WAR

Unless Iraq attacks us or an ally, no need to continue with Sr's war.

Hearing that the Iraq situation is "seniors war" is misleading. (Minor technicality - the Bushes are not senior and junior, but I digress).

Since the US has already talked so much of resuming inspections/possible invasion, I think it would be detrimental not to live up to our word. Clinton embarrassed us enough by being all talk and no action on Iraq for the last 8 years. Heck, even the democratic senators wanted to go back into Iraq during the Clinton administration, but then "that woman" got in the way and distracted us all for the next year and a half.

Whether we like it or not, we are the most powerful nation in the world. We set an example to other, less powerful nations. If we don't live up to our word we lose that status and become the most powerful BSers in the world.

Let us also not forget Saddam HIMSELF initially agreed to the inspections. We must force him to live up to his end of the agreement or the rule of law means nothing and we work our way closer to anarchy.

Shouldn't have said there'd be a possible invasion in the first place.


We are already the most powerful BSer in the world.


As for Saddam not abiding to what he agreed to, isn't it more the UN to enforce it? Why should the US be the only one involved (besides England)? What does it say that no other UN nation is fully behind "enforcement" of inspections?

I agree in principle of about rules of law. But Saddam does not follow rules except his own.

I see the whole Middle East situation as a political quagmire. Let's say the special forces were able to track down Saddam and exterminate him. What next? Put in a puppet ruler to take his place? We've never had much success with that over there.

Leave it to me to inject partisan politics into the debate.

Wasn't it the Democratic Congress that approved Bush 41's use of troops in Iraq? Yeah, I thought so.

The agreement between Iraq and the UN was a "Cease Fire Agreement".

Basically, we stop bombing if you give us full access to inspect.

By disallowing the UN inspections, the agreement is null and void.

Contractually speaking, we are obligated to resume bombing, whether we like it or not.



The UN doesn't want to participate because they were not attacked. We were.

Maybe if Europe had not continuously invaded the Middle East we wouldn't have this problem.

To hell with the UN. I didn't elect them.

Mike

I didn't realize that the agreement Iraq agreed to consisted of bombings if they didn't comply. Is there somewhere I can read this?


But, we were not attacked by Iraq. And there is no credible link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You talking about the crusades?

OK otseng.

Everything I have said is a matter of historical fact, but I will walk you through it. Take my hand and let's go...

Start by reading the following UN Resolutions:

1990
661
662
664-667
669-70
674
677-78
1991
686-689
692
699
705-707
712
715

Pay particular attention to Resolution 687, Section I, Paragraph 33


Iraq accepted the agreement. Iraq is in violation of the agreement.

Let me remind you of the definition of "cease-fire":



And now the next issue:

Reread my post, and show my my particular quote where I say we were attacked by Iraq.

I've read it 10 times and still can't find it.

And the last issue:

Europe.

Please read this article, and pay particular attention to the events from 1836 on.

This is just Afghanistan.

If you would like, I'd be happy to find similar timelines displaying England's desire to control the world.

Mike

Taking by the hand? That's more like throwing me into the ocean!
You really expect me to read all of those UN resolutions?


How does this show that the "agreement Iraq agreed to consisted of bombings if they didn't comply" with weapons inspections?



You said, "The UN doesn't want to participate because they were not attacked. We were."

I interpreted this as you saying Iraq attacked us. Perhaps you weren't saying this, but what does us being attacked by terrorists have anything to do with Iraq?

If anything, why not go after Saudi Arabia, where there is a proven connection with the terrorists that attacked us?


OK, Afghanistan has had a lot of invaders. What's that got to do with the US being involved in Iraq?

Well, GW Bush just formalized the war plans before the UN. Hooah!!!

Yes, I do expect you to read them. If your true desire was to get the factual information behind the situation, you would read them. With no factual basis behind your opinions, they are just that -- opinions.

Remember when you said:



READ IT!!!

That's like saying, "You really expect me to read the Constitution before I post on a Constitutional subject?"

Of course I do.



Let's say I take out a loan, and purchase a house. That loan is an agreement. The bank gives me money today in exchange for my future payments. If I don't make the payments, they take my house.

My 3 year old niece fully understands that if she makes bad choices, she doesn't get to watch her favorite TV show before bed.

This is a very clear-cut case. The agreement stated that we stop bombing if Iraq agrees to Resolution 687. They agreed. The Resolution clearly states the actions required for Iraq to fulfill their end of the agreement. They has not fulfilled them, and, therefore, the cease-fire should be ended.

