Why we bombing Iraq this time?

[UltraQuiet]

Everyone here needs to familiarize themselves with the term "sabre rattling".

 

[charrison]

Looks like we could be in Iraq a lot sooner than most people think.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Everyone here needs to familiarize themselves with the term "sabre rattling".

Clinton rattled his and backed the US into a corner forcing military intervention in Kosovo as well as embarrasing his administration by allowing Albright to speak in Kosovo's native tongue...and badly at that....but it was fun to watch her try.

 

[bentwookie]

I get sick of these journalists and polititians asking for proof, the proof is saddam won't let weapons inspectors in.
Bush is doing something sr.bush should have done in the gulf war... saddam has monetary ties to the 9/11 attacks and his time has come, I think he will eventually be ousted and a new govt. will surface, there is great hatred for him by his own people..but without our help he will stay in power. No matter what you say I still say Cheney is calling the shots, bush is his puppet.

Even though I didn't vote for Bush, I am glad this administration is in place at this time, can you imagine what it would be like if gore was leading the country?

 

[Harvey]

Too many good reasons not to bomb at this time. For a start, if we do it without concensus from our allies, our ethical and moral crediblity is in real deep sh8 question. For another, he lacks backing of the majority of Congress.

Bush-lite is a numb nuts moron when it comes to thinking problems all the way through. :disgust:

 

[shiner]

Looks like we could be in Iraq a lot sooner than most people think.

[Mr Burns]Excellent[/Mr Burns]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Too many good reasons not to bomb at this time. For a start, if we do it without concensus from our allies, our ethical and moral crediblity is in real deep sh8 question. For another, he lacks backing of the majority of Congress. Bush-lite is a numb nuts moron when it comes to thinking problems all the way through. :disgust:

Bush is no genius, but I think I'll reserve judgement for the moment on this Harvey. If he actually DOES just go in and bomb the hell outta Iraq in the present circumstances I will agree with you. Sometimes I wonder how much of this is just to keep Saddam on his toes.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because that way Bush can pretend like he is doing something about terrorism, without offending "our friends the saudis" who are really behind most of the wahabbi terrorism. If 15 Russians took down the WTC in the 1980's, a nuclear war would break out, and the world as we know would end. But when 15 Saudis take down the WTC, not a single Saudi hair is touched in response. Instead Bush is sitting in the Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas and cuddling up with the shameless Saudis who have still not even been humbled.

It's been argued that once you go in and repalce the Iraqi leadership with a quasi-deomcracy, you no longer need the Saudi's. This is a linchpin of the strategy, don't shoot ourselves in the foot by 'upsetting' the bloddy Saudi's now. But, make sure we don't need them in the future.

Bill

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because that way Bush can pretend like he is doing something about terrorism, without offending "our friends the saudis" who are really behind most of the wahabbi terrorism. If 15 Russians took down the WTC in the 1980's, a nuclear war would break out, and the world as we know would end. But when 15 Saudis take down the WTC, not a single Saudi hair is touched in response. Instead Bush is sitting in the Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas and cuddling up with the shameless Saudis who have still not even been humbled.

It's been argued that once you go in and repalce the Iraqi leadership with a quasi-deomcracy, you no longer need the Saudi's. This is a linchpin of the strategy, don't shoot ourselves in the foot by 'upsetting' the bloddy Saudi's now. But, make sure we don't need them in the future.

Bill

We dont need the saudis now.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer Everyone here needs to familiarize themselves with the term "sabre rattling".

Clinton rattled his and backed the US into a corner forcing military intervention in Kosovo as well as embarrasing his administration by allowing Albright to speak in Kosovo's native tongue...and badly at that....but it was fun to watch her try.

Couldn't have been as much fun, errr, pain, as Bush trying to speak spanish in Spain. Talk about butchering, he had verb tenses all wrong and was totally abused by the press after that. Didn't get much coverage here tho.

 

[JellyBaby]

the proof is saddam won't let weapons inspectors in

Bull. The other side claimed they were spying and technically the US pulled them out, they weren't forcibly escorted out by Iraq IIFC. And either way that's not proof positive.

Couldn't have been as much fun, errr, pain, as Bush trying to speak spanish in Spain.

Can't argue with that. I can barely stand listening to him speak in English.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because that way Bush can pretend like he is doing something about terrorism, without offending "our friends the saudis" who are really behind most of the wahabbi terrorism. If 15 Russians took down the WTC in the 1980's, a nuclear war would break out, and the world as we know would end. But when 15 Saudis take down the WTC, not a single Saudi hair is touched in response. Instead Bush is sitting in the Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas and cuddling up with the shameless Saudis who have still not even been humbled.

Uh, there's a little fact you're forgetting outside of the slight suspicion of Saddam's involvement in the WTC. It's that small little bit about him building up tons of nukes, not allowing our weapons inspectors in, and oh yeah, he hates the US. Who's the first target for all those nukes, you think?

ummm not us, saddam doesnt really have ICBM technology. He doesnt have a way to deliver hsi payload this far

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Because that way Bush can pretend like he is doing something about terrorism, without offending "our friends the saudis" who are really behind most of the wahabbi terrorism. If 15 Russians took down the WTC in the 1980's, a nuclear war would break out, and the world as we know would end. But when 15 Saudis take down the WTC, not a single Saudi hair is touched in response. Instead Bush is sitting in the Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas and cuddling up with the shameless Saudis who have still not even been humbled.

