posted on February 16, 2003 08:45:04 AM new
Good...so quit trying.
Exchanging ideas? You don't offer any solutions nor suggestions as to how we can disarm those countries who are going against the UN and US backed positions that these terrorists countries CANNOT arm themselves with bio, chem and WOMB. You just bash everything your country does. Your hatred of the Bush administration appears to me to be blinding you to what's in your countries best interests.
posted on February 16, 2003 10:22:45 AM new
Linda, I don't think anyone thinks we need to just let Saddam be. He does need to be taken out but it needs to be done in a more strategic way. Waging war on a country to get rid of a man is not an effective action. Did it once, didn't work then either.
Those who are against this was are not against our countries best interest, we are for the worlds best interest. The removal of Saddam will not stop terrorism, it will only inflame and drastically increase it. I doubt however that the acts of terrorism will occur here at home. I think that these acts will be used to isolate us from the world community. By attacking our allies and further enflaming anti-US sentiments.
Personally - I can't stand the Bush admin. either. I think they are using military action as a "watch the birdie" tactic to try to keep the public from the realization that they have no clue how to solve the real problems here at home right now. They are so single minded in their determination that they are not looking at the greater effects of their actions. I have a problem with a president who states that one of the reasons we must wage a war is because the leader of said nation "Tried to kill my dad"
We are not going to be hailed in the eyes of the world, we are just going to be seen as a bully. "Do what they say or we are going to invade you." We need to be making a strategic strike or backing a coup, not waging a public war.
BTW - Linda - Why are you letting the words of a madman inflame you into believing in this was. Don't you see that is what is trying to do? This man unfortunately is not stupid. Until this recent statement he has never had anything positive to say about Saddam. He actually hates him for his genocidal acts against other Muslims. However.... if he links himself to Saddam, calls us cowards, makes inflammatory statements in support of Saddam he only helps to turn American sentiment towards an attack. He knows that such an attack will actually improve his cause. Images of dead and dying Muslim women, of destroyed mosques, etc., will be used to bring more followers to his flock and spread his hatred that much farther.
Once more - I'm not saying we should turn our heads and ignore the problem, however since Saddam is not an immediate risk we need to cool off, back off and find a more effective and politically logical way to take him out.
posted on February 16, 2003 11:47:46 AM new
neonmania - I appreciate you explaining your position/thoughts on how you see this situation. I just don't agree ...but I do understand your position.
Take him out in a strategic way??? Please say 'how' you see that happening.
On these actions making things worse ...it could also get worse if we do absolutely nothing. binLaden himself states he sees our inaction as a weakness. You don't believe him, I do. No one can predict which way this will go. It could go the other way. If Saddam is removed, and other Muslim countries see that the Iraqi people are happy to be living more freely, others may decide that's what they want for their own country.
I keep saying this....feel as though no one is hearing it...I would support these same actions, that I believe to be in the best interests of our country, NO MATTER THE PRESIDENT IN OFFICE. We dealt with Saddam in 1991, in 1998 and it's time to take action to remove him now. We need to be aggressive in our efforts to stop all terrorists.
This time in our history would be difficult for any president to deal with. There's a lot on his plate. We'll see in two years how the American voters judge the job President Bush has done. I believe a statement was made in the Nov. elections. Could have been a lot of 'blocks' put up by throwing all republicans out and bringing in all democrats. Didn't happen. Things might change between now and 2004...no one knows.
posted on February 16, 2003 12:09:13 PM new
::Take him out in a strategic way??? Please say 'how' you see that happening.::
It's not as if we have no experience backing military coups. : ) We've obviously been meeting with Iraq group to plan the replacement governement . You set one up as you knock one down. I have no problem with this.
::binLaden himself states he sees our inaction as a weakness.::
Yes - he's poking the bully. He's hoping to inflame us into actions that will only serve to strengthen his position.
::We dealt with Saddam in 1991::
No we didn't. Had we actualy dealt with him them there would not be a problem today
::This time in our history would be difficult for any president to deal with. There's a lot on his plate. ::
My problem is he put Iraq on his plate to mask the fact that he was unsuccessful in his claims to deal with Bin Laden. And he's not dealing with the numerous domesic problem on his plate.
::We'll see in two years how the American voters judge the job President Bush has done.::
I think you are right, and I don't think it will go the way you think. You see, even if he we go to war and remove Saddam, he still has no concept of how to deal wth the domestic issues and they are only going to fester and worsen in the meantime.
posted on February 16, 2003 12:11:05 PM new
Linda, I agree with Helen, Borillar and neonmania. I don't want to hide my head in the sand. I'd like to see more defusing peace talks happen. The only person I know of that's willing to move ahead with these talks is Jimmy Carter. Shouldn't there be tons of people like Jimmy trying to do the same thing? Shouldn't the President and his staff be doing what they can to prevent war?
