Only Americans need reply

[- Groucho -]

I find the whole Iraq obsession incomprehensible. Clearly, the US doesn't care too much about the Kurds, who they left high and dry after the Gulf War. Kuwait is well protected. The Saudis are well protected. I would love to see Iraq take on the Israelis as I don't think the Mossad would have much trouble popping Hussein. Iran isn't Iraq's friend but Bush could give a flying **** if they were attacked. And Jordan has little to fear because Hussein has no desire to piss off the Arab world. Have I missed someone? Who is it that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld feel the need to protect from Iraqi aggression?

It certainly isn't the people of Iraq. Mugabe is busy engineering a famine in Zimbabwe (as incredible as it sounds, farming in that country is now an offence if the farmer is told to stop) and Bush isn't rattling any sabres there. Clearly no champion of the oppressed.

So what is it? Why attack? They say it is the pursuit of nuclear weapons but hell, they allowed Pakistan to go nuclear and that is one messed up country. Why does Iraq get Bush's knickers in a knot?

Please someone tell me that it isn't just because of his dad.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It should have been done during the Gulf War, but Bush, Sr. bowed to the wishes of the U.N.

Which were also the wishes of Mr. Powell. Nobody seems to remember that...

[SlowwHand]

Live and learn then, eh Boris ?

As for Iran, why in the hell should we like Iran, no matter if they like Iraq or not Echinda?
Iran is nothing but a bunch of hostage taking pukes.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As for Iran, why in the hell should we like Iran, no matter if they like Iraq or not Echinda?
Iran is nothing but a bunch of hostage taking pukes.

I think you missed my point. It's exactly because Bush has no desire to protect Iran that it removes them from the possible list of reasons for invading Iraq. As for whether he ought to like Iran - I dunno. If you want to talk about that start a different thread.

[loinburger]

I say we just wait for him to die from old age, since it worked so well with Castro.

[CapitanGarlic]

Mini-Bush is just afraid to deal with more important issues (and yes, I KNOW Iraq is a big deal, but it's been that way for 15 years now) so decides to go off and fight his dad's war.

Starting a full-out war against Iraq would be unfair to the Iraqi citizens. Sure, they support him, but they don't know everything he does to screw them over. Absolute control of the press does that.

Cut off the head, and the body dies.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by loinburger
I say we just wait for him to die from old age, since it worked so well with Castro.

Well, that's an overstatement since Castro is still alive and kicking, so we don't know if a "stand-off-and-wait" tactic will work or if it's in the U.S's (and the World's) best interest....Besides, Castro is not nearly the threat that Hussein is.

[chequita guevara]

What about Burma/Myanmar? This is a country that is practicing slavery and genocide. But the US is not only perfectly happy to not do business with them, when local governments, like Massachusetts, decide they won't do business with any company that does business with Burma, the Feds step in and force them to do so.

The government of Columbia has murdered 100,000 of it's own people. Occasionally this is related to the war against the FARC and ELN, but mostly its peasants who are on land that some well-connnected landowner wants, unionists trying to organize a Coca-Cola factory, etc. Despite having the worst human rights record of any existing governemnt in the Americas, the US is an ally and is supplying it with billions in military aid.

What makes Iraq so special aside from being an excellent scapegoats?

[Strates]

Don't you guys just love US emperialism? Wait... No!

I think the war in Iraq is to alliviate some of the economic problems of the US. As Dubya said Mfg. is up. Sure it is... The magnufacturing of bombs!

[walruskkkch]

Just two points from seperate posts.

1)The Kurds currently have a semiautonomous region protected from Iraqi action by the No-Fly zone maintained by the US and Britian. Ain't perfect and it's also a sore point with the Turks, but it's there.

2)The US had to oppose the actions taken by Massachusetts becasue it was a question of consitutional supremacy as a state cannot legislate such things with foreign policy implications. I believe only Congress and President have that authority. It would be tantamount to allowing Mass. declare war on anyone they wanted as well. (It's the principle, not an actual ability)

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're comparing China, with Turkey ?

Paiktis hates turks.


Good job taking out Saddam. Now let's get Quaddafi, Iran, china, Castro, and any other non-democratic regimes.* The cold war is over; there's no reason to allow them to continue on.

*I don't mean non- capitalist. Just before all you communists jump down my throat. India can stay, so can england and Norway and other such welfare states. I don't agree with them, but at least they're not oppressive.

[Bereta_Eder]

No more than you like OBL. Truth is that there are huge human rights abuses in Turkey my dear DL.

[Shi Huangdi]

I say we should do it- Saddam with Nukes is unacceptable.

[Dan Severn]

OBL?

Overbearing British Lunatic?

And I'm not a DL, for the 18 Bahjillionth and four time.

[Bereta_Eder]

read this again


The point is that the human rights abuses "justification" is used for the US to achieve its aims against its enemies.

In cases where the regims are friends of the US the abuses are muted.


see?



and no Osama - I got tewo of your buildings down - Bin - and I'm cool in my turban - Osama