Does this mean war??

[AirForceRocks]

I understand Eros's concerns. He sees George Bush as trying to start a war strictly out of vengence. I honestly don't understand why he sees it this way, but if I had that point of veiw, I would be screaming too.

I honestly haven't seen anyone give any sort of evidence as to why it would be out of vengeance. I see all sorts of posts on this board about how Bush is doing it for oil, or to avenge his father, blah, blah, blah. But ask for evidence, and the answer you get is "Well, that's just the way I feel".

Ask me why I think we should attack, and I can give a page full of reasons, backed up by Hussein's own actions over the past 12 years. All I get in return is "Well, just because".

I would ask of all those opposed to military action, what should we do if Hussein refuses to abide by the UN resolutions? If we don't force compliance, hasn't the UN lost its credibility?

And if attacking unilaterally is bad, what is so magical about a UN imprimatur that would make war OK?

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

the whole idea of war scares me. I dread going to war. I dread not going.

Saddam is clearly a danger to us, and to the world. Saddam supports terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam has been aggressive in the past.

but I think Bush is too eager to go to war. I think he's got an agenda based on personal issues arising from the events of 12 years ago.

and I've got friends buying gas masks and building bomb shelters in Tel Aviv in anticipation of what will happen if there's a war.

 

[EROS]

Originally posted by TennVolTony
Michelle...in a sense we have been attacked. We were attacked on 9/11... Don't for a MINUTE think Saddam didn't help that effort. He DID...

Sorry, TONY ....Since you're always getting on me about EMPTY rhetoric, I would respond: If the shoe fits, WEAR IT .

Hey, George and his cronies have not been able to uncover ANY evidence that Saddam participated in 9-11 or contributed to its planning or financing. Trust me, if the Administration could produce ANY documentation of his involvement, it WOULD. They want to villify him for 9-11 just like you do. The fact remains that he's a convenient ARAB target to kill in the "absence" of OSAMA .

AFR, my simple suggestion is to let the U.N. Inspectors do their job. There's no question that Saddam is lying in the 12,000 pages of documentation. Should we start the KILLING because he's a LIAR????? Should our brave men and women in the military die because he's a LIAR????? If there are WMD, they'll be found and can be NEUTRALIZED........we destroyed tons of weapons during the last inspection phase.

If we can DISARM Saddam without starting the KILLING, haven't we accomplished our goals???????

Orrrrrrrrr, do Americans simply want their

BLOODTHIRST over 9-11 quenched.....

 

[AirForceRocks]

Saddam is clearly a danger to us, and to the world. Saddam supports terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam has been aggressive in the past.

OK, I agree so far...

but I think Bush is too eager to go to war. I think he's got an agenda based on personal issues arising from the events of 12 years ago.

...and you lost me here. Why do you just *assume* that President Bush has a personal agenda here? What is that you just can't bring yourself to believe that President Bush sees the same danger you do, but since he is in the position of being responsible for the security of the United States, he feels that he must act to protect the country?

The whole "Yeah, Saddam is dangerous, but since I think President Bush's motives aren't pure enough, I don't think we should stop Hussein" just makes no sense to me.

and I've got friends buying gas masks and building bomb shelters in Tel Aviv in anticipation of what will happen if there's a war.

And yet the Israeli government supports our position, do they not?

 

[WDWHound]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I honestly haven't seen anyone give any sort of evidence as to why it would be out of vengeance. I see all sorts of posts on this board about how Bush is doing it for oil, or to avenge his father, blah, blah, blah. But ask for evidence, and the answer you get is "Well, that's just the way I feel".

Ask me why I think we should attack, and I can give a page full of reasons, backed up by Hussein's own actions over the past 12 years. All I get in return is "Well, just because".

AFR: I agree with you, and I would like to see some evidence of the vengence claims myself (can anyone help us out on this?). But I also understand that the US has not (and perhaps can not for security reasons) presented much evidence to back its claim that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Personally, I feel that Bush is on the right track, but then again, I also trust Bush.

To be honest, I feel that many of the claims made here are unjustified and tainted by political offiliations. Still, an invasion of another country is a significant decision. I can understand people wanting more proof that such a move is justified. The question is, can we ever provide enough proof to make everyone happy?

