The State Dept. lists Iran as the worlds largest terrorist organization. They are creating six power plants at Bushehr for nuclear weaponry. Their biochem arsenal can wipe out entire continents. Why stop at Iraq? Let's send an armored division through the eastern border of Iraq and not stop until we've sacked Tehran? Any1 wanna take me on for this?

nope... Iran has always been our enemy, we even gave Saddam money to defete Iran...so your right, if we are serious about stopping Terrorist... lets get serious.

While I agree that Iran is certainly not a friend, what have they done to prove themselves as an enemy? I'm asking because I really don't know.

Is it enough to destroy a country just because they have the means to harm us? Or do we need proof that they are trying to harm us?

Mike

If the only qualification to want to destroy another nation is the fact that it is dangerous to us, then why not go after China?

It seems really easy to pick on these little guys like Iraq and Iran but we stay rather quiet when it comes to that sleeping giant, China.

Perhaps I should start another post...

First of all I don’t think we should destroy the country, the country always has pro-freedom rallies that the squashed. In fact in Teron the capital a member of the government said that they are repressing their own citizens,… he was killed days latter.

If we get rid of the government the country will turn into a pro-freedom country, just like any other nation, but we just have to get the “balls” from the citizens, and most people don’t want to make waves.

Oh yea China is bad too.

Iran subsidizes Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Qaeda. Therein lies casus belli (cause for war).

On China, we should eliminate their nuclear arsenal and shrink their imperialistic Navy and Air Force (for explanation of Imperialistic, see Tibet, Taiwan, Mongolia, Russian Siberia). You don't have anything on me when you point out China.

I do not want to eliminate every threat. France (uggh) could become a threat. I want to eliminate people who wish to harm us irreperably. China fits that definition. Why else would a Chinese general, in the LA Times, let the people of America know that Taiwanese independence would lead to "devestation of your western seafront"?

I wasn't in favor of destroying the nation, but the government and military. Maybe Tehran, but that could be counterproductive. Tehran is a hotbed of militant Islam. Bomb it.

Both of these nations need regime changes. They are about to have neuclear weapons, and they will hold the entire middle east hostage. This will effect oil for us as well as the world.

Imogene,

Perhaps you have a son or two you'd like to sacrifice for the oil effort?

You will talk out of the other side of your mouth when they hold all the cards for oil. You are not thinking it through. It isn't just oil it is the whole economy that will be held hostage.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.....

Hey Madtown, how about we just drill up in Alaska. Would that make you feel better?

Really, if we fight, it's not going to be for oil. It's going to be for freedom. It's going to be for the security of the American people. It's going to protect our right to purchase oil if we do so choose.

Mike

Did you ever think of the fact that once we start bombing one country another enemy will pop up afterwards? There will be no end. Or is the mere reason to send troops to keep our capitalistic system running (when there is war, we need war supplies, industry increases production....)

I am not saying we should not defend ourselves. It is completely correct to fight for freedom AND for peace. But that is not only our right but a human right.

And at some point I would even believe that to achieve this freedom certain losses must be taken. But sometimes it is not lives but maybe certain luxuries like oil resources that will be lost. - So what, then look for alternatives, that´s also part of our freedom!

Steve, we've been dealing with these fruitbaskets for years, and to no avail. The time has come to go in and wipe unsavory characters off the planet. First Iraq, then Saudi, then Iran, followed by Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and top it off with Pakistan and China. Once that is done, on to gay Paris.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.....
madtown:
I don't know about Imogene, but to reply to your open question. No, I don't have a son to send, but I have a granddaughter serving in Afghanistan. She is proud of it and I am proud of her. If she were to be sent to Iraq to do her duty she and I would again be proud.
Chaos in the Middle East will cause world instability. Don't think for a minute Americans are safe with that maniac in charge of that country. He has already committed genocide and not for a split second would he hesitate to unleash nuclear weapons. He tried with Kuwait, and would have moved into Saudi Arabia. With control of those countries there is no telling where it would end. India, Pakistan, Syria, Israel…like dominos. We cannot afford to wait until this happens. Peaceful means have not worked. Inspections are a joke. The man has laughed in our faces for years.

