Quoting:


I also feel that GWB is only doing this to boost his popularity up more than Congress if fighting against it to boost theirs.  As you said, apparently more people are for than against.  
End Quote

I believe he is doing it because he trully believes that America would be a safer place if Sadam was out of Iraq, I don't believe that any president would risk going to war just to boost their popularity.

Quoting:
I hope you read my reply to your PPP thread re the board being "boring" lately. I won't comment on my views on this subject because I came to this message board to get away from such serious topics, but if you don't think King George would "risk war" to further a political agenda, then you haven't studied much history, and you are as in the dark as the rest of that "68%". ???
End Quote

So because you don't like political debates that means they shouldn't be posted? I did read your reply but we have had many debates on here without it turning violent (and one major one where it did).  If you find this subject boring don't reply.  

 To say I am not going to respond, then give fuel to argue is wrong.  If you are not going to respond don't say anything.  Personally I think your in dark and the 68% are correct.  Maybe if we had acted when the USS COLE got bombed the trade centers would still be standing.  Maybe if we do not act now a major US city will be destroyed.  then you would be here claiming "King Bush" didn't act and look what happened.

Quoting:
We've got the entire UN telling us "no no no" and much of Congress agreeing, perhaps Bush should reconsider.  


End Quote

There are more congressmen who agree than dissagree it is just the major oposition is trying to drum up suport for the election.  The UN hates America and is aginst everything American. I personally wish the UN had never been created.

Quoting:
I believe he is doing it because he trully believes that America would be a safer place if Sadam was out of Iraq, I don't believe that any president would risk going to war just to boost their popularity.
End Quote

I think Bush Jr. is doing it to boost his popularity.  We should be going after Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein.  Bush can't find Bin Laden, so he's going into Iraq to divert attention away from the Bin Laden problem.

If Clinton tried this kind of duck and chuck tactics, the Republicans would be all over him.  Infact, Clinton was accused of it many times, but Bush is getting a free ride by the media and the redneck conservatives for doing the same damn thing.

Quoting:


If Clinton tried this kind of duck and chuck tactics, the Republicans would be all over him.  Infact, Clinton was accused of it many times, but Bush is getting a free ride by the media and the redneck conservatives for doing the same damn thing.
End Quote

The Media has never been against the democrates.  You can find out more about liberal media bias here: http://www.mrc.org/

Just because  a person chooses to be a "Conservative" does not make them a redneck.  

Quoting:The UN hates America and is aginst everything American. I personally wish the UN had never been created.
End Quote

Okay, that's just juvenile.

The thing is, we simply do not have enough justification to declare war on Iraq.  We don't have any real evidence that says Iraq will attack and besides that, war is (or at least should be) a last resort tactic, something you try when you have no other option.

If this war goes through, we'll be attacking a man who has f*cking CHEMICAL WEAPONS.  Lives WILL be lost.

Quoting:


Okay, that's just juvenile.

The thing is, we simply do not have enough justification to declare war on Iraq.  We don't have any real evidence that says Iraq will attack and besides that, war is (or at least should be) a last resort tactic, something you try when you have no other option.

End Quote

It was a little juvenile, wasn't it?  ;)

The Bush administration claimes that they have evidence that link Iraq to Al Queda.  But most of the 9/11 terrorist were from Saudi Arabia, and we are not declaring war on them so it does make me wonder.

Quoting:
I think that he should have been ousted at the end of the Gulf War.  I never figured out why Bush let him stay in.End Quote

The US brief during the Gulf War was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. At no time was Bush given a mandate by the UN or any of the allies to actually remove Saddam or to invade Iraq for the purpose of removing its government. At least that's the way I understand it.

Quoting:
I believe he is doing it because he truly believes that America would be a safer place if Sadam was out of Iraq, I don't believe that any president would risk going to war just to boost their popularity.
End Quote

Keep the faith, brother.  You have more of it than I do.

