Does ANYONE think we should do this? I've been listening to this bullshit for weeks now.

NO

of course not! What's Bush's excuse? They're harboring chemical weapons? OK!

The U.S., btw, has the lagest arsenal of chemical, biological weapons in the world...

So... why?

Invade: No
Take him out: Yes

WillieThePimp said:

His ratings have slipped in the polls...and he feels a good "war" will give him the boost he needs. Plus, imo, I think he wants 2 say he was able 2 clean up the unfinished business his dad left...

Whatever ...



Re-Elect Al Gore in 2004!

June7 said:

I've been saying that all along. Daddy's orders, ya know...

No!

Convince the Arab World that it is in their best interests to do this themselves.

But do we continue sanctions?

No.

I say no. But Schwartkoff was this close during the Gulf War until Bush Sr. stopped it.

I would say no to invading Iraq... HOWEVER... Saddam should be removed and locked up somewhere... forever... anyone who thinks he is just a victim of Bush's trigger happy campaign is in denial..Bush may have his own agenda.. but the point still remains that Saddam is a real threat... there's no way anyone can spin their way into claiming anything different about the guy. He hurts and murders his own people... what kind of restrain then do you think he will have for the rest of the world?

What would everyone propose... waiting around for him to strike first? There is no negotiating with him... no compromises that can be reached... the people of Iraq have suffered long enough under his regime... and of course the sanctions haven't helped much either... but that shouldn't distract people from the fact that Saddam IS a problem, and it is in other countries interests to look into doing something about him..

Surely I'm not the only one around here who is aware of the fact that this so called "leader" is a madman... , this I guess puts me in a strange position... because I don't support the invasion of Iraq necessarily... but I do support any effort to remove Saddam from power, wherever this effort comes from... there is a strong resistance within Iraq who would like nothing better than to rid themselves of his influence, and I can only assume that ultimately this would be the best thing for the people in Iraq, and everyone else.

Diva said:

1. as opposed to people who murder and hurt people "other than their own"? how about china? they murder and hurt their own. north korea? russia vs. chechnya uh huh

2. what evidence do we have the he 'gassed the kurds'? other than repetitions? yes there is 'joy in repetition' but there is also lies that become truths when repeated enough.



ummm the same restraint he's been forced to show since he was pounced in 91. In 11 years he has done nothing to any other country. Yes once in a while he's shot at planes monitoring a 'no fly zone' but how about that? ppl tellin you that YOU CANT FLY planes in your own country?



isn't the principle of democracy to let the people decide their own fate? there isn't any real record or evidence of dissatisfaction in Iraq among the people for him. there are exiles of course coming out the woodwork who want him removed but they are like the Floridian Cubans waiting for Castro to drop dead.



when you start using words like "madman" you venture into emotionalism cuz certainly no one has conducted a psyche exam to diagnose the man as insane. name calling is so below what a civilized nation should do.



where is this strong resistance? other than the bourgeoisie expatriates who hope to become pawns for U.S. oil interests just like when America installed the Shah to do the same next door in Iran.

If America has a case against Saddam, that's what the United Nations was set up for. Take the case to the UN and present before the world the argument to remove Saddam. Kennedy did it with Cuba--took his case before the United Nations.

America will lose so much more if it goes it alone here. It would be much better to act with international, world support. You can always back out of diplomacy. But from war you can never back down.

NuPwrSoul... you're right... calling him a madman is emotionalism... and perhaps I should refrain from such terms...my bad.. however I can't change the way I feel about him...

And again I agree with you that it would be much better to act with international world support... that would be ideal... and that would be the rational and diplomatic thing to do... I am not someone who has any affinity for war, to say the least.. and I never will... and that's why I say it puts me in a strange position...

I know calling him a madman isn't a rational, objective or even necessarily a statistically significant reality... and I'm sorry for being so "uncivilized"... maybe calling him that is juat the only way I can justify his actions and the way he has conducted himself.. but on second thought... you don't have to be insane to act the way he has acted,,, so perhaps he just isn't affected with a conscience the way others are... because if he was... I don't see how he'd continue acting as he has...

You may not like to place moral judgements on him... but this is not saint we're referring to...

