intuition I still base my decisions on factual provable evidence.

While the UN inspectors look for chemical weapon's Saddam's son say's that if the battle get's fierce they will use nerve gas against their opponent.

So what does this tell us?

The picture of a dead Iraqi woman holding her dead child is definitely one of the most horrific pictures I have ever seen in my life. Has anybody seen this after Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurd's?

The problem with Iraq
 

Is that after they conquer Iraq's army and depose Saddam, they will be trying to run a country wheree pretty much everyone mistrusts us or hates us.

Reagan sold the materials and equipment to Saddam it make the gas used on the Kurds.

Olebush promised air support to the Kurds if they would rebel. Then he didn't come through and they were massacred and run out of town. I know I would not trust a Bush after that.

If there were a democracy in Iraq, a true democracy, the Shiite majority would be in charge, and they are natural alies of the Iranians.

The Turks, our allies, do not want there to be a Kurdistan, because that would involve Turkey losing territory.

Is the US willing to keep troops in Iraq for as long as we have spent in Korea? I suspect that US troops woul;d be a lot more unpopular in Iraq than they have been in Korea, because of the different social structure.

We shall see what we shall see, I suppose.

SPOCK Is on the right tracK.

Since 99.999 percent of the Iraqi's voted and 100% voted for the Saddam does this tell you Iraqi's are passionate about thier voting or are the afraid of lead poisoning?

http://www.politicalclothing.com/iraq_timeline_11_17.pdf

It is well known that the US trained and funded Iraq through the '80's. Iraqis fear Saddam, but western culture is almost as evil. If/when we depose Saddam, a new government needs to be put in place. There is a reason Bush Sr. stopped at Baghdad's door. This is a huge undertaking. There is no real threat right now coming from Iraq. I think the threat is coming moreso from North Korea. I'm just hoping that this conflict can be delayed until the next election when Bush is NOT reelected. I am not oppesed to war like most of the love not war fanatics out there, but only when it is justified. War would bolster our economy. I just don't think Iraq is a justified target. Plus, has anyone even listened to Bush talk? My god, that man is a moron. I'm glad I didn't go to Yale, it would have been a waste of money.

Sorry to say this Spock, but you are part of the declassified public. Come on, you didn't even know of the government funding of Saddam. While war is going on, America will not forget. The media only chooses to report on the possibility of war because conflict makes for more interesting news.

No, Yale is a good school; if you take advantage of your education there. I've heard a rumor that Bush's SAT scores were close to 1000...obviously, there were some machinations that got him into Yale.

Personally, I would rather have John McCain (a military veteran) at the helm of our nation during these times. At least he's somewhat articulate and seems fairly intelligent (at least on-camera).

-Sam

Sam,

Being judgmental on someone because of appearance or a southern drawl will be detrimental to your future if you ever seek any position where you have to communicate with others.

Also if you like Political clothing you will LOVE propaganda matrix or Drudge retort, it's nothing more than a well put together conspiracy site.

Regardless, the US sent lots of money and resources to Iraq in the '80's. I had given that site just as a reference. I know I personally that I am not judging Bush on his appearance or his drawl, but rather his words. In his last televised speech this was one of his comments: "If you are an Iraqi soldier and you take up arms against the US, let me tell you we will persecue you as a war criminal." WHAT?!?!?! Shouldn't it be prosecute and how can you possibly prosecute a soldier for following orders? Sounds like another example of Bush's "strategery." I'm glad I voted w/ the majority.

Yet another double award. Time will tell won't it? what was you reaction to Clinton bombing Iraq? What was your reaction to Clintons NON-Reaction after the USS Cole bombing what will be your reaction when the troops come home after a major league whoopin on Iraq. Hopefully the troops in Bosnia can come home someday.

As for the Persacue thing what was your reaction when Clinton lied to our face on numorous occasions?

I am done with this thread as well it's pointless.

Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons programs, ballistic missles, payments to the families of terrorists, and simply overall belligerency...How in the world can you deduce that there is "no real threat"?! :rolleyes:

I'd like to know how you can look at his approval numbers, and the recent Congressional elections, and make that assumption. :confused:

Those who were looking for a "political mannequin", a professional speech-giver, and well-rehearsed bullsh!++er voted for Gore. Those who were impressed by a candidate's actual convictions, morals, goals, common sense, and ability to do the job did NOT vote for Gore.