Another difference I guess, Nette. I am not willing to risk my grandsons or my granddaughters lives unless it is absolutely, absolutely necessary. I sure don't want to do it for a president who just wants to clear his father's name.

Why isn't Iran, Syria, Kuwait and even Egypt fearful of Saddam? If these countries are not afraid of him, why should we be. They could work together and get rid of Saddam. If they aren't willing, why should we do it for them?

Bush's warhawk administration want a war just to prove that the US is boss. Next, they'll want to take on China.

Everyone:

If it concrete evidence came out that Iran, Iraq, or any other nation directly funded or directly participated in the planning of terrorist attacks, would you be in favor of or opposed to forcefull American action?

What would be required for your support of American action against any nation?

Just wondering

Mike

I am in agreement with Dick Armey ,who says,we should attack only when we're attacked.

Madtown
I am happy that you have such control over your family. Good for you.
As for the rest of us it is a good thing someone is willing to stand up for us. You, and the rest of the doves would have us wait until that madman lets loose with bio-terrorism or bombs another building.
It is obvious you do not understand or wish to understand the situation in the middle east and how it all works. Your statements are all based on emotions and no fact.
DeMarcs and John....right on!!!

Iran, Syria, Kuwait and even Egypt fearful of Saddam?

now there IS a very good reason why these countries are not fearful of Hussein.
Want to know it? ITS BECAUSE THEY ARE NON CAPITALIST MUSLIM NATIONS! YES EVEN EGYPT!

WHY do you think that Iraq doesnt like us too much? Well it could be that we are a succesful multi cultural, capitalist, nation. Unlike say, all of those mentioned above.

Now mind you, i have no personal issues with muslims (although seeing as im Jewish, theres a 99% chance that they have an issue with me. Or at least I can say as much from ALL of my experience with the Muslim people) I feel that there is no place in this world for people who wish to not only force others to their point of view, but have a sincere desire to eliminate those that they refer to as "infidels."

Well there that goes, have a good one.

Iran is not afraid of Saddam? How quickly the war between the two countries is forgotten. He has attacked Kuwait and Iran. He would love to take over Saudi Arabia and only the US is keeping him from doing just that. He gets nuclear bombs and he will surely use them. Israel would be a prime target. What would stop him from smuggling one into the US? There is no end of possibilities when it comes to this kind of evil person. Most of us are incapable of thinking in these devious and inhuman ways.
Sure he hates us. We threaten his evil.
We have more reason to be in Iraq than Bosnia. Let Europe take care of Europe.

umm yeah, scroll up and read the whole quote, i never said that none of these countries were "on friendly terms" with Hussein. I simply said that they do not want the US to invade Iraq, and who can blame them? they want a US military presence in the middle east almost as badly as the palestinians want jerusalem, it borders on blind (meaning stupid) fanaticism. Of course these nations have some farily large issues with one another, the Iraq/Iran conflict is a good example, but thats not the point here. The point is, and I am clarifying this from my preveous posting, is that all of these nations, devided as they may be, would ALL unite against us.

I have two brothers who have just barely reached draft age (18 & 19). I will not let either of them die in this STUPID war. Do not let the Bush administration fool you. This war is not about defending ourselves or other countries from the threat of an Iraqi attack. The fact is this: If we don't attack, there MIGHT be an attack on a Middle Eastern country. Even slighter is the chance that Iraq will give weapons to Al-Quaeda, since there is no real evidence that they are connected. If we do attack, those chances are not decreased, but increased. Oh yeah, plus all the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars it would cost from an economy already in recession. And JP, I do hope you were kidding when you mentioned all the countries you think we should "wipe off the planet." War should be a last resort.

Cute, Zucker.

