Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Dr. Tom provided this link a while ago showing a link between Saddam and terror- http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...10919_1_n.shtml Nothing against you, Barron, but this is coming from Israel, which is basically just as much a terrorist state as any other Middle Eastern nation. If they were a terrorist state wouldn't Yassir Arafat and Palenstinians be blown out of the water? They've been getting shit on ever since they were founded and the fact that Yassir Arafat is still around tells you something about their restraint Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Nothing against you, Barron, but this is coming from Israel, which is basically just as much a terrorist state as any other Middle Eastern nation. If you really believe that, then I doubt there will be much said here that can help you. Their sources are good. So are ours. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Well since you trust in Mr. Powell so much, don't you think it is kind of peculiar that a few months ago he was against going to war and then all of the sudden without any new evidence he SUDDENLY does a total 180 and is all for it. Kind of weird to me. What made him make that sharp turn out of nowhere...PRESSURE from the whitehouse? I don't buy that for a minute. Who said he wasn't provided new information? Powell is privy to a LOT of evidence that we and the media are not. If he didn't believe in what he preached, he wouldn't have spoken in front of the UN several weeks ago. What is the White House going to pressure Powell into doing? He's one of the most respected and experienced members of Bush's cabinet. Yeah, I can really see George W. shaking his fist in defiance and threatening to beat up Powell on the White House lawn if he doesn't go along with their plan of world dominance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted March 7, 2003 They've been getting shit on ever since they were founded and the fact that Yassir Arafat is still around tells you something about their restraint Bob, the fact that Palestinians can still be spoken of in the present tense speaks volumes for their restraint. Hell, they had the perfect chance to kill Arafat when they had his building surrounded for a few days and didn't do it. I think a true terrorist regime would not have passed up such an opportunity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I don't think it was pressure. Personally, don't percieve Powell as the kind of guy to give in to that. I could be wrong but that's my personal feeling based on what I've read of him and from watching him go about things in the news and such. I think it's easy for us to forget that Powell and the President have access to intelligence reports and such that . . . well, frankly, we don't. And that we shouldn't since making it public would tip our hat. If something caused a dramatic 180 from him, I think, personally, that something came across his desk from Intelligence sources that gave him concern enough to decide it was time to act. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 7, 2003 They've been getting shit on ever since they were founded and the fact that Yassir Arafat is still around tells you something about their restraint Bob, the fact that Palestinians can still be spoken of in the present tense speaks volumes for their restraint. Hell, they had the perfect chance to kill Arafat when they had his building surrounded for a few days and didn't do it. I think a true terrorist regime would not have passed up such an opportunity. I have a lot of family living in Israel so I know what's going on down there. I was so hoping they would pull the trigger and finally kill the bastard but I guess they were afraid something really bad would've happened to them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I suppose your wonderful independent research groups know things that the CIA, Mossad, and Shin Bet do not? What they know and what they release to the public is different. Everyone should know that. If 911 had not happened, people wouldnt've become overnight patriots, terrorism would still be another minor political debate, main Bush news would be his new vacation sites, and war with Iraq would not be majorly supported by 65-70% of the masses. Bush is using 911 constantly as a method to remind people and get them to be afraid and, thus, support the President. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 "I'm a Republican and I think this should have been taken care of more than 10 years ago." it's a shame that the President at the time didn't get the chance to do so, or the chance to support revolting Iraqis (before Saddam struck them). "Otherwise, I doubt they'd have a problem with it." Something tells me that the Republicans would either go along with it while grumbling or a few of them would be grilling Gore for being around and being the person to blame. If Gore enacted the Patriot Act, the GOP would be grumbling also. Never underestimate blind partisanship. But when it comes to war in Iraq, I'd prefer the idea of a coup and the killing of Saddam. It's not gonna happen though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted March 7, 2003 By the way, if our government is privy to information we know shit about, doesn't that scare some people that they don't tell us what they know? What if the Bush Administration is actually lying? Since they are privy to so much info, they could easily fool us with the whole "evil threat, supports terrorism" shpiel and just go control their