I'm one to agree with an attack on Iraq, but with Iraq disarming missiles I don't see why we should anymore. If the US and UN can over see these missiles being destroyed, than I'm all for not invading Iraq. I've got to say though, I really do think that at this moment we should put that man out of power in Iraq. Maybe you guys have more info on this news...
Of course something like this is suppossed to give you hope that the idiot is coming around. But it shouldn't, he had this planned from the beginning. Holding out on missiles like these, destroying them late in the game in order to buy time on his REAL weapons projects. He is a freakin' MASTER at this game by now. However. They ARE missiles that once destroyed can't be used against anyone. I doubt a war can be averted, but the more we can get Saddam to destroy before hand the less he will have in his arsenal once we invade. At least so the theory goes.
The missiles they are talking about are not long range. They can't hit Israel. It will still leave Iraq missiles that can hit Kuwait. It doesn't really change anything.
Which is why Saddam did it. He's playing Bush like a fiddle in the realm of world opinion. It's a battle of wits, and I think Bush might be outmatched. Now if Hussein goes down, so will Bush, PR-wise. Which, I think, is what Saddam is hoping Bush will realize. I think we've overplayed our meager hand, and Saddam is calling our bluff.
Overplayed our meager hand? We've got a full house and it's brandishing an axe headed for Saddam's neck. World opinion means nothing. GWB is taking out Saddam, one way or another, with the world on his side or not. In six months, GWB will have approval ratings hovering around 80% again and Saddam will join Osama in Allah Hell. The stock market will be trending back upwards, uprisings in Iran will ferment threatening to overthrow yet another brutal regime with democracy to match the one being setup in Iraq. I'll be paying $1.20 to fill up my SUV again and summer will be in full-swing.
Which ones are those, spejic? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030227/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_missile_hunt_4 "But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears."
once again, the republican theory that war=fixed economy! WHAT?! Osama is alive and well apparently. Bush can't solve this problem so he goes and finds another one to attempt to fix. If Saddam decided to do something stupid like invade another nation or for no reason at all drop a WMD on someone it would be his end. Any invasion wouldn't get very far and it would only take one WMD attack to have every western country sending forces to take he and his regime out. While it would royally suck to see more loss of life it also is not possible to GUESS whether or not this will ever happen. And going to war, snuffing out thousands of lives, and possibly hundreds of American lives, on a GUESS is not justifyable nor moral. Going in without provocation is setting a dangerous precedent. Is he dangerous? sure. Would anything he could do bring down the western world? no. He just simply is not powerful enough to garner such hysteria on the part of Bush and his administration. Bush has not provided real evidence that Saddam is personally linked in any way to Al Qaeda (sp?), and IMO this link is crucial to really justifying a war right now. Powel's sorry speech to the U.N. was laughable, and at a time when a very good case might have turned opinions. But he failed, just as Bush has failed, to justify this war.
There's a saying, if you can't solve a problem, make it bigger. Doesn't it come from Colin Powell? I think I remember reading that that was his serious/sardonic take on some other issue.
Then why don't we call and throw the cards down on the table? Why are we holding our cards so close to the vest if we've got a full house and we allegedly know Saddam has a pair of fours?
You forgot about allowing the UN to further disintegrate and allow the anti war sentiment world wide to continue to grow. He's playing them all like a drum. I'm not necessarily pro war but I think we're past the point of no return. If we back off now, Saddam's a hero within the Arab world because he would have stood up to the West and prevailed. He's a very cunning person. It helps that he's got the French and Germans playing their Neville Chamberlain roles to assist the cause.
Sadly, this is true. Leave it to both Bushes to turn a lapsed Muslim facist dictator into a Pan Arab hero. Nice job, dicks.
Nope, thought of that one all by myself.... but you've got to admit that if I'm right about his strategy, Germany and France have done the most to aid his cause.
I'm just trying to point out that simple-minded comparisons of Hussein to Hitler and Chirac and/or Schroeder to Chamberlain are not necessary here. And no, I don't admit that Germany and France are aiding "his cause." Germany and France are acting in what they feel is their own personal best interest. It's what ALL nations do when confronted with choices forced upon them by circumstances. They are our allies, not our servants, and there's nothing that says allies are not allowed to disagree.
so what about all that "either your with us or your against us" stuff then?! oh wait, that's just Bush flashing back to his playground days
Two things : 1) My 2 year old nephew could beat GWB in a battle of wits. 2) Saddam's "cause" is the continuation of Saddam staying in power. If Germany and France push for dragging on inspections and not attacking Saddam, they are helping him stay in power, hence they are aiding his cause. The fact is true. The question is the value judgment attached to said fact. Lastort's comments are not mutually exclusive.
First off, I'll say that I'm against a war just because killing thousands of Iraqi civilians is not a good way to punish Saddam Hussein. But this is a great example of how Hussein keeps "crawfishing" his way out of trouble -- just like Bush said a few months back. He ignores the UN resolutions until it becomes very clear that he's about to get attacked, and then he makes a small concession like "agreeing in principle" to destroy these missiles. France and Germany buy it and call for no war since Iraq is now "complying" with the UN resolutions -- but they're still getting away with stuff that the UN resolutions are supposed to prohibit. If I were pro-war, this would piss me off a lot.
It cracks me up that people think of this guy as stupid just because he can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly. He's a graduate of Yale, he made a lot of money in business, and he was smart enough to become president of the US. You can't get that far in life if you're stupid, no matter how much help you may have gotten from Dad along the way.
family, family, family... it's all who you know, not what you know. have you not yet learned this tea?
you're kidding, right? side note: "nuclear" is certainly not the only word, or phrase, that Bush has absolutely MANGLED since he took over. The guy is a walking gag reel, cracks me up! Recently: "fool me once, shame on m...yo...shame on....on...*pause*...fool me twice just won't work" It was something along those lines, hysterical.
Yes No, he didn't. The only dime he ever made in business was when he sold his portion of the Texas Rangers. And the only reason he made money was because the owner of the Texas Rangers convinced the people of Arlington, Texas to fund a 300 million dollar stadium with tax money. Dubya's only profit in business was a tax payer's windfall. Paging Karl Rove.