An ineffective but eloquent talking-head...or... a common-sense person who actually respects the office of the Presidency... Hmmm... I think I'll support the DOer, instead of the TALKer.

Mike

Valid reason for a war?

There are several.

1. Saddam Hussein has invaded two countries.
2. Launced missiles at two other countries.
3. Tried to assassinate the president of the United States.
4. Butchered his own people.
5. Broke all the armistice accords that were signed in 1991.
6. Has provided a haven for terrorists.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if it wasn't for 9/11. What 9/11 did was establish that there are people in the Middle East who sponsor terrorists, and have capital, and are willing to send people over here to kill us in a time of peace.

Which means that there is no margin for error anymore. There has been a threshold that has been crossed. They are not agraid of anything now. They need money. And they need capital. And the one regime that has been the center for that has been Saddam Hussein's.

We've actually already been at war with Islamic terrorists and their supporters for the last 20 years or so. We haven't responded because we got complacent, as long as they don't kill more than 100 servicemen a year, that's O.K. Blow up the World Trade Center, but don't kill too many people. Try to blow up the L.A. Airport, but don't carry it off. Kill a couple of CIA people in a parking lot in Virginia, fine. Blow up a barracks; they're just Marines. Blow up an embassy; they knew what they were doing when they went to Africa. This has been the American mind-set.

That mind-set cleared the path to 9/11. Everytime they did one of those things, America either sent them a cruise missile or a lecture of something. They gained the impression that we just were not going to risk anything to go to war over there.

We ended up losing the one we thing that you can't lose in a war - a sence of deterrence. Americans think we have all these carriers and all this military power, so they wouldn't do anything.

But deterrence is not measured by what you think. It only matters what the enemy thinks. And one of the worst things throughout history is a power that has military superiority but is afraid to use it. Because that brings cotempt.

What must be done now is to demonstrate that the punishment for giving aid or comfort to terrorists who would attack America will be so terrible that nobody in their right mind would want to do it.

Listen, I'm not for war. Nobody wants war. Nobody wants to see a bunch of American kids getting killed. But there is a utility to war that people don't think about. The great evils of the last two centuries - slavery, fascism, Nazism, Japanese militarism, Soviet militarism - either have been ended by war or the threat of war.

Do I need to see any more proof? A direct Iraqi link to 9/11? Discovery of an ongoing weapons program?

I really don't need anymore evidence. 3,000 Americans were killed. Where were the people from who did it? They were from the Middle East. Why did they do it? To attack American power and influence. And how did they do it? They did it with money and sanctuary.

And where are the places that gave them money and sanctuary? We know that terrorism thrives in three places. In chaos like Afghanistan and Somalia; in dictatorships like Syria, Libya, and Iraq; and in the theocracies like Iran.

So you go after the most egregious one, the Taliban, which we are already doing. They you go to the next most prominent one, Saddam Hussein.

I know this post is not the most organized and well-thought out, but I stand by it.

And don't call me an idiot because I'm a conservative.

And for all you liberals out there: Don't flame me. Before you react to this post, feel free to keep firm pressure on your knee to keep it from jerking up.

HAAAAAAHaahaaaaa!!! Now that's funny! You rule, bro. :)

Mike

Oh, yeah....and you made many EXCELLENT points! :D

Take out the 'Butchered his own people' (unless you want to include Native American as 'own people') and the US has done all the things that are the reasons to attack Iraq.

By the way, it also appears that Bush cannot read since I am pretty sure he was reading from teleprompters when he said 'persecute' instead of 'prosecute'.

I'll also state again what I wrote before: There has been no evidence to show any connection whatsoever between Hussein and bin Laden. This administration is simply using that suggestion to get the general public to support their imperial policies.

You state that the terrorists of 9/11 were from the Middle East. You need to be more precise. They were almost all Saudis! Why doesn't your argument logically conclude that the US should be attacking Saudi Arabia? The Saudis provided a lot of support to the Taliban and have funded fundamentalist Muslim schools that foster anti-Americanism.
The obvious reasons that the US is not attacking Saudi Arabia are political and economic. These are the same reasons Bush wants to attack Iraq.

