Who is going to help US in invading Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Turkoglu, Aug 28, 2002.

  1. Alan S

    Alan S Member

    Jun 1, 2001
    Palo Alto, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Iran does have a nuclear weapon's program. See link below, but the country is reforming. They might even become the first truely democratic nation in the region. (Many Iranian's live in California).
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr-progress.htm

    PLA doesn't have a nuclear weapon's program, to some extent are a proxy for other Arab nations to attack Isreal. (I think we should do more to help create an independent Palestian state though.)

    Al Quada attacked on 9/11 not Saudi Arabia. To the extent that Al Quada is supported by SA citizens though we should stop buying thier oil.
    I think electric/hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius should be consider over gas guzzling cars, and we should support research into electric/hybrid/fuel cell cars.
     
  2. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000

    Bull ************. It's total bull ************. Why did Sudan drop 3 spots when they didn't even play this week? Syria has a weak schedule and a weaker conference.
     
  3. Actilius

    Actilius New Member

    Oct 15, 1999
    It's not a simple thing...i agree, i'm sure that Saddam Hussein is a real danger and i'm pretty sure that he's involved in terrorism, or at least he gave money to terrorrits. But i think that this must not mean you go there and destroy everything. We have to isolate him, we must stop the ways he get money. A war could be a terrible wrong, a lot of arab countries,and all the religious fanatics, could wake up...and the medicine wll kill the sick man..
    The real problem is as usual economic... reduce the use of petroleum, and u'll give a hand to the enviroment and u'll cut the economic force of those country...stop selling them...
    Look what's happening in Israle and think: the use of the strenght do nto seems to me having helped someone
     
  4. Turkoglu

    Turkoglu Member

    Mar 30, 2001
    Istanbul
    How many muslim countries have you been to?
     
  5. TRC Real Sociedad

    TRC Real Sociedad New Member

    Mar 30, 2002
    Long Beach CA
    To Finally answer your question.

    SWITZERLAND BABY, RESTED AND READY FOR ACTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It isn't liberals who don't want to attack Iraq, hell I think everybody want's to kick Saddams( see I spelled his name wrong on purpose just like papa Bush used to say his name wrong, we heard he hates that) ass, who doesn't? But we would rather not piss of the entire planet before, during and after the "military action". I guess we can always ask the Kurds for help, lord knows we really "helped" them out during the Gulf war, hold tight while their translator figures out how to say the phrase " GO F*** YOURSELF ".
     
  6. michaec

    michaec Member

    Arsenal
    England
    May 24, 2001
    Essex
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I'm not Palestinian or Israeli, but the Palestinians see the US in about the way the US see Saddam Hussein.

    The US supplies Israel with billions of dollars while doing nothing when Israel attacks Palestinians.

    So what's different? Saddam backs suicide bombers with money when they kill Israelis.

    Sounds like total hypocrisy to me. If you want to go after Iraq because of their human rights abuses, agression against neighbouring states, the fear he will use WMD or just because you plain just don't like Saddam because you didn't finish him off the last time, just say so. But to get on your high horse about backing suicide bombers with money is just too much.

    And whatever reason(s) are used for going to war. Let's see the proof first. The people should have all the facts and be allowed to decide whether it is right to put our soldiers in the line of fire. It's called democracy and is often spouted by the US when it suits. Saying "Oh yeah, we have the proof" is just not good enough.
     
  7. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "...Kurdish people throughout southern Turkey, very ordinary, humble people, have decided they would rather die standing up than spend their lives on their knees...it was the most extraordinary and inspiring sight of my life...I hope one day they have the kind of freedoms we take for granted."

    - Michael Ignatieff,
     
  8. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh, so now it's about nuclear weapons. How are the planned invasions of China, Pakistan, Israel, and India going?

    Stop moving the goalposts.

    Bill...if you recall, I never had any doubts that we should invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban. You'll have to take my word for it that I favored the Gulf War. (And I even defend Bush I here from criticism about the Allies not going all the way to Baghdad.)

    Even wrt Iraq, I'm not deadset against the invasion. My observation is that the Bushies have not provided a coherent reason for this, or, more accurately, a coherent reason that doesn't make us almost literally the world's policeman.

    fidlerre has a good point...so far, we have no real allies in this. Everybody else is wrong, and we're right?

