|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2002 : 11:24:08
|
Anyone getting sick of the administration bringing out new reasons to attack Iraq until the press discredits them? Today it's that Iraq is harboring terrorists. last week it was nuclear weapons? What will tomorrows phony reason be? Maybe we should have some sort of pool where we all put in $2....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 13:02:44 [Permalink]
|
There are lots of good reasons to attack Iraq. Saddam was not elected democratically. Iraq is a 'rouge nation' with continued human rights violation. Saddam does not like the US or Israel.
There even is a chance, that Iraq could in the future acquire weapons of mass destruction, even if they don't have any now, and could potentiatially use them against somebody, he dislikes (within the reach of said hypothetical weapons), in a more or less unprovoked first strike, even if said first strike would be suicide.
Of course those reasons would also hold true for a number of other potential tragets, like China who already have weapons of mass destruction and no democracy or respect for human rights.
But Iraq is more or less defenseless compared to other countries and there is a lot of oil in Iraq. Wich are pretty good reasons to attack Iraq; just not the kind of reasons you could tell the average citizen.
|
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 13:26:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Saddam was not elected democratically.
Quite a few people in the US feel that this applies to George W as well.
quote:
There even is a chance, that Iraq could in the future acquire weapons of mass destruction, even if they don't have any now, and could potentiatially use them against somebody, he dislikes (within the reach of said hypothetical weapons), in a more or less unprovoked first strike, even if said first strike would be suicide.
This also applies the USA which has demonstrated that it can and will use these weapons. There is no "what if" when it comes to that. We have used what we say Iraq "may" do.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2002 : 14:48:30 [Permalink]
|
We should punish the government that helped Saddam Hussein wage war with Iran, and supplied him with arms and chemical/bio weapons.
We should also punish the government that help arm and train the Taliban to wage a war with a much stronger force, a super power.
Oh wait....
Entropy just isn't what it used to be. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2002 : 10:12:48 [Permalink]
|
Sorry atomic,
My $2 goes to the "when" not "why" the war starts. I read a blurb from the Pentagon that stated the window of opportunity to launch an attack should not extend beyond January. That is the last "cool" month in Iraq when the wearing of chemical / biological hazard suits by US ground troops would still be tolerable.
So, working backwards, all military "assets" should be in place by late December. Kick-off no later than the first week in January. Assuming 60 days MAX to build up assets, that leaves Bush and Co. the month of October for wiggle room before a firm deployment order must be given.
I have this recurring image of an Air Calvary "trooper" standing next to Bush in the Rose Garden and blowing "boots and saddles" on the bugle.
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2002 : 11:10:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, working backwards, all military "assets" should be in place by late December. Kick-off no later than the first week in January. Assuming 60 days MAX to build up assets, that leaves Bush and Co. the month of October for wiggle room before a firm deployment order must be given.
I'm sorry but I don't think something like this should be rushed especially considering the political motivations what with an election around the corner and all. There is no reason to just rush this and do it now unless it's primarily a politically driven issue to influence the election. Saddam isn't going anywhere. We can do it next fall if it needs to be done at all. The sense of impending doom coming from the white house is utter bullshit and I do not think we should rush into this because of the lies they are telling.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2002 : 11:36:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The sense of impending doom coming from the white house is utter bullshit and I do not think we should rush into this because of the lies they are telling. [@tomic]
I couldn't agree with you more. But Bush can't keep up his shrill rhetoric without it's effect being blunted with time. He's rapidly painting himself into a corner where backing down could have as devastating an impact (in his eyes) as going forward with the attack.
He will use the the bi-partisan Congressional resolution followed by the Congressional elections as a mandate for action. If the Republicans retain the House and lose the Senate, Bush will attack no later than early Spring. If the Republicans also win the Senate, Bush will attack before the 20th ballot recount in Florida. 
(:raig |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2002 : 13:19:23 [Permalink]
|
Hmm...
quote:
...in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
This time it's personal!
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