Quoting:
I think that he should have been ousted at the end of the Gulf War.  I never figured out why Bush let him stay in.
End Quote

...to give his boy something to do when he became president?  ;-)

Quoting:
He is truly disturbed and needs to be taken out of the office.  He is a real danger to the world, not just the US.
End Quote

However you view it, invading another country because you don't like the ruler is a very dodgy precedent to set: GWB scares the shit out of me, but I'm not talking of invading the US to try and oust him.  Not to mention the monumental double-standards between how Iraq and Israel are being treated at the moment...

But it's more than a little bit asinine to demand the return of the weapons inspectors, then when the Iraqis kowtow and say "yes", to follow this up with "That;s not enough, we're going to bomb them anyway"

Phil

Quoting:


There are more congressmen who agree than dissagree it is just the major oposition is trying to drum up suport for the election.  The UN hates America and is aginst everything American. I personally wish the UN had never been created.
End Quote

HERE HERE!  (or is it, HEAR HEAR!)

UN out of US, US out of UN

Quoting:


Okay, that's just juvenile.

The thing is, we simply do not have enough justification to declare war on Iraq.  We don't have any real evidence that says Iraq will attack and besides that, war is (or at least should be) a last resort tactic, something you try when you have no other option.

If this war goes through, we'll be attacking a man who has f*cking CHEMICAL WEAPONS.  Lives WILL be lost.
End Quote

a)  Why juvenile?  Why the name-calling?  It's the truth and even if it weren't, it's our opinion.  Everyone's opinion is acceptable, correct?  Or is that just a platitude?

b)  How do you know?  Are you in NSA?

c)  And we don't have chemical weapons?  A well-prepared attack will pretty much eliminate that threat.  Additionally, do we know that they have the capability to launch to the other side of the world?  Sometimes you have to step up to the plate w/bullies instead of waiting for them to kill thousands AT ONCE.  Apparently no-one can equal the bulliness of Hitler - the 1 guy everyone loves to hate - but plenty exist like him.  Look what happened, when he had the capability.


Sorry for my edginess, but this stuff really irks me.  I get tired of America being kicked and accused of being cruel and evil and just plain WRONG all the time when the monsters are elsewhere and we're so damn nice.  And it never bugs me more than by Americans.  Esp. when it's 50% of Americans.  Sorry, it really, really ticks me off after hearing it all my life.

Quoting:
I get tired of America being kicked and accused of being cruel and evil and just plain WRONG all the time when the monsters are elsewhere and we're so damn nice. End Quote

I'm sorry to disabuse you of your kind of quaint notions, but "we're so damn nice", while it may describe even a majority of the population, does not remotely hold true of the US foreign policy: the US has a history of supporting some really bad guys when it suits them (where do you think Saddam got most of his weapons in the first place?); the perception you seem to have that the UN is anti-american probably comes from the way the US tries to ignore and override the views of the rest of the world, so they get pissed off with it.

I could go on, but I'd probably alienate half the members of this place ;-)

Phil

Quoting:I could go on, but I'd probably alienate half the members of this place ;-)

Phil
End Quote

Yeah, Phil, you probably would.. ;D Go do my lyrics quiz now.... ;)

Quoting:
Go do my lyrics quiz now.... ;)
End Quote

...if you insist - I have this terrible problem saying "no"... ;-)

Phil

Quoting:
Excuse me for ever sticking up for my country.  God forbid anyone sticks up for the US.  Just look at this MB.  That'll give you an idea of how much Americans, not to mention non-Americans, are always denigrating the US - today's world power, or yesterday's diminutive rebellious nobody.

I think it only takes common sense to see the US has been damn good - as deToqueville once said, America is great but only because it is good.  (I hope we remain good, although I myself have doubts about the future.)  Anyone who actually thinks it's been evil even in the remotest, tiniest sense is....well, I won't say it.  Using the philosophy of the moral relativists who infest this country now, it's been much better than others, and much better than it could be.  It's no understatement to say the US could blow up half the world if it wanted to.

