Worried about the War?

[piasabird]

I have had a lot of apprehension about going to war with Sadam. I do not like the man myself. I think Sadam is a ruthless dictator who deserves nothing less than being buried in the sand with just his head popping out so passerby's can spit on him or whatever.

However, I thought a long time ago that the US Should pull everything out of Saudia Arabia. The problem is there are plenty of fringe groups that dont appreciate any help from the west in any mid-east country. So we should have pulled out of Saudia Arabia a long time ago. Our presence there is an invitation for people to attack the US.

Reagan understood this and pulled out of the middle east after we were attacked. When will we learn?

[StuartW]

Sometimes doing the right thing comes at a great cost, possibly even the lives of innocent people.
We have many Iraq immigrants here, and the stories they tell of life in Iraq more than justify the allied forces doing the right thing.
If you have a rabid dog you shoot it before it can infect anyone else.Saddam Hussein is that rabid dog and to not remove him will send a signal to all the terrorist's in the world that anything goes without fear of retribution.

[Hot Rod]

I have a question on the focus of the war. I thought we invaded Iraq because of WOMD....not how the people were being treated there. It seems the focus of the war has shifted from WOMD to human rights violations....although that isn't the reason that we originally initiated this. Is it because we have not found any WOMD yet and need a reason to justify this war to the world until we do find WOMD.

My personally opinion is that we will eventually find proof of WOMD.

[drisley]

Does it really matter? I mean, whether it be WOMD, terrorist ties, or human rights violations, the reasons are plenty to remove the regime. Which reason they wish to use any given week doesn't much matter in my eyes.

[piasabird]

The point I was trying to get accross is that we need to pull out of saudia arabia. Regardless of what we are doing in Iraq, having troops in saudia arabia is causing us trouble. If you paid attention to the entire 9-11 episode, one of the things bin ladin wanted us to do was to get out of saudia arabia. This is why saudia arabia expelled bin ladin. Also the money was donated to knock down the world trade center from people in saudia arabia! So why are we still friends with our enemies and why do we still have troops there? Is it really worth making ourselves a target to have troops in saudia arabia?

Sorry if I totally mislead you. I have alwys held the notion that if we are not wanted in a country, we should leave. The United States Government is putting its citizens in danger by keeping troops in saudia arabia. It is not worth it to maintain a base there.

[drisley]

I don't think it really works that way. I mean, even though there is an argument to be made about getting out of Saudi Arabia, at the same time, if Bin Laden commits a terrorist act and we pack up and leave, then it kind of lends credibility to the tactic. Besides, you can't solve a problem if you refuse to talk to the other party. As of now, we have a diplomatic relationship with the Saudis, and breaking it should not be first option. OTOH, if we did leave, we need to leave totally, and that means pulling the military protection we provide them and they value.

[Hot Rod]

Originally posted by drisley
Does it really matter? I mean, whether it be WOMD, terrorist ties, or human rights violations, the reasons are plenty to remove the regime. Which reason they wish to use any given week doesn't much matter in my eyes.

It does matter. Are we talking out of both sides of our mouth. We attack Iraq for human rights violations while we treat other countries with the same if not worse atrocities with a wink and a nod.

[mountaineer]

The reasons Bush and his advisors declared war on Iraq were chosen so that they would garner support. Period. Whatever spin they could put on it to get public support is what they went with. September 12th the plans for war were being drawn. They knew that they had all the reason they needed to justify war. Even though and ties between Saddam and the Sept. 11th terrorists was vague at best.

[mountaineer]

I agree that Saddam is a monster, at least from what I've seen, he appears to be a monster but there are countless countries with oppressive dictators. Where do we draw the line? Is George Bush trying to force every country to adopt our form of government, with our morals, and our ideals? Can we attack every country with a ruler who rules by fear and aspires to posess WOMD? Dont we have them? Doesnt N. Korea? How about Great Brittian, India, Pakastan. Hows the leadership in Cuba? The Phillipines? Come on, actions like this breed actions like this. Other countries loathe us now and it's getting worse by the day. Does anyone think that we are winning anyone over in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Sudan, or anywhere else?
I am in full support of our troops now that we are in conflict. I hope that this war is over quickly and casualties are as low as possible on both sides. I dont think we should be at war, however.
All the money spent in this conflict, on weapons, buying off support from other countries, rebuinding Iraq, etc. would have done a world of good right here. We could have boosted our economy, feed the poor, built homes for the homless, built new schools, gave everyone free health care, cleaned the air, saved the airlines, saved the steel industry, tightened border security, saved social security...... You get my point.

[mr krinkle]

mountaineer I agree, Remember the USA was a supporter of Saddam back in the 80's,The USA sold and gave weapons to them when they were fighting Iran,,When will we ever learn?<p>The question about WMD is a good one,I think we will look like Fools if we fail to find large amounts of them,Not just a few Scuds....Same with 9-11,,Where is the proof of a connection?

[TimPoet]

I, too, shall try to add some clarity to this thread. We are attacking Hussein because he is a state sponsor of terrorism (remember the Palestinian homocide bombers money) who is getting close to obtaining a nuclear WMD.
We don't want our next Sept. 11 attack to have a death toll of 300,000. Remember one terrorist suitcase nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, every piece of evidence that was leading to the nuclear claims was proven false, so there's no indication he is even still trying for nuclear weapons.

