When folks start spouting slogans instead of reason it is obviously because their stance/beliefs/politics are weak, at best. The oil in the middle east needs to be protected, but that is not the most compelling reason for war, the protection of the US is compelling. I was watching television when the world trade center buildings came down. It is a sight I do not wish to see repeated.
Stop The War in IRAQ!! (CSPAN)
by sf 28 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bigboi
We basically bribed North Korea to discontinue it's nuclear weapons program in the early nineties. As recent revelations have shown, we got played, bigtime. The North Koreans are gonna play this game because they can't feed their ppl and if ppl get hungry enough no amount of brainwashing is gonna keep em from getting really pissed off and giving the tyrants over there a one way ticket to hell.
We cannot afford to make the same mistake with Saddam because his situation domestically isn't as tedious as the N. Korean regime. Saddam doesn't need nukes to bribe the west for food and monetary aid. He doesn't need them for energy either. What could he possibly want them for? IMO, to gain a military advantage in the Middle East and try to become the next Nebuchadnezzar.
Edited by - bigboi on 26 October 2002 15:27:41
-
TR
Kelsey,
The N. Koreans aren't as whacked as Saddam.
TR
-
freedom96
SF-
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Until you are in the Oval Office and hear first hand what is going on, I don't think you have the right to judge.
I have a handful of friends that happen to know President Bush, and know what is in his heart. They know what is going on, because they are there first hand.
For those of us on the sidelines, we need to sit back and allow our government leaders do what they have to do. There are reasons they are in office and we are not.
-
sf
"For those of us on the sidelines, we need to sit back and allow our government leaders do what they have to do. There are reasons they are in office and we are not."
ROFLOLOLOL!! Thought we were talking about BUSH, not Watchtower.
Oh wait, you ARE speaking of BUSH, not Watchtower.
NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL! POWER TO THE PEOPLE WITH THEIR INDIVIDUAL FREE SPEECHES AND PROCLAIMATIONS, just as BUSH and his 'administration' are free to do so. Only difference is, WE ARENT HEARD and are 'silenced' in many ways. Like you are trying to do with me now...silence me. Won't work boys!! You'll have to shoot me this time....
NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!! NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!! NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!!
SPIT THEN RINSE LADIES!! SPIT THEN RINSE LADIES!! KILL THE GERMS THAT CAUSE 'BAD BREATH'! (I know some of the ladies here see clearly between the cryptic-ness)
sKally
-
seawolf
NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!! NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!! NO MORE PENETRATION BY 'DICKS'!!
SPIT THEN RINSE LADIES!! SPIT THEN RINSE LADIES!! KILL THE GERMS THAT CAUSE 'BAD BREATH'! (I know some of the ladies here see clearly between the cryptic-ness)
lmao
-
kelsey007
In the months just prior to 9-11 the Bush administration were engaged in active talks with the Taliban. These talks were in regards to an oil pipeline. When the soviets were engaging afganastan in a war the US helped to empower the taliban. This was done to US interest in this oil pipeline. Bin Laden was a god send to the oil hungry US. Basing himself in afaganastan at the time of 9-11 it made it very easy for the US to gain interantional support to do what they already wanted to do. The hypocracy of the US government is what stinks to high heaven. After the taliban was kicked out of power US leaders praised thier efforts of having freed the poor abused afgans. Interestingly enough the US had been aware for years that people were being abused and beheaded on soccor fields in afgan- but chose not to act out of concern of human rights- instead they chose to continue talks with the taliban in hopes of gaining control over the oil pipeline- to hell with the poor afgans. When Bush Sr chased Sadam out of Kuwait- again it was oil. The US bemoaned the fact that oil wells were left burning in waste by the Iraquis fleeing the area.
