The impending war with Iraq

[strathyboy]

A few days ago, Bush threatened war with Iraq unless Saddam allows in UN weapons inspectors. Saddam agrees to allow the inspectors in unconditionally. Bush then accuses Saddam of giving in in order to gain time to hide his weapons.
Is Bush interested in peace?

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by strathyboy
A few days ago, Bush threatened war with Iraq unless Saddam allows in UN weapons inspectors. Saddam agrees to allow the inspectors in unconditionally. Bush then accuses Saddam of giving in in order to gain time to hide his weapons.
Is Bush interested in peace?

No, Bush is not interested in peace.

However, to be fair to Bush the trustworthiness of Saddam on this issue is questionable.

However, on the flip side yet again the only way to test his trustworthiness is to send in inspectors. Supposedly the inspectorate team will take about 8 weeks to be created, equipped and briefed. Why aren't they all ready to go if peace is even an option?

Bush wants war to boost the republicans chances in the congressionals. There is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11.

 

[BigEd]

I think part of the problem is Iraq in the past when threatened said they would allow inspectors, but when the inspectors arrive Iraq totally abstructs the process. So do we belive Iraq or not??

 

[TheBear]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

But as usual, our orally challenged leader was not able to get the entire phrase out of his mouth. He had to correct himself on the first half of the phrase, and forgot about the last half of the phrase.

 

[Gerry]

orrally challenged

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Like Scott Ritter said, we should take this opportunity and send in every inspector there is. We won't allow Saddam to hide his weapons, or we'll have so many people that he can't hide them.

 

[Sky]

Bush is not interested in peace, he never has been interested in peace, and he never will be interested in peace.

 

[VirginBlack]

No, Bush is not interested in peace with the Iraq. And why should he? He declared war to all the terrorists and their supporters after the attack at the WTC. So, if the Iraq has anything to do with this, he, or better formulated, the USA are already in war with the Iraq.

 

[Susan]

Well, I think Bush is interested in peace, but it is a no-win situation.

We COULD leave Saddam alone until he gets the bomb, and then deal with whatever the results are: a city in Israel or in the US turned into radioactive ruins.

Or we could, as we probably will, attack Iraq, but that might set off a chain reaction among the Islamists or Jihad Muslims or whatever you want to call them, plunging the world into war.

There's no peaceful way out.

 

[wildernesse]

If Bush were really interested in Iraq because of its role in terrorism, why don't I hear anything about attacking Saudi Arabia because of its role in terrorism?

I don't think we should allow Iraq to prohibit inspectors or disobey other parts of its agreements with the UN--but I think we should be able to make a good case to our allies about what we want and influence them more to our side. Instead, we just pretend to work through the system and go out and do whatever we want. What a great example.

--tibac

 

[Sky]

There's only one reason Bush wants to attack Iraq and is fweinds with Saudi Arabia----OIL.

 

[Morat]

Susan: I have asked you this before, and since you've said it again, I will ask again. You stated:

We COULD leave Saddam alone until he gets the bomb, and then deal with whatever the results are: a city in Israel or in the US turned into radioactive ruins.

   Why would Saddam Hussein nuke either the US or Isreal? Either country has enough nukes to turn Iraq to glass.

   Are you claiming MAD doesn't work anymore? Are you claiming Saddam is so insane and suicidal that it wouldn't work on him? (If so, you have a hard row to hoe. He didn't use his biological or chemical agents when he lost most of his army because of a threat of nukes).

  You've made this claim several times. I want to hear your reasoning.

 

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Sky
There's only one reason Bush wants to attack Iraq and is fweinds with Saudi Arabia----OIL.

I can think of other reasons:

1. To divert our attention off the lameness and weakness of his administration in areas other than war. As long as he keeps our attention on terrorism and danger, we won't see that the economy is weak and that important issues are slipping through the cracks.

2. He wants to avenge his father's reputation by finishing off Hussein. George Bush Sr always said that his big regret was in not getting Saddam Hussein out of power. George W's intent is to finish what his dad started.