Uh, there's a little fact you're forgetting outside of the slight suspicion of Saddam's involvement in the WTC. It's that small little bit about him building up tons of nukes, not allowing our weapons inspectors in, and oh yeah, he hates the US. Who's the first target for all those nukes, you think?

ummm not us, saddam doesnt really have ICBM technology. He doesnt have a way to deliver hsi payload this far

Or he could put in a boat..or a 747....ICBM Is not needed for delivery,

 

[UltraQuiet]

Bull. The other side claimed they were spying and technically the US pulled them out, they weren't forcibly escorted out by Iraq IIFC. And either way that's not proof positive

Bull. The inspection team reported that they were not being given full access IAW the UN resolution. The next day the US ambassador told Butler that they reccomended he get his team to safety. Later that day the US and Britain commenced Desert Fox.

All weapons inspectors by their very training are extremely proficient at noticing every detail. When the Russians come here for weapons inspections I'm sure they're "spying" and vice versa. It's part of the game.

 

[JellyBaby]

The inspection team reported that they were not being given full access IAW the UN resolution. The next day the US ambassador told Butler that they reccomended he get his team to safety.

Like I said the US pulled the inspectors out. Scott Ritter has testifed to this many times. Saddum didn't order it as was suggested in the post I responded to earlier.

 

[bentwookie]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

The inspection team reported that they were not being given full access IAW the UN resolution. The next day the US ambassador told Butler that they reccomended he get his team to safety.

Like I said the US pulled the inspectors out. Scott Ritter has testifed to this many times. Saddum didn't order it as was suggested in the post I responded to earlier.

I am talking about saddam not letting inspectors in now...

 

[UltraQuiet]

In withdrawing the arms inspectors, Richard Butler acted unilaterally: he did not wait for the Security Council to assess his report and to make any decisions in consequence of it. It was widely reported at the time that Peter Burleigh, US ambassador to the UN, had "advised" Butler to withdraw his staff from Iraq immediately. The events are recounted in more detail in Butler's book, Saddam Defiant: (2000):

"I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission [...] Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be 'prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.' I told him that I would act on his advice and remove my staff from Iraq."

 

[coolVariable]

That Asia-Times article is pretty interesting .... considering the fact that the british press is reporting that the US military command briefed the israelis on a planned attack in november.

But I still think we are better of with Saddam than with what comes afterward ... you have to remember: Saddam was the No.1 Ally of the US during the 80's!!!!!! (against Iran)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
That Asia-Times article is pretty interesting .... considering the fact that the british press is reporting that the US military command briefed the israelis on a planned attack in november.

But I still think we are better of with Saddam than with what comes afterward ... you have to remember: Saddam was the No.1 Ally of the US during the 80's!!!!!! (against Iran)

If we just remove Saddam, I would have to agree. If we put a new goverment in, i doubt it will be a problem.

 

[coolVariable]

A govt like in Afghanistan? Seems like they aren't doing to well ...
and in the iraq it will have to be americans that act as the military/police branch of the new gov't (unlike in Afghanistan where we could make the locals do the dirty work).
And whom do we set up?
There are like 13 different interest groups who would like to become leaders of iraq (and the taliban(al quaida is one of them!!!)

 

[JellyBaby]

I am talking about saddam not letting inspectors in now...

That's not accurate either. Iraq has been offering to allow them back in for quite some time. One way to look at this is DaveSohmer's contention of the US "sabre rattling" has acheived the desired effect...but Bush et. al. seems to want a War at all costs.

 

[bentwookie]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I am talking about saddam not letting inspectors in now...

That's not accurate either. Iraq has been offering to allow them back in for quite some time. One way to look at this is DaveSohmer's contention of the US "sabre rattling" has acheived the desired effect...but Bush et. al. seems to want a War at all costs.

yes I know they have been "offering it" but many analysts see as buying time. Sure he can let them in, restrict them to certain areas. Right when there were leaks of bush planning an oust a couple months ago, saddam said hey you can come in. Taking saddam out of power is the only solution, waiting for him to comply with the UN is stupid.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: coolVariable
A govt like in Afghanistan? Seems like they aren't doing to well ...
and in the iraq it will have to be americans that act as the military/police branch of the new gov't (unlike in Afghanistan where we could make the locals do the dirty work).
And whom do we set up?
There are like 13 different interest groups who would like to become leaders of iraq (and the taliban(al quaida is one of them!!!)

You are right things could be going better with the new govt in Afganistan, but maybe they are not doing bad for a country that has been at war for 20+ years. This is also the reason that General Franks has states we are going to be keeping forces there for quite a while.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

the proof is saddam won't let weapons inspectors in

Bull. The other side claimed they were spying and technically the US pulled them out, they weren't forcibly escorted out by Iraq IIFC. And either way that's not proof positive.

Couldn't have been as much fun, errr, pain, as Bush trying to speak spanish in Spain.

Can't argue with that. I can barely stand listening to him speak in English.

they were spying, not the inspectors but the CIA had placed wireless tapping machines in their compound, and saw all the docs the inspectors saw.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: SuperToolBecause that way Bush can pretend like he is doing something about terrorism, without offending "our friends the saudis" who are really behind most of the wahabbi terrorism. If 15 Russians took down the WTC in the 1980's, a nuclear war would break out, and the world as we know would end. But when 15 Saudis take down the WTC, not a single Saudi hair is touched in response. Instead Bush is sitting in the Best Little Western Whitehouse in Texas and cuddling up with the shameless Saudis who have still not even been humbled.

Uh, there's a little fact you're forgetting outside of the slight suspicion of Saddam's involvement in the WTC. It's that small little bit about him building up tons of nukes, not allowing our weapons inspectors in, and oh yeah, he hates the US. Who's the first target for all those nukes, you think?

ummm not us, saddam doesnt really have ICBM technology. He doesnt have a way to deliver hsi payload this far

just a flight to LatAm and a leisurely drive up the coast