Second, suitcase nukes would take a world superpower's resources to pull off. Creating a nuclear bomb is not a trivial task, miniatiurizing the detonation technology to fit inside a suitcase would be nearly impossible without a tremendous amount of resources. Further, getting a nuclear weapon working is not easy, and the second you do testing to see if your weapons will work, the whole world knows.

I think the only nations that could build suitcase bombs would be the US, Russia, and likely China.

Further, fighting terrorism while at the same time creating more potential terrorists is a losing battle. If we want to stop terrorism, we must look to the reason people become terrorists, and fight that problem. In a recent poll by Zogby and the U of Maryland found that, since the war began, 95% of Saudis, 91% of Moroccans, 80% of Jordanians, 79% of Egyptians, and 59% of Lebanese thought negatively of the US. Making an overwhelming marority of the Arab world hate us will not stop terrorism. Bin Laden was already a folk hero to many, how many more recruits will he get now?

[TimPoet]

There are two errors I see here.
Suitcase or "loading crate" bombs are possible to sneak into New York harbor, that's all it would take, BOOM! tens of thousands more of American lives murdered, all because we were too ill informed or cowardly to stand up and defeat a clear and present danger of a government.
You are picking the wrong emotion, Paul, in thwarting terrorism. We don't need the terrorists to love us. They already hate us. We need them to fear us. And fear us they shall.

[Eaglefeather]

Hate to spoil your dream Paul, but building a nuclear device and enclosing it in a suit case is simple and inexpensive. The hard part is getting the right type of enriched uranium to do the job. That stuff is tightly controlled by those countries able to manufacture it. And that is the reason why the US does not want North Korea to have a nuclear power plant. The waste product of nuclear power can be used to make nuclear weapons.

As to your other point about the Arab people's, yes you are 100% correct. That hatred will never change until US policy in the Middle East changes. The Palistinian people deserve their own homeland and autonomy for self governemt every bit as much as Iraq. Us policy has to be seen to be working towards that goal, and until the Arabs see that, the threat of terrorism in the US homeland will continue.

If the US plays it's cards right after the liberation of Iraq they may be able to use that as a spring board towards winning Arabic approval. But that will mean there must also be a movement towards settling the question of a Palistinian homeland.

Sorry Tim, but you are dead wrong. If they fear you, they will hate you. If they hate you terrorism finds it strength.

You don't want them to hate the US, you want them to respect the US. Only with respect will come peace and freedom from the threat of terroist acts.

[Jackblack]

The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with Global Conquest. Syria and Iran are possibly next in line as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld threatened last week. The Neocons must be seen for what they truly are: lunatic hawks who are wrecking America's democratic and peaceful ideals.

[TimPoet]

Welcome to PC Mechanic, JackBlack

This was is only about WMD's. We could give a damn about wasting our resources trying to conquer the world. September 11 awoke the American sleeping giant just as Pearl Harbor did. Now we don't own Japan today, do we?

[Strider]

If the rest of the Arab World celebrated like they did in Dearborn, Mi yesterday then this war is going to be over fast.

[Hot Rod]

What worries me now is North Korea even more so than Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83765,00.html

They are basically coming out saying they have nuclear weapons whereas Iraq tried to deny everything. North Korea has a much stronger and organized military than Iraq and they don't sound afraid to use it. If you notice, they are using the United States theory to justify their nuclear arms buildup. You need a strong military to deter acts of another country. If we go to war with North Korea.....justified or not...it could get very messy.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Hot Rod
If we go to war with North Korea.....justified or not...it could get very messy. Bring it on...

[mr krinkle]

Hot Rod certainly we could wipe Them off of the map but not before they destroyed half of the south.

[avx]

I am 85% certain nothing will happen with Korea...Their leader is a senile old fool who thinks his "Cain shaking" is gonna scare us...Please, The guys is so dumb "We Hav Nucudar Wepons"...yeah so...we got 300 of them, and boatloads more goodies where that came from too...I dont think any coutry would turn to Nuclear War, not even that old coot...But if he gets a little too crazy we will most likely take him out with special ops...they arnt even wasting time with special ops missions in Iraq...this is just a beat down...but if it came to nuclear war I believe we would use Delta Force and SEAL teams to take out specific targets and cripple thier ability to launch them.

[Jackblack]

The New York Times ran a piece in its arts section today about how the American left can't handle the war's "success." It sites the toppling of the Saddam statue and "cheering Iraqis" as proof of the war's "success." Since the story ran on the arts page, you'd have hoped the Times would have given a bit more play to the destruction of museums, libraries and ten thousand years of culture that have accompanied George W. Bush's glory. Alas, their editorial choice was to promote the jingoistic assumptions one may have drawn from a now-discredited photo-op (there were a maximum of 100 people at the statue toppling counting, media, troops and protesters and the TROOPS brought down the statue.)

[WJWheels]

you'd have hoped the Times would have given a bit more play to the destruction of museums, libraries and ten thousand years of culture that have accompanied George W. Bush's glory.Well I guess if the people of Iraq didn't give a crap about the "culture" or the country's leaders didn't care enough to protect it from war, I don't know how anyone should expect our soldiers to give it high priority.

Good grief! Is EVERY ILL OF THE WORLD the fault of the U.S.?