 

[Sky]

True. Bush has to be the worst president in U.S. history. He destroyed our economy, basically nullified the Constitution and Bill of Rights with his "homeland security" bill, and is abut to plunge us into another pointless war. This is exactly why I'm leaving the US for good.

By the way, NEVER vote Republican. If you must vote, vote for the Green Party or the Democrats.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by Sky
True. Bush has to be the worst president in U.S. history.

Naw, Nixon, Filmore and Harding were just as bad, in different ways.

He destroyed our economy, basically nullified the Constitution and Bill of Rights with his "homeland security" bill, and is abut to plunge us into another pointless war. This is exactly why I'm leaving the US for good.

The economy was bound to turn down. It has nothing to do with Bush. Presidents don't have as much control over that as they think.

You're right about his apparent disdain for the Bill of Rights, though.

 

[Sky]

Yes.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

Reagan was by far the worst president in U.S. history. This man made war without congressional consent, lied under oath, sold weapons to the enemy, quintupled the national debt (1 to 5 trillion bucks in eight years), ignored the environment, bought 600 battleships that we didn't even need, made hundreds more nukes, even after arms-reduction talks had begun decades earlier, relaxed gun control laws, and did just about everything else Republican. Bush doesn't have anything on Reagan.

By the way, Dubya isn't even really president. But you knew that.

 

[Warrior4Jah]

*ugh* Well ya know what, never vote LIBERAL or DEMOCRAT!

1. I suppose we should repeat history time and time again, like we did with Malosovich, like we did with Hitler, and just wait until Saddam already kills masses of human lives. Then we can go and get him, only then we will have missed the point. We will have allowed him to aquire nukes, we will have allowed him to kill thousands.

2. Why are we not attacking Iraq? Because our economy will suffer more. Because our military will suffer more. Becuse we dont have all our allies backing us. I for one am willing to make the sacrifice, im not willing to lose masses of innocents at the hands of a madman and neither shoud you.

3. Nah, Saddam isnt a threat. Remember waht Scott Ritter said about Iraq poses no threat? But dont you also remember when Scott Ritter was urging us in 98 to attack Iraq? Remember when he told us before that Iraq had made no attempts at disarmament? Remember when Scott was paid 400,000 $ by the Iraq Government to make a documentary on Iraq and why we shouldnt attack them? I have no intentions of trusting the word of Scott Ritter.

4. The US wants no peace, Iraq already said they would allow weapons inspectors in! But what about when he tried this before when his back against the wall? Are we to be forever trusting of Saddam Hussein? I think history has proven that Saddam Hussein is the least trustworthy person. Are we doomed to repeat our mistakes time and time again until finally we get suckered in the head and realize "Hey, this time no mroe lives are gonna be lost."

5. Bush is just out for revenge, he jsut wants the oil. So the fact that Hussein is a lunatic about to aquire weapons of mass destruction and kill thousands has nothing to do with it? The fact that Saddam Hussein keeps his people in an oppresive, do-what-I-say-or-die, state has nothing to do with it? THE FACt that Saddam is funding for suicide terrorist attacks and supporting their families has NOTHING to do with it?

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
Reagan was by far the worst president in U.S. history. This man made war without congressional consent, lied under oath, sold weapons to the enemy, quintupled the national debt (1 to 5 trillion bucks in eight years), ignored the environment, bought 600 battleships that we didn't even need, made hundreds more nukes, even after arms-reduction talks had begun decades earlier, relaxed gun control laws, and did just about everything else Republican. Bush doesn't have anything on Reagan.

By the way, Dubya isn't even really president. But you knew that.

Yes, the globalist hated this man. He set the plan for world government back at least 25 years. GOD Bless Mr. Reagan.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
Reagan was by far the worst president in U.S. history. This man made war without congressional consent, lied under oath, sold weapons to the enemy, quintupled the national debt (1 to 5 trillion bucks in eight years), ignored the environment, bought 600 battleships that we didn't even need, made hundreds more nukes, even after arms-reduction talks had begun decades earlier, relaxed gun control laws, and did just about everything else Republican. Bush doesn't have anything on Reagan.

By the way, Dubya isn't even really president. But you knew that.

They all are horrible. Can anyone remember a president who never seriously violated principles of justice?