    If the Bushies can convince me that Saddam really is harboring al-Qaeda remnants, let's do it. If Iraq had anything to do with either Sept. 11 or the subsequent anthrax attacks, let's start dropping bombs.

    Let's put it this way...to me, the Bushies are engaging in the kind of debating tactics that pi** me off here, that I usually rip a person for. Namely, asserting something as true, something upon which the whole argument rests, without first proving it.

    They're asserting all kinds of things that would, to me, be legitimate reasons for going forward. Prove, don't assert.

    It's especially scary, to me, the notion that the 1990 Congressional resolution is sufficient.
     
  9. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    dave;

    I've said my piece about the Gulf War resolution. No one has, as of yet, even TRIED to refute my argument that, in fact, Congress doesn't WANT to have to vote on this and that the proposition that invoking the authority it authorizes is "screwing" Congress is patent nonsense.

    As for it being "scary" I'm not sure what you mean; scarier, say, than commencing an intensive bombing campaign against Serbia without so much as a WINK at Congress?

    I will say again, your problem with this operation seems to me to be a lot more a question of WHO will be in charge (the people you characterize as "Bushies" although I'm sure the appellation "Clintonite" pissed you off but it's different now, isn't it?) than WHAT it is they're doing.

    The fact of the matter is that there is literally NO debate in EITHER party about WHETHER this should be done. The ONLY debate among serious people (ie. non-Clintonites) here or anywhere else is 1) whether we should go it alone or whether we should get up a posse, 2) whether Congress should vote on it and 3) whether we need UN permission.

    To the first, I would simply like to remind those whose sole end is to bash anybody named Bush (talk about haters - you guys simply have NO credibility left at all) that in the Gulf War, most of you roundly criticize Bush I for "not going all the way" when in fact it was our ALLIES, mostly the Egyptians and Saudis, who demanded that we stop

    To the second, a goodly number of you went positively apoplectic over a lawyer's finding, a finding which was unofficial and advisory. Nothing more. It appears, frankly, that the Administration WILL in fact be going to Congress on this. It's the smart thing to do, since they WILL grant whatever powers are asked for, and then they'll be beyond deniability later. It was, as I stated earlier, doing Congress a FAVOR by invoking the Gulf Resolutions and thus letting them off the hook.

    In short, it appears now that all the venom you all spewed against the President on this was simply pissing in the wind.

    As for the UN, well, all you have to do is read some of what's going on in Johannisberg right now to see everything you need to know about them; delegates from 189 countries, including ALL of the most despicable, unelected, kleptocratic, repressive, dictatorial, filthy, butchering governments on earth are taking turns blaming the US for everything that is wrong in the entire world, in between sucking down 5 Star meals and shopping for watches.

    THESE are the people whose permission the United States needs to beg for? Please.
     
  10. Ted Cikowski

    Ted Cikowski Red Card

    May 31, 2000
    by the way....where was the international outrage and letters to America from Canada when we dropped some bombs on Iraq back in '99 (on a muslim holiday no less)? Or when we bombed a pharmicudical plant in Sudan? Did Clinton get a free pass to do these things? Bush hasn't even done anything yet and Europeans are getting ready to chain themselves to twigs over this.
     
  11. Alan S

    Alan S Member

    Jun 1, 2001
    Palo Alto, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My father travels quite a bit and has been to Turkey and Egypt. Many people from the middle east have immigrated here. I know and have worked with people from Iran, Afganistan, Syria, Egypt, Palestine and Iraq.

    If you would like to contribute on this subject I would be interested in hearing your perspective.

    Have you been to Saudi Arabia? Could you look in a telephone book and find a list of Christian churches to attend on a Sunday in Saudi Arabia. That was my point. (It was a reaction to superdave's this is against all Arabs statment. Nothing more.)
     
  12. weasel

    weasel Member

    Oct 31, 2000
    NYC
    You're wasting your breath trying to convince superdave. To him, it is hypocritical to do anything about Iraq until all other evils in the world are addressed. Any argument and supporting facts you use will be reduced ad infinitum, ad absurdum to justify inaction.

    Many people simply won't accept that Hussein is a threat to US interests, even if he has weapons of mass destruction. As a result, there can be no justification for an attack.
     