WHAT?! The modern US government does not launch unprovoked attacks on innocent countries with intent to annex them.

If you want to drag the skeletons out of everyone's ancestors' closets, then by that standard NO ONE in ANY society is innocent of wrongdoing...We're talking about learning from mistakes, anticipating trouble, and making a difference in the HERE and NOW.

OK, let's see YOU give speeches in front of pretty much the ENTIRE civilized world--many millions of people--and you're expected to never use the wrong word or have a slip of the tongue or mispronounce something or use a term in a less-than-proper context. Think you can do it? Somehow I doubt it. I know I couldn't...I prefer ACTIONS, not perfectly rehearsed talking heads. :rolleyes:

So what?? He's guilty of countless other crimes...and he sends money to the families of homicide bombers...What more do you need?

Mike

I'll grant that mining Nicaraguan harbors was not an attempt to annex Nicaragua but it was an unprovoked attack with the goal of keeping a country subservient to US interests.

Woah, that sounds an awful lot like the US we are talking about here, seeing as how we have done or posess EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE. Plus, Iraq's aresenal is not capable of reaching the US, only Europe. Funny as how the majority of the EU is against US action in Iraq beyond UN inspectors there. Oh wait, have the inspectors found anything? Nope. I do believe Iraq posesses chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, but they are of NO threat to the US.

Approval numbers mean jack sh!@. As is has been mentioned here, the general public is truly oblivious to most everything. The general public doesn't vote. They just listen to crossfire on CNN, and O'Riely, and a slew of other blabbering morons on the television and pass judgement on that. Evidence: people on this board refused to accept that the US funded the Saddam regime in the '80's. That is a FACT. We openly admitted it. As for the recent congressional elections, all that shows is that people support the Republican party, no necessarily Bush. I have voted Republican in the past, will again. In times of economic downturn, the republicans have proven themselves as being able to get the country back on is feet.


Whoa, so you are saying Bush is an independent free thinker? HA! He is the quinessential "political mannequin." He doesn't even get dressed if Cheeny or pops doesn't tell him to. I'd like to hear you explain how Bush respects the office. He spends more time down in TX, BSing on his ranch than he does in the White House. Those who deciced a drug addicted, drunk was the better choice voted for Bush. You call Bush a Doer, what has he done? Proposed a war that is grossly unpopular w/ not only the country, but the entire world? Bush isn't a professional speech-giver, we all know that. Those who voted for Gore, voted for the better of 2 awful choices. American Democracy is a 2 party system. One could throw away their vote and vote socialist, liberetarian, independant, or so on, or they can support the best candidate that will represent what they want at the time from the republicans or the democrats.

So you prefer to wait and find out the HARD way, when it's too late, as Clinton did with Bin Laden, and so now we have no World Trade Center, and about 3000 less people ALIVE because of that inaction?

The UN resolution that everyone seems to treasure so much DOES NOT say that the inspectors have to find ANYTHING. It DOES say that Saddam must PROVE that he has disarmed, and he HAS NOT done so.

Yeah, everyone says that when the guy they voted for didn't win. :rolleyes: Then when one of thier favorites IS in office, they run around waving the same numbers in the air like a checkered flag. Whatever...


Yes, the US did that. Yes, it was a mistake. So do we make ANOTHER one by leaving him there to continue his oppression and threats to the rest of the world?


Yes, he is. Bush respects the office by telling the TRUTH, whether it is popular or not. HE doesn't run around the White House playing hide-the-cigar with his interns and then LIE to the entire world about it, all while terrorists and criminals run rampant around the country, and the world, and his own administration! Yes, the war is unpopular with college students who love to spend thier free time with thier naive 19 year-old peers at anti-war rallies, waving signs around, accomplishing nothing. College students have always done this pointess moaning, they did it during the Gulf War when I was in college, and they probably always will. The war also is unpopular with countries who are VERY good at waving the white flag of surrender, such as France, so thier opinion means a lot. :rolleyes: It is also unpopular with countries who love to sell weapons hardware to Saddam, such as Russia...It is also unpopular with countries like China and North Korea, whose governments are just as oppressive and aggressive as Iraq's...It is also unpopular with other Middle Eastern countries led by religious fanatics and tyrants, whose populations are deprived of enough education to know better, and the ones who do know better are often silent out of fear for thier lives! So I place very little credibility on many of the people who are "disapproving" of our defensive actions. With everyone else, who values FREEDOM and SAFETY, it is pretty damn popular.