oil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DARRYLXWF Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I agree with everyone that Saddam is sadistic and a menace, however I believe the World should deal with him in a democratic manner. That's the problem - the "world" (almost everyone outside of the US and UK) have shown that they aren't interested in this. Otherwise we would not be in this position today. Whoa, let's not forget Australia here. We've backed and supported every step the US an UK have taken. There's a BIG interest in Iraq all over the country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted March 7, 2003 It's not that they aren't interested, it's just that they would like to see a democratic solution to something like this, rather than go through another war (most likely a glorified four-day battle). (Sorry if I'm responding out of order, but there's been a flurry of activity in this thread recently.) I'd love to see a diplomatic solution. No one really wants a war, me included; it's just that someone of us realize it's a necessary last resort. The UN gave Saddam one last chance to disarm last year, in the unanimously-passed Resolution 1441. If he's willing to disarm voluntarily, great. But considering how many chances he's had, I really doubt that will happen. If Saddam continues to violate the UN resolution, what is the UN supposed to do? Draft another? Fire off a nastygram? At some point, a dictator who keeps thumbing his nose at the world needs to have his hand cut off. I think that time is rapidly approaching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Something tells me that the Republicans would either go along with it while grumbling or a few of them would be grilling Gore for being around and being the person to blame. If Gore enacted the Patriot Act, the GOP would be grumbling also. Never underestimate blind partisanship. Oh, I sure wouldn't be humping Gore's leg - but if he could help put a bullet between Saddam's eyes then I'd give him brownie points. I'm not a fan of Big Brother so if this Patriot Act starts personally pissing me off, I won't hesitate to cry fowl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 7, 2003 War is a regrettable necessity sometimes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 By the way, if our government is privy to information we know shit about, doesn't that scare some people that they don't tell us what they know? What if the Bush Administration is actually lying? Since they are privy to so much info, they could easily fool us with the whole "evil threat, supports terrorism" shpiel and just go control their oil. Hi, Conspiracy Theory - how are you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I think the government keeping some information secret is essential. It's the same with the Media reporting our troop movements. We're gonna wind up with a bunch of dead soldiers because an enemy was watching CNN one day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted March 7, 2003 What they know and what they release to the public is different. Everyone should know that. The public does not need to know every piece of intelligence gathered by American and foreign agencies. The people who get paid to make decisions based on that information should be the ones who see it. What good does it do you or I to know? The more people who know something, the more leaks there are, and the more weak links there are in the chain. Believe me, information being out of the public domain is for the public's own good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 That's the problem - the "world" (almost everyone outside of the US and UK) have shown that they aren't interested in this. Otherwise we would not be in this position today. Whoa, let's not forget Australia here. We've backed and supported every step the US an UK have taken. There's a BIG interest in Iraq all over the country. We appreciate it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Austin3164life Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Not saying this is conspiracy. Please don't let a hypothetical question allow this debate to become a farce. I'm trying to be reasonable. I am not suggesting a conspiracy, but I am surprised at the amount of trust some of you can put into men you don't even know. Politicians are known to be ruthless and pick sides whenever they want to. I just think that if they know so much, why don't they tell us, instead of playing the "Weapons of Mass Destruction, remember 911?" record. With that note, I leave you gentleman. While I don't share some of your political views, I think this was a good discussion, honestly. Hopefully there can be more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Not saying this is conspiracy. Please don't let a hypothetical question allow this debate to become a farce. I'm trying to be reasonable. I am not suggesting a conspiracy, but I am surprised at the amount of trust some of you can put into men you don't even know. Politicians are known to be ruthless and pick sides whenever they want to. I just think that if they know so much, why don't they tell us, instead of playing the "Weapons of Mass Destruction, remember 911?" record. Bush is in a no-win scenario here. We attack Iraq. People say he's only doing it to appease his dad (which is the lamest reason ever to go to war but some have claimed it to be a reason so whatever) ... or we're going to war for oil (again, pretty lame reason to risk American lives) ... or we're going because Saddam is a bad guy and we have to protect ourselves (better reason) ... or we're going to free the Iraqi people (another good reason). I've heard from Bush's speech writer that one of his goals before he took office was to take out Saddam. That didn't necessarily mean via military means - but he saw it as something that could no longer be ignored. Clinton dropped a few bombs here and there but that didn't stop anything so Bush was going to take it to the next step. We can argue his intentions all day long ... but I don't think he's doing this for personal gain. The Bush Administration - especially Bush, Powell, and Rusmfeld - have portrayed themselves to me as people of convictions and I don't see any of them as the types that would send Americans to war and risk their lives without a damn good reason. As far as Vietnam, I don't think the same of LBJ. