Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

Your thinking is flawed. You are totally ignoring the fact that Hussein has flaunted the terms of the ceasefire for over ten years and commited atrocity after atrocity against his own people. Children starve while he pursues the ultimate weapon. If we do not strike against this tyrant we are moral cowards.

Respectfully,

jt

[Bereta_Eder]

before you do anything though let me know 'cause i have to go buy my pop corn and see you kill eachother. (it's not the same without pop corn)

[KrazyHorse]

I am against the first Gulf War...but once it happened, it was stupid to not have finished the job. And it's not worth the price to get that opportunity again.

[Velociryx]

I thought about that aspect of it, JT, and compelling arguments could be made that our own sanctions in place against Iraq are the root cause of the starvation. They're surely not doing much of anything to the man who has no less than fourteen different palatial homes scattered about his dusty nation.

Indirectly then, WE are the cause of the starvation. True, causally, Sadam himself is, as the sanctions are only in place because of his refusal to cooperate, but it's easy enough for his spin doctors to play it the other way.

That he flagrantly violates the terms of the peace is cause enough for the sanctions, surely, but full-scale war? I dunno. Certainly not without the support of the key players in the coalition last time we went rounds with him.

As to attrocities against his own people.....while I sympathize with them and their plight of having to live under the rule of one of the region's less-savory characters, his internal affairs and treatment of his people is certainly barbaric by our (western) standards, but again, unless there is a formal call for outside assistance--as per when Kuwait requested our aid--then I submit that we should not raise a hand against him.

Now....if a well-organized subversive group inside the nation put out an ABP for assistance, then by all means, we should rise to the occassion and answer their plea for help, but that changes the fundamental equation considerably. At that point, we're not lashing out at someone who might, at some point down the road, do something we don't like, we're answering a genuine call for help.

Puts an entirely different face on it in my book.

-=Vel=-
(of course, all this should be taken with a grain of salt....I'm one of those kooks who STILL, to this day has serious questions about the events of 9/11, not the least of which are "where's the torn up lawn from the plane that, according to the official story, hit the lawn and plowed into the building", and "why was there presidential pressure to quell any and all investigations into events surrounding that day")

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Vel,

Your thinking is flawed. You are totally ignoring the fact that Hussein has flaunted the terms of the ceasefire for over ten years and commited atrocity after atrocity against his own people. If we do not strike against this tyrant we are moral cowards.

Respectfully,

jt

Jesus. Turkey does the exact same things and it is your ally and you support it in doing it. Such hypocricy makes 9/11 so make sense.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by paiktis22



where were you when Cyprus was being invaded?

my reaction at a fast cross reading to Bug's post, and with all due respect, is go do what you like, you'll find it in front of you in the future.

there is no oil in cyprus

and ned, i think the offical us reaction to iraqi gas attacks was a kind of '**** happens' shrug of the shoulders.

[Bereta_Eder]

Answer me little bastard jimmytrick. You paragon of morality. How long must the world grind its teeth at your sponsored foreign state murders and your sponsored coup d'etat murders?

Take your time thinking. I will check this thread later.

[Bereta_Eder]

Cockney, there is no oil in Cyprus...

Thank you for exposing this whole charade. Enjoy your IRA.

[Velociryx]

paiktis22.....point out to me on the map just ONE NATION that has a spotless record. One single nation that's never done anything the least bit inconsistent and never gotten its hands dirty. Your own, perhaps?

Take your time answering, and I'll check this thread later....

-=Vel=-

[C0ckney]

bad day paiktis?

[Gatekeeper]

The last time I checked, the objective of the 1990-91 Gulf War was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Baghdad and removal of Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps it's easy to "forget" that little aspect now, nearly 12 years later, or dismiss it anyway, but I really don't think our Arab allies at the time would've been pleased had we gone beyond the objectives. In fact, it's my understanding that it was behind-the-scenes pressure, in addition to the limits of the UN mandate, that led to coalition forces coming to a halt in southern Iraq.

Not that "Stormin" Norman Schwartzkopf was pleased. From what I've heard, he told Bush Sr., et al., that he was only 30 to 40 minutes away from Baghdad. I believe he also stated something about cutting the head off the snake ... and that's something that didn't happen in 1991.

We stopped short, and ever since a number of folks have been conveniently forgetting or dismissing *why* we stopped short.

Gatekeeper

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

You surely don't subscribe to the theory that 4,000 Jews were told not to report to work on 9/11?

France is floating a trial ballon at the UN that Iraq be given a three week ultimatim. Still in debate is whether action will be sanctioned now or would require a further resolution after the expiration of the three week period.

I will agree with you on one point Vel. The time for sanctions is at an end. We have allowed too many innocents to die in Iraq already.

jt

[Velociryx]

Good point, Gatekeeper. It's not something I had forgotten, I'm just saying that, while we had assets on the ground in Iraq, it would have been very easy to do it and ask forgiveness later. True, there would have been backlash, but not anything on the order of magnitude we'll see if we go it alone this time.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The last time I checked, the objective of the 1990-91 Gulf War was the liberation of Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Baghdad and removal of Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps it's easy to "forget" that little aspect now, nearly 12 years later, or dismiss it anyway, but I really don't think our Arab allies at the time would've been pleased had we gone beyond the objectives. In fact, it's my understanding that it was behind-the-scenes pressure, in addition to the limits of the UN mandate, that led to coalition forces coming to a halt in southern Iraq.

Not that "Stormin" Norman Schwartzkopf was pleased. From what I've heard, he told Bush Sr., et al., that he was only 30 to 40 minutes away from Baghdad. I believe he also stated something about cutting the head off the snake ... and that's something that didn't happen in 1991.

We stopped short, and ever since a number of folks have been conveniently forgetting or dismissing *why* we stopped short.

Gatekeeper

I know why it happened...but it makes me angry.

If the West was going to go in and slaughter a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis, we should also have given the ones we didn't kill something to pay them back...like getting rid of Saddam.

[Bereta_Eder]

Vel, show me ONE NATION that has done such a dirty record as you involving third countries. If you say USSR, then ok you're the same. Take pleasure in that.

Cockney, does that change anything?