That is a VERY scary statement. Our government is NOT a 2-party system...It is a multiple party system, which has unfortunately long been dominated by two power-hungry parties. Bush was not my candidate of choice either, but he is BY FAR the lesser of the two "evils", and has done a reasonalble job under VERY difficult and unforseen circumstances. I hate to even imagine what shape we'd be in had Gore been in office when the sh!+ hit the fan, and since...

Mike

One, war is unpopular w/ college students because it is us and our peers that will be doing the fighting. Two, what was Clinton supposed to do w/ Bin Laden? What has Bush done w/ Bin Laden? Nothing, Bush has run around Afghanistan, causing a uproar, and finding nothing. Bush doesn't tell the truth, nor does he lie. Bush just says what he is told to say by those that are above him. Clinton was an effective president, regardless of his personal life. Let's note bring Bush's perosnal life into the picture. The war is also unpopular w/ powerful nations. Germany is a fine example. I do not disapprove of any defensive actions the US might take. Iraq is hardly a defensive action. I support war when it is warranted. War would bolster our economy. I don't think war in Iraq is the war we need though. I like to think of myself as an American the values Freedom and Safety. I vote every chance I get, I am an Eagle Scout, I realize how lucky I am. I like that you blame the terrorist attack on Clinton. That notion absolutely floors me. If you are going to say Clinton is responsible for the attacks, I am going to say the republicans are more to blame because they were busy trying to remove him from office, thus distracting him from the Bin Laden hunt he should have been conducting. You claim a 2 party system is scary. I beg to differ, it is instead a more efficient system. You claim that approval numbers do actually mean something. Ok, then why do the majority of American not approve of a war in Iraq? Iraq is hardly a threat to ANYONE. He has no allies. His neighbors are not of the same mindset as him. If he was to pose a real threat to anyone, he would definately be brought down. If we do take over Iraq and take down Saddam, then what? We have to set up a new gov't. That is not only expensive and time consuming, but also hard to pull off. There is a reason daddy Bush stopped at the doors of Baghdad.

Overwhelming numbers of college students attend anti-war events because it is the "hip" thing to do... Pro-military, pro-capitalist voices are seldom heard on college campuses. This is common knowledge. It's no fun to be part of the TINY conservative minority on campus when you're 17-21! I witnessed such behavior MYSELF on countless occasions. The "convictions" one claims to have at such an age are often shaped more by peer pressure and overbearing professors than by actual FACTS and personal beliefs.

I did not say I blame Clinton for any terrorist attack. I blame him for INACTION! He was handed bin Laden on a platter, and chose to do nothing with the opportunity. When terrorists struck the Trade Center the first time, Clinton did nothing. When they struck the USS Cole, he did nothing. When they struck our embassies and bases abroad, he did nothing. When our troops were slaughtered in Somalia, he did nothing. When Saddam started gassing and slaughtering his own people, Clinton did NOTHING!

I agree, Bill should not have been removed from office for his personal life...fondling his staffers behind his wife's back is his own business. He should have been removed for LYING UNDER OATH! Clinton was effective alright...at making a total mockery of the office of the President! :rolleyes: He should stick to playing saxophone...He didn't suck at that (well...OK, so he sucked at that too).

Just who do you think is "above" President Bush, pulling the strings? The UN would love to be, but they are not.

Approval numbers can be indicative of certain thing, but VOTING numbers are what counts. Polls and statistics vary depending on the motivations of the person doing the asking...Speaking of that...the latest polls I have seen show pretty strong SUPPORT of disarming Iraq!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020918.asp
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I'm sure you could dig up some numbers from sonewhere that say the opposite. Regardless, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Not everything that needs to be done will be popular. A TRUE LEADER does the right thing, whether it is popular at the time or not. A WEAK LEADER looks at the polls and THEN decides what his "convictions" are (see: Bill Clinton).