Go ahead and say its policies haven't been perfect.  Whose have?  Certainly I'd say if anything, policies have been stupid sometimes, but when were they ever truly evil?  What would you have done differently - esp. as a sovereign nation?  Sometimes sides have to be chosen.  Sometimes that means being in bed w/unsavory characters; I'd rather not but sometimes you're against the wall.  My un-favorite is USSR in WWII both for brutality and relative strength; Stalin was no flower child.

And let me also remind all that we are all sovereign nations.  What others think outside the border should matter little; and I will say in our case it matters almost not at all, because frankly, we have been so good.  Frankly, it's because we differed from the get-go that we're in the position we are.  And frankly, I like it - overall, except the guilt-ridden self-flaggellation and incremental rights-repealing that comes from being spoiled rotten.

So forgive me for my pride and love and passion for the place that bore me.  But after all, that's JMO - and all opinions matter and are just as valid in the relativist's world, correct?    ;)

I will try to shut up on this subject; I'm sure I'm already in trouble.
End Quote

Well put!  I agree with you totally!  

Quoting:


(where do you think Saddam got most of his weapons in the first place?);



Phil
End Quote

This is a lie.  Liberals (and I use that term loosly because they don't stand for liberty) have been saying this for years, it has yet to be proven.

Quoting:


If you don't support the war that is your right as an American not to suport it.  however, A Blatent example of anti-americanism today was a certain democratic senator going over to Iraq and calling Bush A liar.  Imagine if certain senators had gone and talked to Hitler first. This guy is not our friend he has mass murdered his own people, and he may very soon have the ability to murder Americans.  
End Quote

Okay.  I won't shut up.  
What senator are you talking about?
In 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich pact with Hitler, guaranteeing "peace in our time."  No one, not even his bitterest opponents, questioned Chamberlain's patriotism.  
No one is saying Hussein is a nice guy.  I don't think anyone questions his development of weapons of mass destruction, or his ruthless willingness to use them.  What is being questioned is the wisdom of going at him, with most of the world in opposition, instead of going the UN inspector route.

You want to know what's scarier, to me, than the Iraqi threat?  The five ounces of weapon grade uranium seized in Turkey last week.  Hussein isn't the only bogey man out there.  

Quoting:


Okay.  I won't shut up.  
What senator are you talking about?
In 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich pact with Hitler, guaranteeing "peace in our time."  No one, not even his bitterest opponents, questioned Chamberlain's patriotism.  
No one is saying Hussein is a nice guy.  I don't think anyone questions his development of weapons of mass destruction, or his ruthless willingness to use them.  What is being questioned is the wisdom of going at him, with most of the world in opposition, instead of going the UN inspector route.

You want to know what's scarier, to me, than the Iraqi threat?  The five ounces of weapon grade uranium seized in Turkey last week.  Hussein isn't the only bogey man out there.  
End Quote

The reason the Un inspector route is not a wise choice is because we tried that, and it failed.  We Know Sadam is a liar, and the Inspections he and the UN will negotiate now, will not be the inspections they recieve.  His willingness to let inspectors back in so far have been a Joke (You can't check Hospitals or schools, or Palaces).  As for the world being oppose, it is not the worlds war on terror, it is America's.  The world is going to oppose us then be right back the next week accepting foriegn aide.    As for the Uranium, they are not sure if it was wepons grade yet. It may have been found in Turkey, but it was heading to Iraq.

Quoting:
http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02092749.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

Here's a link to site reporting on Colin Powell's and Henry Kissenger's testimony before Congress on Sept 27.  They both favor stringent inspection backed with a military option.  That is the only way it is going to happen.
End Quote

I agree with a lot of what they said, but  one thing to relize about powell and Co. is that made his career off of the first desert storm,  so he doesn't want us going back there and finding out what a half ass job they did the first time.  The "desert storm buddies" all say the same thing.  I do not believe it is the only way it is going to happen. Powell works for the President and will stick behind him when the time comes.