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Olympic Slam Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I wish the libs would get out of "anti-Bush" mode and actually analyze the war effort and its pros and cons. I'm sick of all the cutsey "he's only doing it to please his daddy" or "he's doing it to put attention away from the economy" crap. Tell me WHY this war is a bad idea! I can name a lot of reasons why I think its a bad idea, but what about you guys that are really against it? I'll start out with a few pros...... Pros - - We can eliminate an evil tyrant and an indirect threat to us - We can show the world and Al-Qaida that 9/11 pissed us off and we're not to be messed with - We can bring some freedom to the Iraqi people (probably a pipedream in the long-run but it sounds good) - We might get some oil out of it - We might be able to use the country as a U.S friendly zone for future conflicts in that part of the world Cons - Ok liberals, this is your chance to shine. Remember, I want GOOD reasons and not just cute little remarks about Bush. I'll even start you all out with two......... - People will die. War is hell - The war and the rebuilding of Iraq will not be cheap. Don't expect a tax cut if Bush keeps spending like a cowboy on pay-day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I've got a question for all the pro war guys on the board, what do you think is going to happen to the region after the war is over? I just want to know why you think this war will make things better rather than worse? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 It won't be better, Zorin. Not initially. The benefits of instituting a democratic government in the region and restoring the power to the people there will manifest over years of rebuilding. We may be much wiser men by the time it's extraordinarily visible. And there are bound to be skirmishes here and there as splinter groups make runs at putting themselves into power and whatknot. It'll take time for things to get better. But in my mind, that possibility of the betterment of the region is better than leaving them under the iron fist of Hussein. In my opinion, at least. I'm sure Tom or someone can lay it out with better points than I. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I've got a question for all the pro war guys on the board, what do you think is going to happen to the region after the war is over? I just want to know why you think this war will make things better rather than worse? One less threat to worry about. Brings democracy into the Arab world. Frees up a lot of oil money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Please don't call us Pro-War. No one is pro-war. The people who support military force understand that it's necessary sometimes. It doesn't mean we like it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Off-topic: I'd like to thank whoever pinned this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted March 7, 2003 Please don't call us Pro-War. No one is pro-war. The people who support military force understand that it's necessary sometimes. It doesn't mean we like it. As I said before- War is a regrettable necessity sometimes. I'm pro going into Iraq but am not pro-war Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I like to think of myself as the guy that created the term "anti-anti-war" ... then I go to Fox News.com and it's plastered all over the place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted March 7, 2003 As I said before- War is a regrettable necessity sometimes. I'm pro going into Iraq but am not pro-war I agree. Saying someone is pro-war is as stupid as saying someone is pro-abortion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest imajackoff? Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I've unsuccessfully been trying to find out what exactly the weapons inspections consist of. On a 1- 10 scale, what is the aggressiveness of the inspection teams? Is there a way to turn the sumbitch all the way up to 11?? Its obviously too easy for Saddam to play a shell game with the current inspection practices, given the size of the country. Perhaps a larger presence of UN forces during inspections and constant spy plane surveillance would ease the process. If proposed as an alternative to war, Saddam would be harder pressed to resist a sort of UN police state during inspections. Resisting such a proposal would give the US more leverage in world popular opinion for going to war. Im just throwing out thoughts. There just has to be a compromise somewhere in between the current inspections and bombing the bejeezus out of innocent people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted March 7, 2003 I believe Saddam protested the use of U.S. U2 spy planes over Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