Of course I would rather the people of Iraq decide their own fate... but there is no principle of democracy in play where they are... and again... like I said... at this point in time I do not support an invasion into Iraq... but again... I can't help but feel he should be removed from power... I'm not advocating that the US does this... I wish the world powers were united in wanting his removal, and that the people of Iraq had it within their power to remove him.

no

Nope. Stop listening to Daddy and leave it alone.

NO!

Has Bush forgotten that we are already *AT WAR* right now? A war which we STILL have not won (Bin Laden could still be alive).

Why jump into another messy,costly war,risking even more American lives?

Is this how the Bush presidency is gonna operate? Whenever his poll numbers drop,just start another war? Nevermind the failing U.S. economy,high unemployment and the corporate scandals.

WAIT!! Corporate scandals? Ahhh,could this be the *REAL* reason for a new war? To take attention away from the corporate scandals that surround Bush and Cheney? Hmmm...

Maybe Bush is smarter than we think!

DavidEye said:

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am so tired of hearing "American lives"... as if it was a more precious kind. In Afghanistian, the US accidentally bombed a Canadian contingent and killed six "Canadian lives", but I bet you've never heard this term before...

If the US go to Irak, let them use their own soldiers on the ground at all times, instead of doing war by proxy. Then maybe the cost of war will be a bit more real to the average American. It's too easy to count on local armies and the British to avoid a backlash caused by the loss of "American lives".
[This message was edited Tue Sep 3 7:14:27 PDT 2002 by Aerogram]

down with war.


[This message was edited Tue Sep 3 7:32:18 PDT 2002 by Handclapsfingasnapz]

No..

perhaps Europe & th erest o/t world should oust Dubya from his White House??? So he knows how it feels??

NO

Nice avatar, Willie. Gene Scott kicks ass...IMHO

No wars with Iraq...

herbthe4 said:

No, but Bush rather invades Iraq and blows up innocent children than try to make their lives a bit better by e.g. making strong agreements at the conference for sustainable development in Johannesburg. Oil is more important than sustainable development, the environment or human lifes... more important than anything for him you know... even the people in his home state Texas are made sick by all the polution their oil companies produce over there... and you think they care?? ...

Invading Iraq under current circumstances will be the worst mistake Bush has ever made... and he already made many.
There are no legal grounds for a strike and/or invasion. If they continue they will be acting illegally. And moreover there is still no evidence presented to the world that Iraq is really working on or already having all those weapons of mass destructions. All we get is the war rhetoric Cheny keeps talking about, trying to scare you all into hating a new enemy. As if Cheney can be trusted with his Harlington friends. and you think the world takes your administartion seriously??

Invading will cost Bush lots of American lives and many more Iraqi lives. It will also likely destabilise the region and further broaden the breeding ground of terrorism in the Middle East.
Last but not least, the USA will get into big trouble with Russia, other Middle eastern nations and some EU countries over many complicated disputes, which especially Bush himself has been responisble for since he has been in office. I wonder how many Americans here really know about all the power play politics your administration shiots on other countries by trying to sabotage at all costs the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Now that sounds hypocratical to say the least... An American administration trying to tell the whole world how to live by democratic principles and justice and then sabotaging every attempt to establish this same justice.
Or all the other shit they are trying to pull. They don't give a damn about anybody and you all know it, but you all seem too afraid to admit it.

Nothing will get any better in Iraq after they chased Saddam away or killed him. There was a reason why Bush sr didn't do it, when he had the chance to do it. There will be chaos and many innocent will suffer and die for this bullcrap of your presidents... Then a new dictator will rise to serve the oil interests of Bush and Cheny...

Since the "threat" of Bush' "axis of evil" will then have been made a little bit smaller again... your "national security" will be said to be a lot better... so the american people can then safely keep on over-consuming again, and help destroy the environment of poor people in the world again by your 1/3 amount of world polution...while your president will keep on sabotaging any attempts to make it any better for anybody that is not Amercian.

Simple question for Abrazo and others like him:

Is the average Afghan citizen better or worse since the fall of the Taliban at the hands of our blood-thirsty, criminal, multinational, US-led invasion?