How do you not understand this? It is simple cause and effect.



Obviously, you interpreted it wrong.



Because this topic is called "US WAR WITH IRAQ". Last I checked, Iraq is not part of Saudi Arabia.

If you (again) re-read my posts in this thread, you will realize I have never stated that Iraq is a terrorist threat. While I may or may not believe that they are, it does not matter for my position to be valid. We should have been back in Iraq the minute our inspectors were denied access to inspection sites, terrorism or not.



You asked me...



...and I answered.

We are cleaning up Europe's mess. Because we are the most powerful nation in the world, we are obviously the most desirable target.

More of Europe's mess:
1914: As a part of World War 1, British forces invade southern Iraq.
1917: British occupation of Baghdad begins.
1920: Arabs of southern Iraq starts military actions towards the British, who did not fulfill their promises to leave the area to the locals after the Turks were defeated.
1941: A war of 4 weeks is fought against Britain, where after British control is regained. The British sees to that a pro-British government is formed.

Please do some research.

Mike

Mike, first off, I've never claimed to be any authority on the Middle East. Secondly, I've never said that your position is wrong. Thirdly, all I want to do is understand your position.

As for original post, that was my opinion. Does everyone have to be a scholar in every field that he posts in? What's wrong with asking for documentation for a position? Implying that someone is ignorant is not a proper way to reply to postings.

Obviously my postings for some reason are getting you riled up. And all I'm doing is trying to ask legitimate questions in pursuit of understanding.

Otseng-

I have also not claimed to be any sort of authority on the Middle East.

I do understand your tactics. It is common. Many people ask for all the factual data that backs up an opinion, and then when it is presented to them, they don't want to hear it.

You asked for documentation to back up my opinion, and then you blatantly say you're not going to read it.

Not everyone has to be a scholar to post their opinion. However, if one's opinion is strong on a specific subject, one should be prepared to back it up with facts. This is what I did.

If all you are doing is trying to ask legitimate questions in persuit of understanding, then please, read the answers to the questions.

But back to the debate.

The unfortunate thing is that, aside from the US involvement with the UN, is that the UN doesn't actually resolve anything with their "resolutions". They state what they want to happen, and what they don't want to happen, but they never say what will happen. There are never any true consequences.

My opinion has nothing to do with Iraqi terrorist implications. My opinion lies simply in the fact that we need to enforce our agreements with Iraq.

I don't even think we should have attacked Iraq back in 1991. Their problems are their problems. But, we attacked them, and now we have these garbage agreements.

If we don't deal with Iraq, it puts the US in a bad position. It shows our enemies and potential enemies our weakness.

The UN doesn't want to help, and that's fine. We're more than capable of handling the situation. The fact that the UN will not enforce their own resolutions certainly shows their weakness.

Mike

Mike, just give me the exact sentence and I'll read it, don't throw the whole book at me to read. I ain't going to scour 79 resolutions, all in pdf format, to find a statement that you said is somewhere in there.

So, I ask you one more time, where does it say in any of the existing resolutions that if Iraq doesn't comply with weapons inspections that the consequences will be a military attack?

And why are discussions being made now about drafting this up if in fact it already exists?

Unfortunately, it is a UN Resolution. They list all their objectives, but never list the consequences of not meeting their objectives.

This is why we have to look at the spirit of the agreement.

Since Iraq accepted the agreement, they should be bound by it.

The Resolutions basically state this: Iraq needs to stop messing with people, needs to stop seeking weapons of mass destruction, needs to not promote terrorism, needs to let inspectors in, needs to rebuild Kuwait, needs to release prisoners of war, and needs to compensate the Kuwaiti people.

In exchange for doing the above, we would stop the war. Bear in mind, the war was about the liberation of Kuwait, not against Iraq.

So since Iraq agreed to all of those things, we stopped bombing them.

But now, it's been 4 years since the inspectors have been allowed to do their job. I understand the a prior administration pulled them out, but we have tried to put them back with no success.

So it's certainly reasonable to say that Iraq has restarted some of the things mentioned above. Czech intelligence puts Saddam meeting with Al Qaida members, and the FBI is now confirming that. We've got arial photos that Iraq is rebuilding tools of war, not necessarily WMD. But, it's highly likely.

