A question from my Poli Sci class...

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

EDIT: what I meant to say was the New Year (1/1)... if any mod or admin knows how to change the topic and would be so kind, I'd appreciate it.

 

This one really made me think. I mean, it seems like an inevitability that we're going in after Saddam and company, but the question is when? Remember, 2002 is an election year, not to mention Bush doesn't have all that much support...yet. However, the administration seems very eager to go in and kick ass (and I, for one, am with them - more for fear of what will happen if we wait too long than anything). Anyway, my little class voted "no," but we're just one group of people, so I was wondering what ou all thought. So... thoughts?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Uh... today's date is 9/14. Your question's been answered. And 2002 is only an "election year" for Congress.

This is after you've taken a political science class? I hate to think what you're learning in there.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Sorry, I just woke up. Yeah, I know, waking up at 12:30 is pretty sad. What I was going for was after the new year, but I had just read the 9/11 thread.

 

Also, if we invaded and it went badly, couldn't that hurt some support for conservative candidates? That's what we theorized, anyway.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Well, we have a Republican President, so if one of his plans backfires badly of course it'll hurt the Republican Party. That's kind of elementary.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Well yeah, so is that reason enough to keep the Bush administration from pushing for an invasion into Iraq? Because it follows that if the party is hurt before an election, that party might lose some seats in Congress. It just seems to me like it would be a deterrent.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The Iraq invasion is practically risk-free.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Really? I was under the impression there was some significant risk, not the least of which was loss of support. Care to enlighten me? I mean, I know you've got limitations because of your job at all, but any info you would throw my way would be appreciated.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

Why are you being so polite? It's hampering me.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

...I'm sorry? It's how I am. Plus, I really would like to know more. I don't keep up on Current Events NEARLY as much as I should.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

<sigh> I'm so used to flaming you, I have difficulty writing a civil reply. Do you mind if I call you some random names just to hit my stride?

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Go for it, you stupid....something-or-other.

 

EDIT: I have to leave for a bit, so feel free to work yourself up into a good ol' fury.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thanks!

 

Well that was really weak you fucking retard. If you had half a brain you'd realise that "loss of support" doesn't matter a good goddamn in military terms because half our so-called allies don't make any contributions at all and those that do slow us down because we've got to adjust our hardware to interface with their shamefully obsolete equipment. On the diplomatic front, everyone likes to say they hate us anyway, so who the fuck cares if we have to go it alone? The President's already said that the United States will make a stand on this issue regardless of what the UN does - the UN has to "show some backbone and resolve" (direct quote) and make the right decision, the decision to stand at our side and support us as we confront and destroy a threat to the peace and security of the region and of the world.

 

Furthermore, the House contains 223 Republicans and 209 Democrats, with two vacancies and one independent. It's highly unlikely that we'll lose our majority there, especially in light of the the President's personal popularity. His touring schedule for October includes numerous stump stops. In the Senate we have 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats, plus the fence-hopping Mr Jeffords. The Vice President is obviously a Republican in the event of any ties. Current projections indicate that we'll pick up a majority in the Senate as well come November.

 

So no, there's no election-related reason to put off an Iraq invasion. Quite the contrary.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Oh, and, uhm... screw you, you ignorant little prick!

 

<g>

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Well thank ya, that's a way of thinking that hadn't entered my little head. I'll certainly be bringin' da knowledge to class Monday. What more gets me is that our professor didn't bring it up at all, and he's a fairly right-leaning man. Ah well. What about chemical or nuclear weapons? I mean, if we go in, and don't clear out all of Saddam's followers and all his weapons, don't we risk some sort of retaliation (even, if not from Iraq, from a supporting nation)? I'm not trying to say we shouldn't do it, as from my limited understanding going in seems like a good idea, but what about repercussions? That's all I'm wondering.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

Reports in Britain today indicate it would be a fullout invasion, which will obviously be extremely tough. But if they're going to declare war may as well complete the job, I guess.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Very true, I'd rather not leave the lingering doubt that we missed something.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

don't we risk some sort of retaliation (even, if not from Iraq, from a supporting nation)? ...what about repercussions?