The U.S. is a peace keeping country. How does starting wars all over the place promote peace keeping? Especially with a country that hasn't done anything so far? Quoting Bush himself, he claims this war against evil will 'never end'. From that statement, it sounds to me like this style of living in fear is to become the norm from now on. He might think it's a great idea but I don't.
posted on February 16, 2003 12:50:16 PM new
>Read the statements of those leaders like bin Ladin. HEAR what they're saying [The US is cowardly].
IT'S Truly Amazing! Yes, not only are Republicans unable to recall what ahppened a mere six months prior to any event (according to their own leadership), but Uncivil Anti-Libertarians as well!
How many "Osama" Videos and Tapes so far have been determined or admitted to as being FABRICATIONS?
ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) OF THEM!
Oh! L@@K There's a NEW TAPE! And it's calling Americans COWARDS -- URGUING AMERICANS TO ATTACK TO PROVE THAT THEY AREN'T COWARDS. Hmmmm . . . how "Osama-like" -- huh? I'm sure that little else would inflame Americans to WANT to go to War than to call them COWARDS! I can't IMAGINE WHY "Osama" would want to do that -- CAN YOU?
posted on February 16, 2003 12:52:23 PM new
KD - I think you know I'm aware that on this board, I pretty much stand alone on a lot of issues. I don't have a problem with people who disagree. I think you know that by now. I think it's good for people like me, who do support the Bush administration, to explain why we do. No one's going to change their minds/positions.
The only person I know of that's willing to move ahead with these talks is Jimmy Carter. I've shared before that I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter. I think what he and Roslyn have done since he left office is tremendous. But as a president, he was ineffective. He wasn't relected because the voters didn't feel he was heading the country in the right direction.
It's my opinion that his very strong religion is what leads him towards peace. But peace, at any cost, doesn't work. Try peace first...sure...but then admit that there will always be those who only understand force/power/threats.
posted on February 16, 2003 12:55:31 PM new
>You don't offer any solutions nor suggestions as to how we can disarm those countries who are going against the UN and US backed positions that these terrorists countries CANNOT arm themselves with bio, chem and WOMB.
Linda, explain to me by what legal Sovereign Right does the United States have the authority to go about disarming ANY country? Because of the United Nations? The United Nations IS NOT A WORLD GOVERNMENT BODY OR POLICE STATION! >>SURPRISE!<< The United Nations is a cooperative diplomatic body. Period. Nothing else.
So, by what Right do you think America has to go around the world and telling any other sovereign nation what weapons it can and can't have to defend itself with -- even North Korea?
posted on February 16, 2003 02:01:19 PM new
Borillar - I know the purpose of the UN. I don't need you to 'educate' me.
The UN as it has been for a long time holds no value other than a place for heads of state to come and discuss world events. It's become a joke. If I could, I'd eliminate it totally....or at least vote to move it to another country and spend the $$ we spend there on our own people.
Anytime the US feels there is a threat to our nation, we have a right to remove that threat. While you don't agree there is a threat many of our elected officials, our president and at last count 69% of Americans do. Look at the voting records of those elected officials who gave Bush the right to take this nation into a war. Both sides.
Look to the UN to see the countries who agree Saddam needs to be disarmed. The ONLY disagreement is on HOW and WHEN. NOT IF it needs to be done.
posted on February 16, 2003 03:26:38 PM new
>Anytime the US feels there is a threat to our nation, we have a right to remove that threat.
WRONG!
NO Nation has any right to remove another nation if it feels threatened! The world is armed to the teeth and everyone is a threat. THat makes that claim nonsense.
>While you don't agree there is a threat
WRONG!
I don't agree that Iraq is a threat to the US, except where if we don't go and kick Saddam's butt, Bush will lead us into a Third World War as an alternative!
All nations are a threat to us in some way, because all nations have arms and ways of using what they have. Rich industrialized countries get the Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction. Poorer countries have to deliver their payloads through suicide volunteers to slip past enemy lines and do as much damage as they can. The WHOLE WOLRD is a dangerous place! What are we supposed to do about it? Conquer each and every nation on the planet? World Conquest is your answer, Linda?
>many of our elected officials, our president and at last count 69% of Americans do.
The public opinions of Elected officials is suspect, as you well know. The opinions of the average American who couldn't place the USA on a world map doesn't mean diddly-squat and it doesn't over rule fact or law.