Not once has Sadam shown a propensity to use weapons of mass destruction against the US any more than N Korea. Though it was an Iraqui that attempted to kill Bush Sr that did not give reason to go to war. The Bushes hate Sadam more than they love thier own country. Prior to the crown prince of Saudi's visit to the Bush ranch in Texes early this year Iraq was not in the equation on the war against terror. The US is so locked up finacially with the oil rich saudi's that they will never be able to effectively fight thier war. Sadam makes for a nice distraction from real issues. He is better thrown from power by giving much aid to the poor Iraqui citizens who need the aid. Once they are empowered it will be much easier to get Sadam out of power with little or no loss of americans lives.
Who will replace sadam? Remember, the US not only empowered the taliban they also helped to empower sadam- or is history being rewritten on that one already? So who will we help put in power after sadam that will be our enemy later?
The war on terror is a unique war. The guilty died carrying out thier deeds on 9-11. The enemy is not a country. Our desire to kick someones ass as retaliation for 9-11 is going to be very costly and non productive. The US is out looking for an ass to kick. Saudi Arabia gave the US thier blessing to make sadam the target. That sanction was given on the Bush ranch earlier this year.
-
Francois
sf wants us all to be MYRMIDONS and follow obediently and unquestioningly the mindless "No blood for oil" as if that were the real reason we're going after Saddam.
Lew, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. I'm not ready to wonder in which city the FIRST of Saddam's nukes is going to go off; or where the site will be where he re-introduces small pox and anthrax or even ebola.
sf, please calm down, take a pill, maybe a nice slug of brandy. You're going 90 miles an hour down a dead end street.
-
pettygrudger
As I'm of dissent here, I will say to some extent I have to agree w/Skally -
The history of Sadam is much over-politicated in the U.S. Sadam did have at least a small reason to go into Kawait back in 1991 -
At one time Kuwait was part of Iraq - basically in a nutshell "liberated" by Britain & allowed to join the UN. Okay, in the process of this, deals were made governing a lake of oil which shared Iraq & kuwait space. The deal was that neither country would undercut the others prices, or take more oil than the deal allowed. Kuwait violated this contract. They also began to make Iraqi citizens suffer as they closed off one of the few rivers of fresh water that went into Iraq. This of course pissed off Sadam & it lead to the Gulf war. Fast forward to today.........
Sadam has never attacked our country. He threatened to send missiles into Isreal (which he did) IF the US became involved in Kuwait (which we did). Yes Sadam is a horrible leader to his people, yes he is a tyrant that must go. But for those of you who don't know this, remember he hates Muslim Extremists as much IF NOT MORE than the U.S. does. One small fact is that the reason for so much war in the Middle East is because of Muslim Extremeist vs. More Modern Muslims. These wars have been waging for centuries. Sadam is in as much danger of these extremists violating his soveriegnty as much as anyone else.
Is he mad at us, yep - for butting our noses into places it doesn't belong, and for instigating conflicts just to get reductions in our oil prices. Don't tell me it doesn't happen - its common fact EVERYWHERE in the world but here. We also parade our arrogant sense of superiority in all facets of our foreign policy imho, which only breeds contempt from others (Russia, France & Japan have said as much in recent weeks).
If we want Sadam out, the best way would to support his own citizens to take him out. When the Gulf war was raging, we helped his people take control of 15 of 18 provinces. After the war, we withdrew suddenly, before the job was complete & left alot of anti-Sadam fighers blowing in the wind, for which they & their families paid a TERRIBLE price. We lost what - very few.
Its our foreign policy that gets us into trouble. Its George W. that's pulling all the strings now, and he also is turning out to be a supreme bully if you ask me. All of his Generals & Admirals within his think tank are saying NO, but the only people he will listen to are people such as himself, ONES THAT NEVER SERVED WHEN IT WAS THEIR TIME TO GO TO WAR, ELECTING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE SO THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE TO SEE CONFLICT. It disgusts me at how eager they are to send our men to the "street by street" gorrila fighting it will take to win this war (unlike the Gulf) without listening to anyone but themselves, cowards that willingly send others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves.
-
kelsey007
Amen pettygrudger!