TheMax said:

well, im sure the 5000 people who have died because our strike might not be too happy bout it...


however, theres a big difference between the Afghan attack and the Iraq situation...

SkletonKee said:

How many innocent Afghans died at the hands of the beloved Taliban?

TheMax said:

Please dont think that I am defending Al Quida OR the Taliban...


but, like I mentioned in my previous post. Iraq and the Taliban are two complelty different situations...

and for the record, Saddam hated Al Quida and the Taliban...It benefited his position within the Arab community to get rid of them..So how and why would he have been involved with them? there are many many reports of this that came out before *AND* after Sept 11. But our country seems so hell bent on revenge, (all fostered by Bush's rhetoric), that people seem unable to rationalize anything...

Yes. We kick Saddam and his minions out of power. Terrorism shouldn't be supported by this madman, this psychopath, which is exactly what he is. The Bush administration will fully explain and show evidence of Iraqi bio/chem/possibly nucleaur weapons development, probably after Sept 11th. Very soon now, watch the magic. Let's bring the virtues of freedom to these suffering folks under a tyrannical dictator.

Pass the M-4 auto rifle...

bonojr said:

Democracy: Love it OR DIE!

So why does China enjoy such a cozy relationship with our Govt.? I recall watching protesting, unarmed students being tramples by tanks a few years back under the rule of the last generation's "evil empire' - the Red Commie menace. you don't suppose they're less evil because they they have no oil...?

Lots of nations have nuclear weapons. In fact, WE have more than anyone, and so far, we're the only one's that have dropped any, so don't hand me that bullshit. How can we look the rest of the world in the eye with a straight face and talk about the eveils of "weapons of mass destruction" when the whole fucking world knows what happened in Japan? We sound like the cheating husband that wants to beat his wife because she made eyes at some dude in a restaraunt. We can't invade a Nation based on what they MIGHT do. By that logic, I could shoot my neighbor in the face with a sawed off shotgun because he MIGHT rob me or he MIGHT rape my girlfriend.

I can make a list as long as my arm of things we can address RIGHT HERE AT HOME rather than worry about what the "Madman of the Week" might do wiht all of thise weapons that WE GAVE HIM.

Once again, Bush will commit mass murder against innoncent victims if we attack Iraq. Attacking Iraq will be the worst mistake in the history of the United States since slavery. There is no evidence agaisnt Suddam that states he is responsible or assisted in the "alleged" attack of the WTC on September 11, 2001. There is no evidence against Suddam that supports Bush's theory that he is supplying Al Queda with chemical weapons.

Bush needs to be impeached! He has stolen retirement funds, he supported the inflation of worthless stock prices and dumped mass of amounts of those stocks back into the stock market to get rich, and he lied to American people about cutting taxes. He gave a tax refund and demanded it back when Americans filed their taxes. He inflated oil prices and promoted policies that only protect the rich. He exploited congress and the "alleged" September 11 attack when congress gave him a blank check because he spent billions of tax dollars that congress can't trace. He promoted the practice of disregarding affirmitive action when he stole the election and stated that he was against it. He has shown a lack of interest for future social security recipients by not focusing and creating policies that secure the existence of the fund for the working class of today.

Now he wants to start a war, why? Bush wants the attention of his scandulous adminstrations to be camoflaged by introducing the concept of war and creating fear and worry in the American people. Every action taken by Bush has been self beneficial. HE is a racist and attacking muslims won't cover of up the fact that he can't find Bin ladin. There are 7 million muslims in this country, and over a billion muslims world wide. One muslim state has weapons of mass destruction. Attacking an innocent man, in this case, will only put muslims on a alert for racial voilence against them. Bush is a racist, and his ideas shouldn't be acknowledged because they are meant to suppress the weak, promote world governmnent, and separate the country. No, the United States should not attack Iraq!!!

SummerRain said:

Ever think about the field day all of these Conservative, Right wing martyrs would be having with Clinton if even HALF of this shit had occured under his watch? Or if this war was his idea? I cn hear it now: " He's just tryting to get his approval ratings up and deflect attention from his sex life."

Where does this end?

Anyone, whatever their politics or nationality, who says, "alleged" attack when referring to September 11 needs to have their head examined.