So. Linda. Let me ask you once again: by what Right do you think America has to go around the world and telling any other sovereign nation what weapons it can and can't have to defend itself with -- even North Korea?
posted on February 16, 2003 05:26:43 PM new
Linda, I really enjoy your posts whether we agree or not. I've said it before and mean it.
Linda, all I'm afraid of is that Bush will make the wrong decision and it will start a chain of catastophic events in the name of retaliation, all because Iraq might have WOMD. If the U.S. could go in and take Saddam out, why is a war necessary?
The U.S. economy is still trying to recover from 9/11. I can't imagine what would happen if it was struck on a larger scale. Are you willing to take the chance Linda?
posted on February 16, 2003 06:17:52 PM new
KD - Thank you once again.
..will make the wrong decision and it will start a chain of catastophic events in the name of retaliation, all because Iraq might have WOMD. I really do understand your fear and it may go just as you fear. We won't know until it happens. I don't believe it will. From what we know of his military and of our own forces, this mostly won't be much different than it was before in 1998. His soldiers were surrendering to the news media people. We've put fliers out over Iraq telling the people if they don't cause harm to our soldiers, they won't be hurt. We've told their commanders that if they use the weapons they threaten to use, but supposedly don't have, they we be held accountable. We've done the same thing on a radio that reaches some in Iraq.
But please don't think I discount your fears. If I come across that way, I apologze.
Starting from the position that I'm fully aware my government isn't telling me all they know. Okay? If we know they do have WOMB or are on their way...we must stop it now before they use it..sell it to terrorist nations. Otherwise we're going to be in the same position we are right now with NK. Saddam will then be much more of a threat to the world. If they don't...then I ask why hasn't Saddam been willing to prove to the UN inspectors that the weapons the UN know he did have were destroyed? The UN inspectors have stated he hasn't shown proof of their destruction.
And on giving inspectors more time...not rushing into this. It's been a year already, that's not rushing into anything. [And the 11 years before that.] That's why I don't believe giving him more time will do the trick.
If the U.S. could go in and take Saddam out, why is a war necessary? That's a good question. I would think if they could have, they already would have.
I've read we do have troops in there now...inside the country. Maybe something like this might just happen. I'm not given the inside scoop. But I do trust that they know what they are capable of and what they're not.
And I do believe the US has always tried it's best to have as few casualities as possible.
The U.S. economy is still trying to recover from 9/11. I can't imagine what would happen if it was struck on a larger scale. Yes, it would be very rough and I sure am one that hopes we can prevent that from happening. If it should happen, I have faith in the American people, we're survivors. But doing nothing, imo, doesn't guarantee that it won't happen anyway. There are NO guarantees either way.
Are you willing to take the chance Linda? I have never had any reason to not trust my government with the protection of our nation. So...my answer is yes. If I have to choose sides, I choose us.
posted on February 16, 2003 06:24:21 PM new
" Do the mothers know that their sons and daughters that die in this coming war by chemical or bacterial means will be bulldozed into mass graves and their bodies burned? No body to bury here at home. Guess that cuts down on the footage of the bodybags coming home.How terribly sad".
Yes, it is sad! It is also sad that he would use this on a public broadcast that is supported, by yours & my tax dollars. Showing not only disrespect for the mothers of our service personal, by using the tax dollars they provide for his forum, to stike fear and more worries in their hearts, to promote his personal belief.
Hi Linda. Yes we do have troops in Iraq. Trust me!
posted on February 16, 2003 06:34:51 PM new
:: If we know they do have WOMB or are on their way...we must stop it now before they use it..sell it to terrorist nations. ::
If this is the measuring stick by which we justify war, why have we not attacked the former countries of the Soviet Union? We know without doubt that they have weapons of mass destruction and we know that most of them end up on the black market being sold to fringe groups and inations.
posted on February 16, 2003 07:51:20 PM new
The time for talks with Iraq is over. It's time to take them out. If we back down now the terrorist threat will be double, tripe or whatever.
They will think we are like the rest of the world. Cowards. That's what Saddam wants, That what Bin Ladin wants. North Korea is watching too.
posted on February 16, 2003 09:00:21 PM new
>You got my answer. You just don't like it.
You're right - I don't like it because it is no answer -- it's just an ignorant reply. Those are the cards that I suspected you were holding. Your opinion means nothing then, since you have nothing factual to base it on.
posted on February 16, 2003 09:20:48 PM new
colin, I don't understand how you could call the U.S. cowardly if they don't strike Iraq. How would that make them cowards?
...but I do understand your position.