- With that i am going to bed, It was nice debating with you Steve_H_2002. Reply if you want but I wont be able to answer it till tomorow night.

Quoting:
 When did supporting an attack on Saddam become the same thing as being a patriotic American?  When did questioning the wisdom of an Iraqi attack become anti-Americanism?
End Quote

As I tried to say elsewhere, this is not the point.  The point is the usual suspects always seem to denigrate the US no matter what the case.  They seem incapable of granting any goodness to their own country and I have yet to see anyone who says "don't attack Iraq" who doesn't fit this description.  That's what I'm sick of.  Not the questioning of this issue; it's the constant haranguing over and over and over w/never a positive sentiment that gets my goat.  If they can do it at all, it has to be pried out of them.  I've been around long enough to see this is the case.  Certain Americans can never get enough self-flaggellation.  And worse, it's 50% of the population.    :(

Quoting:

Great. Let's have a war. Let's send our finest young men and women to their deaths in a foreign country to remove a perceived threat, leave young families without fathers, mothers without sons. Let's extricate a tinpot dictator, leave his country in turmoil for decades as the various factions and parties that remain fight for control of what's left while the rest of us stand around with our arms folded and say "Well... THIS wasn't supposed to happen... What do we do know? Let's just walk away. It's always worked before."
End Quote

Yep.  A lose-lose situation.  Sad, isn't it?

I guess what it needs is a bunch of (hmm, let me think, Libyan-sponsored?) terrorists to take out Saddam... would that work???

Phil

Quoting:
Canada. Freaking Canada is protesting this plan, and really, what more is Canada than America Jr.?
End Quote

Quoting:
I was wondering if I should put this or not but I want to say it.....He's not really buging us right now so why are we buging him......arn't we "taking care of buisness" already?
End Quote

Besides the fact that the man is a psycho nut job?   ;)

The terms of the Gulf War were that he would allow inspectors to look for weapons and the like periodically.  For a while he would not let them in at all, now he is dictating where they can look.  Pretty suspicious if you ask me.  It would be easy to move the stuff to say a school and not let inspectors search there.  (and that is one of the places he said no to.  During the Gulf War he hid among civilians so that we would not bomb him in order to do away with him so I wouldn't put this past him, either.)   I think that the man just needs to be taken out.  

Quoting:


Okay.  I won't shut up.  
What senator are you talking about?
In 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich pact with Hitler, guaranteeing "peace in our time."  No one, not even his bitterest opponents, questioned Chamberlain's patriotism.  

End Quote

You mean the guy that underestimated hitler, then got booed by his own party when he spoke In front of the Parliment, then resigned in shame?  That guy?  He was a real model to follow, glad to see senator Mcdermit is following his lead, maybe the voters of washington state will boo him out of office.

History never repeats. I tell myself before I go to sleep  

Quoting:



As I tried to say elsewhere, this is not the point.  The point is the usual suspects always seem to denigrate the US no matter what the case.  They seem incapable of granting any goodness to their own country and I have yet to see anyone who says "don't attack Iraq" who doesn't fit this description.  That's what I'm sick of.  Not the questioning of this issue; it's the constant haranguing over and over and over w/never a positive sentiment that gets my goat.  If they can do it at all, it has to be pried out of them.  I've been around long enough to see this is the case.  Certain Americans can never get enough self-flaggellation.  And worse, it's 50% of the population.    :(
End Quote

I wasn't directly attacking what you wrote, OnLine... but, since we're both exercised about it.
The 50% over here get damned tired of having our patriotism questioned every time we raise a doubt; we get tired of our "Why attack Saddam now?" with a variation on "My country right or wrong."  So we shovel the ugly facts at them... we weaned that rat ba$tard and gave him his first bang bang toys, we continued to sell him military weapons after he poison gassed the Kurds in '88.  We don't throw these facts out because we hate our country or like to punish ourselves -- we throw them out because seem to reflect an uncomfortable level of official hypocrisy and cynicism.  We throw them out because they are facts, no matter how they make us squirm.  