So what it comes down to is this: If the UN and Iraq agreed that the war would end if Iraq followed the terms, and Iraq didn't obey those terms, don't we then have the right to resume the war?

Yes, Kuwait is liberated, and yes, it is a convenient time with the terrorism fears. But I contend we should have been back in Iraq years ago.

If we don't we appear weak, and it shows we don't enforce our agreements.

Isn't this fun?

Mike

I have actually been impressed with George W so far in that he's willing to go with what is "right" rather than what is "popular".

Here, though, in the case of Iraq, is probably my first disagreement with the president where I can't fully support his decision. (And obviously he's having a hard time persuading others too)

If the UN can get a proposal written up saying that there are military consequences to not letting inspectors in, then I'm on board with the president. And I really hope that this will be the course that the administration will pursue.

It seems to me it is pretty obvious that the President made the entire case in his speech to the UN. There must be teeth in whatever resolution is drawn up or the UN becomes a League of Nations. Actually, the thought that a world body can govern the word is impractical from the get-go. Great in theory, but not workable. Russia and France has too much investment in Iraq to go along with that.
Do any of you have opportunities to really listen to some of D. Rumsfield's press briefings? He has given some chilling scenarios. I am not going to type a book so I will just say that looking up some of these are worth the effort. I realize that talking to some is like talking to a stone wall and they just want to argue, but for those serious..take a few min. If nothing else it is interesting.

Rumsfeld can freeze a room of hotheads with his calm, cool, and truthful vernacular. No punches are pulled with this crazy SOB.

Agreed, JP. Did you see him handle the protesting space children at his conference this afternoon? Classic Rumsfeld.

I love it when he does that: Ok, time to be quiet, or I'll call in the Marines. LOL.

Well if otseng interpreted it wrong, then what is the correct interpretation? Oh and, why is it that you think we should have this war? It seems like you want to continue a war that you didn't agree with in the first place... Or something like that.... It seems to me like you don't have a very open mind. Next time someone like otseng tries to understand your point of view, maybe you shouldn't insult them.

, why is it that you think we should have this war?

We need to have this war so Dubya can get even for the way Suddam treated his dad.

Because Dubya thinks it will help him get elected for another term (can't say reelected now, can I?)

Also, it helps take peoples attention away from the economy, which has gone to the dogs since Dubya.

And then there is the oil!



*Edited by Admin for off-topic comments

Zucker and Madtown, please read or re-read my posts. You are missing the point.

If you don't want to read them, fine. Don't post about them.

And by the way, go bash Republicans in the Democrat Debate section. Not here.

Mike

Ah the great unwashed heard from! How's the welfare money going these days son?

Darcaine

Ah the great unwashed heard from! How's the welfare money going these days son?


I shower EVERY day....I promise!

Not on welfare, social security's my bag.

And by the way, go bash Republicans in the Democrat Debate section. Not here.


I think my posts here are appropriate. This thread is titled "US WAR WITH IRAQ." Right? My post is about why Bush wants to go to war with Iraq.

What does that have to do with Iraq?

All I'm saying is that "Republican Debate" does not mean "Bash Republican's Families Debate".

Bash politicians. Bash their views. Bash their policies. Don't destroy your agrument by bashing their families. It lessens your argument.

Mike

I'll say anything I want!

Then I'll edit your posts to take off-topic comments out.

EVERYONE:

This is REPUBLICAN DEBATE!

If you want to launch ridiculous, off topic attacks against politicians' families, either start a thread specifically for it, or take it elsewhere.

It will all be very clear when I post the new rules.

Mike

its funny how those same democrats were all for going to iraq when clinton was in office, i think it may have something to do with the incredibly high approval rating. i agree with bush when he said it was politics over national security and personally think he is cool for having the balls to say it.

CLARIFICATION

A misunderstanding has caused Madtown to leave, and I will now clarify my above post.

See, we have Republican Debate and we have Democrat Debate. Both are for "opinions from inside the party"

The original intent was to allow members of each party to debate the finer points of mostly agreed upon issues. Sometimes you don't want an all out confrontation with a totally differing opinion.

The heated debates were supposed to occur in Current Events and Headline News, any of our Policy Debates, or any other forum.

So we've lost a good member, and I will learn from it.

Now I am asking again for your input.

Should Democrats be allowed to post in Republican Debate and vice versa?

If I don't recieve any input, I will make the decision.

CLICK HERE TO SEND ME YOUR FEEDBACK.

This topic is now closed.

Mike