[Sheesh]

With all the protests going on across the world, I just thought it'd be interesting to see how everyone feels about the upcoming war.

Personally, I'm on the fence. I'm not sure what to believe. On one hand the media keeps telling us Hussein is evil. Maybe he is. Maybe it's all propaganda. I don't know what to believe in this ****ed up, confusing world.

[sage]

here in nyc, we have a protest right outside my place @ union square. a dozen bus loads of people drove down into the city and marching right down 3rd avenue. im more for no violence...unless we have no choice. I couldnt imagine the nervous times a family must go through if one of theirs is battling over seas. Sage

[ex_banana-eater]

He is evil. So are all polititians though...
He has been a threat to world security before... but that was dealt with... I can't see what it can't be done again.
But what has he really done other than not comply with UN weapons regulations since the Gulf War? Not much to other countries.. although he has Cl2'ed the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq. I'm sure those people, deformed from the mustard gas would support the war.
Has he done anything to the US since the Gulf War? Not really. It dosn't seem like it's America's war to me. It should be for the opressed people in the country.
I don't really like to support war... because I know the effects of it. If there is a war I am sure thousands of innocent civilians will be killed... just like Afghanistan. Those civilians in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the terrorist bombings. Oh well they're Afghans they're not important.
I, like you, are on the ropes about war. I can't really support it nor can I support the other side completely.

Why dosn't the US just use propaghanda to convince the Iraqi people their dictator is not good, then kill him? (one casualty is better than thousands )

BTW... BBC World is a good program that dosn't have American propaganda in it. Newspapers (depends who they are owned by) can also be relatively unbiased.

[windwords7]

Yes.

[locoangmo]

The question of invasion is somewhat elusive. Should we do something to get rid of Saddam? Yes, definatly. Should it be an invasion??? Here in Singapore I hear alot of "Bush's War" from the people even though the SG government seems to support the US on this. I don't think Bush is a war monger nor is after Iraqi oil. I think he is using the tools at hand to deal with a long term "thorn in the side" that will only get worse. The US has two big hammers in this game. Economics, which hasn't worked, and military which has gotten the inspections up and running again and is making Saddam make some serious decisions.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
Loco

[pogue]

The Cato InstituteTop 10 Reasons Not to "Do" Iraq

by Ivan Eland

Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Although President Bush has not formally decided to invade Iraq, the emotional chest pounding in the press by anonymous high-level civilian hawks in his administration has reached a crescendo. And while the hawks have made it seem unpatriotic to raise questions about such an invasion since Sept. 11, a careful analysis suggests that such a high-testosterone response should be avoided for 10 reasons:

1. High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or even the U.S. homeland. If rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be already doing so). The U.S. military has been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.


2. Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into al Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more supporters.


3. Invading and occupying Iraq would distract the U.S. government from the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland--al Qaeda. U.S. intelligence agencies apparently have no hard evidence that links Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks. How is an unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq, without international support, is relevant to the legitimate war against America's terrorist adversaries.


4. The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors.


5. The terrorists groups that Iraq supports do not focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.


6. Although unsatisfying, the U.S.-led containment policy has worked. If the United States could successfully contain a superpower (USSR) for more than 40 years until it fell from within, it can continue to contain the dictator of a small, poor nation until he dies or is overthrown.


7. A U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States.


8. The United States might be isolated diplomatically or have to expend large amounts of diplomatic capital to gain support for the invasion. The aforementioned friendly Islamic nations -- many of whose territories would be needed to launch any invasion -- and the European allies are almost universally unenthusiastic about such a military operation. The United States had to offer Turkey about $5 billion in debt forgiveness and other financial inducements to obtain even reluctant Turkish support for a U.S. attack on Iraq.


9. At a time of economic sluggishness and of red ink for the U.S. government, an invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could cost billions of dollars, bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars). Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs.


10. The threat of war in the Middle East or a loss of production from actual combat could cause the world price of oil to skyrocket. Fighting in Iraq could reduce oil production there, as could any Iraqi attack on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.

After sober analysis, one must conclude that the civilian political appointees in the administration should stop the tub-thumping for war and listen to counsels of restraint by those in the military who would have to fight and die in such a war. Hussein's survival in the 11 years after the Gulf War--combined with his demonization by three U.S. administrations--has led many to overstate the threat that despot presents and understate the costs of scrapping the containment policy that has contained him effectively.

Read more
http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html

[locoangmo]

Good post Pogue. I have always liked what the Cato Inst. has had to say. Though I don't agree with all 10 points its good brain fodder.
Loco

[el cabron]

bomb em to hell, i say.