Grant the United States goodness?  Okay.  Two hundred plus years of democracy.  Our dedication to the four freedoms.  A population who has been willing, throughout their history, to sacrifice all to safeguard those freedoms -- more, they have sacrificed so others could share those freedoms..  
We are the city on the hill, and whether you accept it or no, we nattering nabobs are a vital component of it.

 

Quoting:


Besides the fact that the man is a psycho nut job?   ;)


End Quote

True.....but I was just asking :)

Quoting:
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all to his military.”

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”



http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

Whoever said Hussein got his first batch of military goodies from us was right.  I wasn't aware Donald Rumsfeld had met Saddam Hussein.
End Quote

 You can't blame the government for what happens on the free market.  I Do not Believe everything in this article, because if you are going to site a sorce it needs to be unbiased. I would not quote facts from an article at a right wing site like crosswalk.com, freerepublic.com or  World net daily.  I expect someone on the otherside of the debate not to use a source from the left.

Quoting:


 You can't blame the government for what happens on the free market.  I Do not Believe everything in this article, because if you are going to site a sorce it needs to be unbiased. I would not quote facts from an article at a right wing site like crosswalk.com, freerepublic.com or  World net daily.  I expect someone on the otherside of the debate not to use a source from the left.
End Quote

It's the government who regulates sales of military hardware to foreign countries.  
The article I cited quoted the Los Angeles Times.  Hardly a left-wing rag.
... and Alicia put it a lot better than I have... darned kids  ;)

Quoting:


It's the government who regulates sales of military hardware to foreign countries.  
The article I cited quoted the Los Angeles Times.  Hardly a left-wing rag.
... and Alicia put it a lot better than I have... darned kids  ;)


End Quote

The los Angeles times is considered a credible source, but did you actually see the los angeles times articles themselfs?  
As for what alicia said "lets just leave him alone, because he is not bugging us".  I think that is a nieve statement, if we leave him alone two long one of the cities in the chain thread will be destroyed.  

Quoting:
Not naive at all.  He was bugging us when he was flounting the UN inspectors in the '90s.  We would have been justified in using military force then.  
He doesn't present a direct threat now, at least not to the United States.  
End Quote

so thats how you spell naive, I was wondering  ;)

That is the whole point, The Left said it was Ok when the inspectors got kicked out, at a time when he was the threat was at it's lowest.  Now the left thinks it is wrong, and he has only had time to gather a bigger arsenal now that the inspectors have not been there.

Quoting:
Shame on the left, or the radical fringe, or whoever took that position.  

And shame on the CDC for shipping Saddam bacillus antracis, clostridium botulinum, histoplasma capsulatum, brucella melitensis and clostridium perfingens.  In the '80s.  Back when he was fighting the good fight against Iran.  Shipments approved by the Department of Commerce between 1985 and 1988.  Of course, that was during the notoriously leftist Reagan presidency...
End Quote

This is my last post for the night as I have to get up at 6:30 in the morning.  As always, it has been fun.

I am Reagan fan, and Reagan used to be on the left, but converted to the right.  before we turn this into Reagan thread let us not forget who helped win the cold war(the right) and who voted for a nuclear freeze (The Left).  

Quoting:
The 50% over here get damned tired of having our patriotism questioned every time we raise a doubt; we get tired of our "Why attack Saddam now?" with a variation on "My country right or wrong."  So we shovel the ugly facts at them...  

...We are the city on the hill, and whether you accept it or no, we nattering nabobs are a vital component of it.
End Quote

Thank you for phrasing from and insider's point of view what I had been trying to work out a way of saying from outside without sounding like I was trying to jump down Rebel's throat...

