War in Iraq

quote:

---

quote:

---

Clear ulterior motives being what? Oil?

---

Yes

---

I was wondering if you might elaborate on this point. I had originally thought that the war must be about oil but the more I thought about it the less sense that made. As best as I can tell there was no problem at all getting oil out of Iraq with Saddam in power. He was perfectly willing to pump and sell his most lucrative natural resource. If the oil wasn't flowing fast enough for us it was because we had imposed an embargo on Iraq.What I still can't figure out is why we are there. The administration must have known that their intelligence on the WMDs was spotty at best otherwise we would have found something by now. I find it hard to believe that Bush was motivated by "his kind heart" since he is perfectly willing to allow dozens of other despotic dictators maintain control of their plots of land. Plus he claimed he wasn't into nation building before he was elected so what is he doing building not one but two nations? I am truly puzzled by this war and this administration.Just my $.02

quote:

---

How about a better way of life where people can live freely without such a man as George Bush? Am I now entitled to bomb you and your family becuase I think this?

---

I see your point, and I agree. But I don't think this comparison is fair, considering Bush is not killing his countrymen, although you might say he is causing all of the causualties we see in Iraq, including our own...

---

The earth is flat.

Yes, Why target Iraq?Aside from the missing Oil reason on Bush's agenda that keeps popping up, Liberation seems to be the main reason for war right now, although opposers of Bush seem to see no liberation, rather death of innocent civilians, not sure where I stand on the Liberation.

---

The earth is flat.

"What liberation is there in Occupied Iraq?"Removal of Saddam Hussien?
Attempts to forge a Democracy in Iraq?

---

The earth is flat.

Wow... Scary is right.

---

The earth is flat.

quote:

---

whatwhatwhaaaaaat?

---

From a recent (last night) debate a republican cited ties of Al Quaeda with Iraq, I'm sorry, I will research this more extensively, (should have came prepared.)

---

The earth is flat.

This is like arguing moral equivalence between the police and the Mafia because both have automatic weapons. IOW, it makes no sense. Did it happen when the Shia had an uprising ? Did it happen when the Kurds had an uprising ? Both brutally crushed by Saddam, including use of WMDs he did in fact have at the time.No, it didn't happen. The UN talked, but took no action.

quote:

---

This is like arguing moral equivalence between the police and the Mafia because both have automatic weapons. IOW, it makes no sense.

---

True. No matter if you are the police or the Mafia, it is in how you implement the weapons that matters. But at some point, national soveriegnty has to mean something or it will end up meaning nothing irregardless of what state you live in. I could point to the fact that the US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons to kill an enemy, but that is a totally different time and different conditions. What I was trying to relate is that the mere presence of WMD's is a poor excuse. Instead, we should look at the propensity to use them. In Saddam's case the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

quote:

---

Did [the UN step in] when the Shia had an uprising ?

---

Nope, because the US was already helping out. This was right after the first Gulf War. What did the US do? We left them holding their dicks in their hands.

quote:

---

Did it happen when the Kurds had an uprising ? Both brutally crushed by Saddam, including use of WMDs he did in fact have at the time.

---

Very true. If I remember correctly there was pressure from Turkey to let Iraq wipe them out. In fact, Turkey set up border police to stop the Kurds from fleeing Iraq. Needless to say, the Kurds are a complex problem, but the UN should have stepped in long ago. Although, we did have the northern No-Fly Zone which did help but the solution will be more difficult than simply flying planes over N. Iraq. The real solution in the long run is to split up the country into three provinces (Shia's in the south and Kurds in the north) and split the oil money between the three provinces according to population density. The borders of Iraq are really just a contrivance that was put into place after British occupation (1910's IIRC).

Actually, I'm more afraid to see a news headline in the near future that reads "Osama captured by our victorious and righteous leader: Bush". His poll counts took a spike straight up when they captured Sadam. I'm more afraid that they've already captured Osama and that they're saving it for election week.

---

The Laminator

​

So you'd rather see Americans harmed and terrorists on the loose than Bush re-elected ? Why would the capture of OBL be a bad thing? You'd rather we let him run around until Kerry can take the credit ?

Uh... I don't know where you got that idea. In fact, the capture of Osama will probably cause more Americans abroad to be harmed than usual. It's not such a bad thing. However, the same unwashed masses that blamed Bush for the economic crises will embrace him for the capture, even though in no direct way did he cause the stock market free fall or will he cause the capture of Osama. The unwashed masses can embrace Kerry if they want, but I'm not going to embrace either of them. I will embrace the men and women that actually capture the guy, thank you.

---

The Laminator

​

Obviously no one wants that. In fact, that's the point - relecting Bush means Americans harmed and terrorists on the loose.

If you think Kerry means a more effective war on terror, please tell me why. Bush has certainly made mistakes. However, I've yet to see any evidence that Kerry's approach would be more effective.We've tried the UN, and involving the French. It didn't work.

I am interested in why everyone hates Bush so much. Care to clue me in? (anyone, not just Crashfrog) Reasons besides the choice to go to war?This message has been edited by prophex, 06-23-2004 12:25 AM

---

The earth is flat.

You don't think it's possible to disagree with a politician's position and actions, and therefore advocate for his opponent in the election, without hating him?Who said anything about hating Bush? I disagree with his actions, and I think he's the wrong man for the job. What part of that requires hatred?