  13. Alan S

    Alan S Member

    Jun 1, 2001
    Palo Alto, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    dave, I only posted a few times and am not moving any goal posts. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything other posters have stated. (I really don't even have a strong opinion on the issue yet. But the issue is a very serious one, and deserves debate.)

    I only posted because it seems like some reverted to putting back on the "rose colored glasses", and are not looking at the hard issues that need to be considered.

    The fundamental issue is what would Al-Qaeda do if they got a WMD weapon? Who would/could provide such a weapon to them? In the list above China, Isreal and India are not candidates. Elements within Pakistan are possible.

    Maybe they haven't. But you really need to consider, the fundamental issue. Making arguments like "I (like/hate) (Bush/Clinton) therefore everything they do is (right/wrong)" really trivialize the important issue and what is at stake.
     
  14. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Feb 28, 2000
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Alan is 100% correct about Saudi Arabia. They do not allow other faiths to have chruches or temples nor are they tolerant of them either. I'm not sure, but there are probably other countries with similar views in the middle east, though none are as bad as the Saudi's. The defenders of the one truth faith.
     
  15. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In fact, they confiscate Bibles and crosses. You can't even practice Christianity in the privacy of your own home.
     
  16. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes. Two major differences this time. One, we're gonna be using ground troops, which means casualties. Two, we had international diplomatic support against Serbia. It wasn't exactly the kind of alliance we had in '91 or '01, sure, but it was something.

    Check out my post in the socialized medicine thread. I use something worse than "Clintonite."

    When I write Bushies, it's just shorthhand for "the Bush team." If you have a term just as short that you don't find offensive, let me know.

    My personal opinion (for which I freely admit I have almost no facts for) is that your typical Democrat in Congress thinks this is a bad idea without more and better evidence, but is perfectly willing to take the intentional walk the Bushies might give them.

    If it is true that the evidence is lacking, then, while what Bush is doing could be impeachable, those Dems are every bit as bad. Maybe worse, depending on how you compare hypocrisy to hubris.

    I see your point, but I took that finding in the context of what I find to be a troubling pattern.

    On this matter, I really don't give a **** about UN resolutions. But can we find NO allies? I mean, so far as I know, Kuwait won't let us set up bases there. Don't you find that disturbing on a couple of levels?
     
  17. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That's not what I'm saying at all. Not at all.

    I think that someone who sells a ton of coke every year is more deserving of a massive investigation than a corner dealer. You do to, I hope.

    If this is about stopping terrorism, why would we go after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? OK, the WMD. Fine, prove with a preponderance of evidence that they have WMD and are willing/have the connections to pass them on to terrorists. (The 2nd half of that shouldn't be too hard to prove, but it's no slam dunk either.)

    If it's merely about WMD, that begs another set of questions. Why Iraq and not other nations with WMD? Why did the administration only target Iraq after Sept. 11? I mean, on Sept. 10, who here would have thought we'd be preparing for war with Iraq in a year's time? And it's been several months now that this topic has been in the news.

    Even if the problem is solely WMD, you will never convince me, using what is known now, that this is anything other than the Bushies using Sept. 11 as an excuse.

    If the push for war is related to Sept. 11, then demonstrate the connection.

    If not, stop using Sept. 11 to confuse the issue.
     
  18. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Uh, it's not hypocritical to suggest taking care of Saudi Arabia before Iraq. I believe the House of Saud has done more damage to this nation than Saddam, and I think it's all but accepted that Saudi Arabia was up to their eyeballs in culpability for September 11 - unlike Iraq.

    I don't know what Bill has been reading that says there are no credible doves out there - when Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Anthony Zinni and Dick Armey are uneasy about the enterprise, doesn't that say a little something? No? Not even a little tiny bit?

    "Regime change" can't be done as cheaply as Clinton's endeavors against Serbia, Sudan and Iraq. I don't know anyone who's saying "Let's get Saddam back on the CIA payroll," except for me and Claire Berlinski (the latter of whom was probably kidding). What almost everyone is questioning is whether the cost will be worth it.

    As far as this SOB having The Bomb - when you factor in the breakup of the Soviet Union, who DOESN'T have the bomb at this point? Hell, Stalin, Brezhnev, Mao, Nixon and Reagan had the bomb, too. I get that Saddam is a homicidal dictator, but I don't get that he's a suicidal martyr.