 

[AirForceRocks]

If there are WMD, they'll be found and can be NEUTRALIZED........we destroyed tons of weapons during the last inspection phase.

And what do you suggest we do about the ones that the inspectors don't find? Should we just ask Saddam where they are, and wait for him to lead us to them? I don't think so, since you agree that he has lied and continues to lie.

Should we start the KILLING because he's a LIAR????? Should our brave men and women in the military die because he's a LIAR?????

If that constitutes a material breach, then yes. Remember, the UN Security Council agreed to the rules on this one - a material breach is grounds for military action. Who will you blame if the UNSC agrees that the lies constitute a material breach? Will that still be President Bush's fault?

 

[raidermatt]

Saddam is clearly a danger to us, and to the world. Saddam supports terrorism in the Middle East. Saddam has been aggressive in the past.

but I think Bush is too eager to go to war. I think he's got an agenda based on personal issues arising from the events of 12 years ago.

I'm sure you are sincere in your beliefs Briar Rose, but I think this is exactly what AFR was referring to.

There are plenty of reasons to act in a firm manner, using increasing pressure until the situation is resolved.

Yet because there is ANOTHER potential reason, revenge, people focus on that.

Maybe Bush does want revenge. I honestly don't know. But even if he does, as long as his actions are based on evidence and are appropriate to the situtation, what difference does it make?

We've fought entire wars before where many wanted revenge. It doesn't mean the other reasons for fighting the war were not justified.

If Bush is right and Iraq is preparing to strike at us, thousands of our own people may die if we wait too long.

And Eros, before you post something about Iraqi lives being just as important as American lives, remember that in this scenario, more Iraqis would die as well. More PEOPLE would die.

 

[AirForceRocks]

?). But I also understand that the US has not (and perhaps can not for security reasons) presented much evidence to back its claim that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

Many people don't understand the idea that not all information can be released to the public because to do so would compromise the means used to gather that material. I don't know if that is the case in this situation, but it is very possible.

Also, many people tend to think that they have the "right as an American citizen" to see every bit of intelligence gathered. Sorry, but that's a non-starter. Classified material is meant for those that have clearance and a need to know. That leaves out all but a relative handful of people in the United States.

 

[AirForceRocks]

And Eros, before you post something about Iraqi lives being just as important as American lives, remember that in this scenario, more Iraqis would die as well. More PEOPLE would die.

And quite frankly, while we should always strive to minimize civilian casualites, the first priority of the President of the United States is the safety of AMERICAN citizens, not Iraqi citizens.

 

[raidermatt]

If there are WMD, they'll be found and can be NEUTRALIZED........

We can't even find half the bodies buried in the Nevada desert near Las Vegas. How is anybody going to find all of the WMD in the Iraqi desert? Or palaces? Or hospitals?

Do you really think he hasn't figured out how to keep some of them from being found?

Should we start the KILLING because he's a LIAR????? Should our brave men and women in the military die because he's a LIAR?????

If its about WMD, then YES! He has proven that he will use such weapons. If he has them, and we know we can't take all of them away, how can we not do something about it?

we destroyed tons of weapons during the last inspection phase.

And we missed may as well. And now he has had years to re-group and figure out how to hide them better. That's why the UN required full disclosure. What part of full disclosure is not clear?

If we can DISARM Saddam without starting the KILLING, haven't we accomplished our goals???????

If we could, sure, but we cannot completey disarm him with a few inspectors trying to beat him at 3-card monty... Besides, if we actually do get close to finding much, he'll kick them out faster than you can say "Heidi Klum". Or worse. Its not like he hasn't used human shields before. And those were his OWN people.

 

[WDWHound]

OK Eros amd raidermatt, answer this question for me. If Bush has proof, how should he provide it? Should he give the proof to UN weapon's inspectors? Do you honestly beleive that Saddam would not have that information before the inspectors could act on it? Saddam almost certainly has spies within the UN (if he doesn't, he is totally inept). By the time the inspections took place , there is a good chance there would be nothing left to find.

Should we announce our proof to the world via the press? Again. by the time the announcement could be verified, Saddam could easily move his weapons.

I understand you want proof that Saddam is a threat, so tell me how should we can provide it without looking like fools and strenthening Saddam's case? I am trying hard to see both sides of this, but it would also help me a great deal if you could offer proof of your opinion that Bush is out for vengence here.