[BigAl]

Originally posted by ex_banana-eater
Why dosn't the US just use propaghanda to convince the Iraqi people their dictator is not good, then kill him? (one casualty is better than thousands )

well, i spent 8 years in the service in the 80's...the navy...you can bank on the propaganda...got to see some cool "propaganda" happening back then...concerning Libia...
how do i feel about the potential war? well, we could take the french route..bury our head in the sand and hope the bad guys go away...let's face it, this is a ****ed up world now...sitting by and not dealing with festering factions has brought this all on...honestly, the only diplomacy that the islamic religeous fanatics understand is brute force. you can't reason with them....
i support a war 100%...everyone needs to get used to it..this is the things we're going to see for the rest of our lives....there will never be peace in the middle east....and they will never stop hating the free world...and that includes you fellas north of the border...
i really feel that once the action begins in iraq, the "generals" will then realize that sadaam isn't they're biggest threat anymore and the iraqi government will implode on its own...
i hope i'm right...now, back out side to dig out from this damn snow...al

[pogue]

See more @
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

[Sheesh]

I personally don't dislike Bush in the slightest, but this is still pretty funny...

http://members.cox.net/captain-casualty/union.wmv

[windwords7]

That is funny but I am with you, I think W is one heck of a leader and a man.

[Sheesh]

Originally posted by windwords7
That is funny but I am with you, I think W is one heck of leader and man.

Definitely.

[WYD02]

That movie is hilarious... At first, I didn't even catch it... lol

[Rictor33]

Jesus christ thats what CNN is, and all this **** that is run by the Rockafeller and DuPont etc families does, spread propaganda. Duh, Iraq has oil, duh we need that oil, duh saudi wont let us use their bases cuz the moment we take iraq's oil we arent gonna pay them **** for their oil, therefore they all go to the poorhouse. Its very easy to understand, CNN and all the news I use it to inform me, then i make my own observations based on what I see. What I see is these Iraqis are being starved and killed off by disease due to our sanctions, they dont give a **** if we bomb them they are innocent people being killed by disease and hunger, all because we want oil, how fair is that? Now all of a sudden, they are "linked to al-queda" so joe the sanitation man can say get up and be all patriotic. I hate the fact that we were attacked, but hell man you push people hard enough they are going to push back, and if Saddam uses chemical weapons on us, I dont ****ing blame the guy personally. 1st off I doubt he has any nukes or anything else, several inspectors have said that this country has nothing, and if were going after them cuz they have weapons then why are we not going after North Korea? North Korea has bombs and systems and possibly nukes and they do distribute them to the highest bidders. Politics is such a load of crap and one more thing, it's no coincidence that the UN hq is located on our soil, we own the UN and we are the only people who really have a say in what happens. Im sorry if my somewhat conspiratorial opinions have bothered anyone, but this is based on some research I have done and some non-biased articals I have read. I am by no stretch of the imagination a hippy or a sympathizer, I hate Saddam and I think Iraq can be helped by a leadership change, FOR THE RIGHT REASONS, not for personal gain. I am patriotic, im just a little more informed than the people who sit there watching CNN and reading TIME, which are published by companies who are owned by many of the same people (Rockafeller\DuPont etc) and have tons of propaganda (imo) in them. Please just respect my opinions on this, and maybe think about what im saying, because it does make perfect sense.

[windwords7]

There are MANY reasons, some political, some financial, and some moral, why this administration is seeking to use force against this pathetic lunatic called Saddam. It is not just one thing. Like it or not, Bush is man of morality, faith, and ethics and he is motivated by such things. All of us make mistakes as young men or women; to try to cast a shadow against ANY man because of a poor choice he made would mean that we ALL deserve to be treated like crap and looked at as hypocrites who can never change and can never contribute anything ever.

If you belive that bull-crap you might as well check out now. You know how ignorant that argument is? That is the most laughable statement any human can ever make. Everyone wants a little grace and mercy from the powers that be when they get caught but when called upon to provide it for a man who demonstrated with his life, over many years, that he has changed and his given back so much, we call for the stones and are the first to want to throw them. That's fine, throw away, Ill be first to line up for YOU because of your foolish mistakes in youth. (shakes his head, sighs)

Finally, this is why Saddam should be destroyed. Plain and simple, no questions asked (yes that is a child in its mothers arms gassed to death):

[windwords7]

Just think, this could have just as easily been you. None of us control where we are born. A child is never at fault! "Sadam Hussein methodicaly gassed 5000 Kurds as an 'experiment' in chemical readiness."