Sounds to me like you don't have the stones to live in this great country. Yes, WAR is a last resort, but sometimes a necessary. America doesn't throw it's soldiers into battle to die sir. And you can damn well be sure BUSH doesn't take this lightly either. But, whether or not you can face reality with some "stones" there comes a time you have to stand up to people like this and say no more. I for one don't plan on seeing my familly incinerated by a nuclear blast this kook gives to a terrorist to bring into this country. The problem isn't whether we can do it..it's whether as a Nation we have the "will" power to execute a plan to deal with those that pose a threat to out country. I think the biggest problem we face is our own doubt in our ability to do what is right and the fact some of these countries absolutely don't fear us enough. Every now and then you see a leader emerge..Bush is that leader. He is here to do what he has taken an oath to do. Protect American lives at all cost. He isn't going to take a poll, he could give a crap about what the UN does...it would be convenient if inspections with backing took place but no matter.

Here is the question you should ask yourself...."Would you trust another country or countries to dictate what YOUR country does or doesn't do?"

Darcaine

OK, I have to be devil's advocate here.

Darcaine has asked us to ask ourselves, "Would you trust another country or countries to dictate what YOUR country does or doesn't do?"

Of course the answer is no for Americans. However, it is also no for Iraqis. The Iraqis don't trust us to dictate to them what they should or should not do. The Iraqi people are fine with their unstable tyrant as a leader.

Coming back to reality a little, it should be understood that the rule of law still needs to stand. Currently that law is U.N. Resolution 687. Iraq agreed to a cease-fire. They are in violation of that agreement and the punishment is the opposite of cease-fire - fire. The law needs to be enforced or the law needs to be changed. Simple as that.

Madtown says:



I think that it is important to realize what would happen if another terrorist attack did happen on our soil; and how many of these same people (who don't advocate attacking Iraq) would be the same people that would say, "Why didn't our government do anything to prevent this!!?". But see, then it is too late. Maybe another couple of thousands of innocent civilians would die, so that we could justify attacking Iraq.

There are many things I don't agree with Bush on, but this is not one of them. He promised us that he would do everything he could to prevent another terrorist attack on America and her people. . .well, this is part of promise.

-Kisov

America doesn't throw it's soldiers into battle to die sir. And you can damn well be sure BUSH doesn't take this lightly either. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bush has ben unable to connect Saddam with 9/11. Actually, 9/11 is just a handy excuse for him to do what he intended to do all along. Every wrongdoer has his excuss. Removing Saddam is, for Bush, a personal vendetta.

He (Bush) gives a petulant speach at the UN, says he will go it alone, setting himself up as a crazy little dictator.

There is no discussion of how we're suppose to pay for his folly or how are we going to control all the little wanna be's that will pop up to take Saddam's place. War should be a last resort. We should remember that war usually has unexpected consequences.
'

Madtown - did you intentionally mean to type 4/11 instead of 9/11? I'll hold my tongue until I hear back from you.

Thanks Jaime, I just noticed another typo (ben for been) but I'll just leave that one. It's getting too late to bother with it.

I think that should have read more like:




Has the government ever had a discussion with the people about how we will pay for anything?

Mike

Good. Given my previous conclusion jumping on you, I thought I'd ask before I got nasty

OK- now back to the debate

I agree there is little discussion of exit strategy if/when we invade Iraq. I am quite sure the Bush administration has discussed such matters but they have made little indication of their intentions to us.

Mike also asked a compelling question in the Current Events/War With Iraq, Please Read post. He asked:

I'd like to hear from all of you on that also.

Mike,

Then you admit it's an excuse. Good boy!

Jaime,

The world is not with us on this. I don't think even Israel agrees that attacking Iraq is a good thing.
Maybe part of the reason is because of what we sold to Iraq and how we helped them develop in the 80's. I saw an old photo on tv of Rumsfeld smiling and shaking Hussein's hand back then.

I don't think we need another Viet Nam.

Madtown-

I have contested all along that we should never have been in Iraq back in the early 90s.

What I contend is that Iraq and the UN had an agreement. Iraq broke it. The UN won't enforce it. As part of the UN, we will.

Of course it's an excuse.

And of course, I'm only speaking in relation to Iraq.

Now, if I stop peeing in the house, will you take me for a walk?

Mike