    We also have a totally crappy track record in installing democratic regimes. That this issue hasn't even come up, let alone the scale of blowback likely once our puppet regime inevitably collapses, shows that this is not a serious or responsible plan. The adults are definitely not in charge.
     
  19. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bullseye.

    What's going on now in Afghanistan doesn't fill one with hope, does it?
     
  20. Matrim55

    Matrim55 Member+

    Aug 14, 2000
    Berkeley
    Club:
    Connecticut
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What makes you think the Bush administration has any interest in democracy?
     
  21. LeperKhan

    LeperKhan New Member

    Aug 10, 2000
    St. Paul, MN
    http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/30/powell.iraq/index.html

    You can apparently add Colin Powell to the list of those who don't think it's a good idea to go it alone. Also in the article, interesing quotes from General (Ret) Anthony Zinni:

    "Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems," Zinni told members of the Florida Economic Club. "If you ask me my opinion, General Scowcroft, General Powell, General Schwarzkopf, General Zinni -- maybe all see this the same way.

    "It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it in the same way, and all those, who never fired a shot in anger and really held back to go to war, see it in a different way. That's usually the way it is in history."

    Zinni's speech came a week before public comments by Rumsfeld and Cheney making Bush's case for regime change in Iraq.
     
  22. Pigs

    Pigs Member

    Everton FC
    England
    Mar 31, 2001
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Apparently Saddam Husein said that the only thing that will stop an American attack on Iraq is the UK. He said the the USA needs someone, so they don't look like they are alone.

    So if there was ever another US attack on Iraq, it looks like the UK will join in. Tony Blair is already talking about setting a deadline for Iraq, which obviously means he's literally been told by George Bush to say this, instead of the US setting the deadline.
     
  23. NSlander

    NSlander Member

    Feb 28, 2000
    LA CA
    Not really. But they often have a difficult time with those who can't/won't draw the tough distinctions required of modern life.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=hiro20020828

    The CIA and FBI don't find a causal conection between Iraq and 9-11. But the frigg'n moron who claims we need to "securitize" our borders knows better.

    This is the same guy whose father was business partners in oil ventures with Saudi Royals and members of Bin-Laden's family. And we know about the origins of Bin-Laden and the highjackers. Why the HELL aren't those drumming for war calling for retribution on Saudi Arabia? I suspect its because the don't have the NADS. Doing so would take independence, courage, and the humility to admit that one's political party and its leader just MIGHT be wrong. Pride, being foremost among the deadly sins, is the toughest to overcome

    With regard to naivete of the "cruel realities" of our short, nasty and brutish exixtence: how blind must one be to the Bushies' intractable and incestuous relationship with mid-east oil as to collectively ignore these conflicting interests?

    Bush has not make a case for war. If he wants to move on Saudi Arabia, I'm listening. But not holding my breath.
     
  24. Turkoglu

    Turkoglu Member

    Mar 30, 2001
    Istanbul
    Ok Here check this out.

    http://www.tsk.mil.tr/genelkumay/bashalk/unutulangercekler/default.htm

    click on any of the cilts. At the background you will find a a baby shot in the chest. It is in turkish but all of those titles are the attacks by the Kurdish militants. You want to know how many died? By the way they do not want FREEDOM. THEY WANT A COUNTRY OF THEIR OWN. There is a big difference. And in order to achieve that they kill Turks. They plant bombs in the shopping malls. You know in Turkey you can not go to a mall without going through a metal detactor? You dont know how life is in Turkey and you dont know what kind of freedom the Kurds have. But all you believe is some guy who sees the Kurds as freedom fighters and the Palestanians as terrorist. In my opinion they are the same. but killing other people is not going to help your cause.
     
  25. Turkoglu

    Turkoglu Member

    Mar 30, 2001
    Istanbul
    My father lived in Saudi Arabia for 7 years and worked for Raytheon with a lot of Americans. It is probably the safest country to live in and just because there are no churches over there does not mean that people over there do not tolerate other religions. Iran, Iraq and Syria are different. The people over there are more radical and not so tolerant. Let me tell you another thing. I bet you there are more churches and synogoges (spelling?) in Istanbul than the number of mosques in the entire USA hehehe.
     

Share This Page