No nation in the world, no matter how virulently anti-American, will ever start a war against us. No one's that stupid - not even the most extremist ideology-steeped Moslem. The only risk is that state resources will covertly fund terrorism, which is precisely why it is imperative to eliminate those regimes which would do so in the first place.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

But what if there are more or stronger terrorist cells than we accounted for? If we fail to "get them all" so to speak, doesn't it increase the chances of a violent attack on us? I guess what I'm getting at is another point I'm not too knowledgeable on: how strong is the terrorist threat coming from the Middle East?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If we fail to "get them all" so to speak, doesn't it increase the chances of a violent attack on us?

Nope. If we get 90/100, it decreases the threat enormously. If we get even 10/100, it decreases the threat. That's because with every cell we get, we're eliminating some of their resources, and it takes them time to build them up again. With every terrorist-supporting regime we take out, we'll be vastly diminishing their resources.

They can't possibly hate us any more than they do already. Attacking them won't make them hate us more; it'll only make them less able to do anything about it.

 

how strong is the terrorist threat coming from the Middle East?

Very. Which is why action is imperative.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Hmm...I tip my hat to ya, ma'am. I think I'm all out of questions.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I doubt the US invades Iraq before the year is up, since I still don't think that there is going to be any support for it other than from G.B and Tony Blair. Going ahead and doing anything without some support is a big mistake.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

This has been dealt with adequately already. If you have something new to add, do so. If you don't, shut up.

[Guest Some Guy]

don't we risk some sort of retaliation (even, if not from Iraq, from a supporting nation)? ...what about repercussions?

No nation in the world, no matter how virulently anti-American, will ever start a war against us. No one's that stupid - not even the most extremist ideology-steeped Moslem. The only risk is that state resources will covertly fund terrorism, which is precisely why it is imperative to eliminate those regimes which would do so in the first place.

I disagree that no country would ever start a war with us. I wouldn't be hugley suprised if Iran or anotehr Arab dictatorship attacked us while we are taking out Iraq, the main reason that the ME countries are against Iraq being taken care of is that they know that once Iraq goes Capitalistic and Democratic that the rest of the Arab world will follow soon there after adn they kings and princes and whatever elses will lose power and probably be kiled in revolution. So I could see a few of those countries attack us as a desparate attempt to stay in power.

Look at what happened in Eastern Europe in the late 80s and early 90s. Poland goes free and then like donimoes so goes the rest of EE anf finally Soviet Russia fell to freedom. It's basically the reverse of the domino theory of Cold War times where they thougth that Communism would spread out and topple over countries liek dominoes, howere freedom and liberty have proven to be a much better uniter of the people than oppression and violence. The same will hold true in the Middle East.

 

EDIT: Hoff where do you go to school? Having a right leaning Poly Sci teacher is unheard of in Ma. I'm a Poly Sci major and all of my Profs are leftists or Socialists. Hell, the chairman of the department has a picture of Mao LeDong on his office wall.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Marquette University.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I agree with your predictions of what will happen in the ME after we liberate Iraq, SG, but I still disagree when you say that any country in the region will have the guts to attack us. It would be sheer suicide even for a country like China, and not one country in the region has anywhere near China's muscle, which would be pitifully inadequate itself.

No, I think they'll oppose the invasion vociferously, maybe trying to use economic leverage if anything, and after we win, they'll claim that they backed us fully all along. Just like the last time. And in the aftermath, they'll try to undermine our efforts while cracking down hard on any rebellious voices at home. That's what they always do.

[Guest Some Guy]

True, but desparate people do desparate things. And i don;t underestimate how crazy some of those people over there are.

I just thought of another good thing that could possibly come out of this. When Russia invaded Afghanistan all the crazies went there to fight the Pinkos, hopefully they'll do the same thing in Iraq and we can just wipe them all off the face of the earth in one fell swoop. That would be nice.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yeah, that's true. Even in the unlikely event that anyone else does go to war against us, we'll be better off for it.

[Guest Some Guy]

The funny thign is that even if that entire region teamed up against us we could still beat them alone, if you add England and a few others in then it would be pretty much a cake walk.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

It was a cakewalk for Israel, and she was alone. We could do it in our sleep.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'd like to see a massive deployment and watch the Iraqis' faces when 20,000 American troops come barrelling through their country.

Israel would have eventually lost because of its lack of man power and inability to hold conquered territory as a result. We have no such problem.