 

[EROS]

This is my last post on this thread. Some moderator/Webmaster who is high on Pixie Dust is going to take one look and have it "turfed" to the Debate Board. After all, CB members should never disagree. Right???? My thread "BUSH........Brave???....Courageous........or PATHETIC" was handled in this fashion.

OK, so Saddam is a liar. So are countless leaders of our enemies. I HOPE that the U.N. will keep its eye on the attempt to DISARM him........not simply "prove" that he's a liar and let Bomber George start the KILLING.

I agree with BriarRose. This "fight" has become "personal" with Bush. As long as the inspectors are unimpeded, we can neutralize Saddam without the KILLING,..........but then Georgie wouldn't have his POUND OF FLESH.........AND ........"REGIME CHANGE" .........

 

[AirForceRocks]

This "fight" has become "personal" with Bush.

If you have proof of this, then show it, and demonstrate what fools the rest of us are. Otherwise, it is just personal opinion about a man you dislike versus evidence.

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

during the Gulf War, Israel was under attack from Iraqi SCUDS, and did nothing because the US asked them not to take action. the reason was that Israeli action would have adversely affected the coaltion built by President Bush. the Israeli position in 2002 is different -- if there's a war, and Israel comes under attack, Israel will fight back. that does not mean Israel "supports" a war with Iraq.

as for President Bush -- I was of the opinion during the campaign of 2000 that Bush was looking for an issue to justify a war with Iraq.

North Korea and Iran pose at least as great a danger to us as Iraq, if not more so. there's no link between Bid Laden and Iraq that we know of. yet Iraq has been the focus of the Bush administration.

so I remain undecided about this war. it scares me to think about it.

 

[WDWHound]

Eros, before you stop posting, I would really appreciate it if you could answer my question. How can Bush present any evidence in such a way that it can be proven before Saddam hides the proof? I doubt the mods will knock you for that (nut then I don't think they would have stepped in in the first place) and I am genuinely interested in your response.

To everyone else who beleives this is a personal issue for Bush, I honestly don't see the proof of that. Can you elaborate?

One thing we all can agree on, these are frightening times.

 

[AirForceRocks]

as for President Bush -- I was of the opinion during the campaign of 2000 that Bush was looking for an issue to justify a war with Iraq.

Sorry, I didn't even hear Bush mention Iraq during the campaign, let alone hear him talk about a war with Iraq. Is there a link somewhere I can see about that?

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

no proof, WDWHound, just a feeling going back prior to 9/11 that Bush was looking for an issue to go back to Iraq.

 

[raidermatt]

OK Eros amd raidermatt, answer this question for me. If Bush has proof, how should he provide it?

That's a good question and it depends on what type of information it is and how it was obtained. In other words, whom it would harm if it were disclosed.

The only thing I think that must be done is SOME of the evidence must be shared with leaders of other countries. I know this is tricky, and somewhat dangerous. However, while I feel no need to provide proof to those who refuse to even believe 9/11 happened, I do think we need to share something with leaders of reasonable countries, particularly those on the Security Council.

That said, I'm not sure what you were implying by directing your question at only Eros and myself, since about the only thing Eros and I agree on with respect to this topic is that we don't WANT to see people die.

 

[WillyJ]

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein plotted to assainate former President Bush, W's father, during a visit to the Middle East after he left office. .

So, that is the reason a lot of people see this as something more personal with now Preident Bush rather then something that is 100% just a matter of national security. . I sure wouldn't blame George for holding a grudge, but I think the argument is that there are a lot of other countries who pose a greater or immediate threat and he doesn't seem at all anxious to engage them at this point in time.. .

I'll reiterate that I have no clue whether an attack on Iraq at this time is such a necessity; personally I hope Bush shows the same patience he showed in the Afghani situation and waits until the UN agrees with him.. Iraq and Saddam has commited atrocities, but there has been no proof they were behind the 9/11 attack- there has been proof that Saudi Arabia was behind it, and personally I feel like if he wants an excuse to attack someone, that's where he should be looking..

And just a reminder; let's not be naming individuals while stating our opinions-

 

[Briar Rose 7457]

I don't have a link, Brenda. I'll look around to see if there's anything still around from 2 years ago.