Phil

Quoting:


 Grant the United States goodness?  Okay.  Two hundred plus years of democracy.  Our dedication to the four freedoms.  A population who has been willing, throughout their history, to sacrifice all to safeguard those freedoms -- more, they have sacrificed so others could share those freedoms..  
We are the city on the hill, and whether you accept it or no, we nattering nabobs are a vital component of it.

 
End Quote

Well, I'm glad someone on the wrong side could say something nice!      ;)

You said you get sick of patriotism being questioned.  I can understand that if you're a truly unbiased liberal.

However, as I tried stating in that post, it's exactly because my experience is liberals perpetually beat on their own country w/never a kind word to show any allegiance, that I "question" "every time".  It's because it IS every time whatever subject comes up, the US is always in the wrong.  It's my knee-jerk reaction to knee-jerk "we're bad we're wrong" self-flagellating attitudes that permeate the left.

To me, such is an abusive relationship and it's time to get out 1 way or the other.  Would you be hurt and upset if your parents could never say anything nice about you and only verbalized how bad you are?  Sorry, but that's just all I've gotten out of so many conversations (real and 'net), media exposure and the like.  I see little constructive love, mostly abuse.

And that's JMHO.     ::)      Oh, but let me quote a "proud Democrat" female on a certain talk show the other week:  "I'm a Democrat and I say we take'em all out".

Quoting:
without sounding like I was trying to jump down Rebel's throat...

Phil
End Quote

Phil you handle yourself well.  And I'm sorry if I don't, but I'm just very passionate about the things I love.  If anyone attacks in the seemingly remotest way, I'm in danger of being the Pit Bull (hate that metaphor but that's the point).  And this is probably the single most important thing I love to top it off.   ;)     Besides, as you can probably see Aussies in that position don't bug me as much as "insiders".     ;D

Quoting:


Well, I'm glad someone on the wrong side could say something nice!      ;)

You said you get sick of patriotism being questioned.  I can understand that if you're a truly unbiased liberal.
End Quote

I don't know what I am, OnLine  ::)  I listened to Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger deposing before Congress, and I felt a lot more comfortable with Kissinger than Albright.  

This is what's frustrating me: here in cyper-space, and in real life, you discuss this with someone and they take it no farther than: "Yeah, we gotta take Saddam out.  God bless America."  If you disagree with them, or raise what you think are valid questions and fears, you're un-America, un-patriotic, etc.  

And... to cut us degenerate liberals a little slack: If you take an anti-invasion war, you're almost forced to discuss negatives.  If you on the right say we need to effect a regime change in Iraq, we on the wrong are going to mention Chile and Nicaragua.  If you on the right make Saddam evil incarnate, we on the wrong will gently ask why we didn't realize that after he'd gassed his own people and we continued to sell him arms.  It's inherent in the nature of the discussion.  Maybe we should just allow that each side is trying to preserve and defend a vision of the country they love.

Quoting:
Now this is an interesting site...

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
End Quote

Well I didn't enjoy the site at all.   ::)

The same could be done for democrates.

Quoting:
It actually couldn't, because the point is that all these people are strong supporters of war, which Democrats usually aren't.

Personally, I still don't think it's a fair site.
End Quote

I didn't catch that, what I was saying is that the same number of prominate democrates did not serve the country during wartime.

Quoting:
Well... if any of the people on the list had answered when Duty, Honor and Patriotism called, we wouldn't be talking about them like this, would we?
End Quote

That list was ridiculous, Ann coulter was on the list, why? because she did not serve in desert storm? are they kidding? I don't remeber a draft during desert storm.  The people on the list have helped out the military a lot more than some other anti-war politicians.  Anyways, who said you have to serve in order to have an opinion? Wasn't college a valid excuse for not going to Vietnam?