"Daddy Bush" stopping at Baghdad and not removing Saddam was a MISTAKE. How many innocent people might be ALIVE right now if he had finished the job?

Mike

I am not a liberal, nor have I ever claimed to be. I am a moderate. I attend both College Democrat and College Republican meetings. Clinton was NEVER handed Bin Laden on a platter. How can you say he was? When the WTC was bombed, we would have had the same situation in that Bin Laden would be elusive and we would have troops galavanting around dead countries looking in caves. And in regards to Saddam slaughtering his own people, that is not a threat to the US. It can be argued China does that as well, yet we are becoming more and more buddy buddy with them. As far as people above Bush, Cheeny and Daddy Bush have a lot of power over the W. More so than the Pope did over Kennedy. When fighting a terrorist organization, it is hard to find someone to put the blame on as there is not soverign state to slap the blame on. You can argue that they were harboring terrorists, but when you are one like Bin Laden and your family owns most of Saudi Arabia, your money can get you anywhere. It's Super Bowl time now

Ah, that explains a lot. Politically speaking, "moderate" is usually synonymous with "wishy-washy" and "swayed by emotion".

Mike

PS During Clinton's term, bin Laden was IN CUSTODY in Africa, and offered to the US, and Bill did NOTHING.

By which emotions would it be bad to be 'swayed'? Love? Compassion? Repulsion? Disgust? Pity? Concern? Fear? Hatred? Greed? Lust?
Being swayed by the right emotions is exactly the point of good character. This has been known since as far back as Aristotle.

No, moderate in my case means I hold conservative values in some cases, and liberal in others. I am on both extreme ends of the spectrum, thus allowing me to average out as moderate. I am hardly wishy washy and emotion. I stand my ground to the bitter end. And in regards to bin Laden being in custody, there was never any concrete proof he actually was.

Why worry? Be Happy!
 

Whatcha' all so worried about? It is not like Herr Hitler... (Ooops! I mean "Herr Hussein") ...has exhibited any hostility towards the US, or any predilection to use violent means or invade his neighbors, or anything like that...

Or gas his own people. Or execute any and all opposition.

Or actively support terrorism.

Then you read Michael Kelly in the Washington Post and find out that the so-called "Peace" marches in Washington & San Francisco were, per the New York Times, chiefly sponsered, as was last October's antiwar march in Washington, by "the activist group International Answer".

International A. N. S. W. E. R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party, which is, literally, a Stalinist organization that today unquestionably supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialsim, or simply to anti-Americanism!

Besides, our "friends" in France and Germany just know that Saddam will be ready to listen to wisdom just as soon as the UN inspectors have a little more time to finish up. The last ten years of his reign were just not long enough. He'll change, won't he?:rolleyes:

Just need to keep those knee-jerk liberal News polls a commin' and he'll just rollover and play dead, right? No need to prepare or anything: just trust in Uncle Saddam.:p

Why do people think that if we get rid of Saddam, that the next person the US puts in power will be better? After all we put him in power in Iraq and the Shah in power in Iran and have supported the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The criteria by which the US elites have judged these rulers has been whether or not they serve the interests of the US and not whether or not they serve the interests of the people of those countries.
Hussein does not serve US interests very well anymore (except insofar as he helps raise the poll numbers at home) and Saudi Arabia is becoming more of a problem so the US political elites want another way of controlling access to natural resources in the area. Hence, get rid of Hussein and as Colin Powell put it, 'hold the oil fields in trust for the Iraqi people'.

Oh, that's right...Kind of like there was no "concrete proof" that Clinton was hiding his Cubans in Monica's *****! :rolleyes:

Of course he was in custody...He was offered to us...it's a little difficult and risky to offer something you don't have, don't you think?! Why did he not TRY, at least? Why did he just shrug it off? Oh, yeah...he was busy doing more important things...Like hiding and destroying Whitewater documents..."Oh, what have we here, Hillary? The documents that the independent counsel was looking for? The ones you said you didn't have? How did they get here in your office, I wonder?"

:rolleyes:

Mike