Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Viable Alternatives To War In Iraq  
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

The anti-war movement is loud and vehement. I understand and sympathize with those who do not want to see a war to oust Saddam Hussein. I hope there is no war. A war will be horrendous. However, I have yet to hear anyone from the anti-war movement to propose a realistic alternative in dealing with Saddam. The anti-war movement often amounts to little more than bashing the United States, the President, capitalism, oil companies and the rest. It has been devoid of substance thus far.

The question is how is the world supposed to deal with a dictator who has defied a UN resolution requiring him to disarm for 11 years in spite of the fact that every tool of diplomacy has been tried: economic sanctions, resolutions, inspections, and so on. If we don't enforce now, then when is the right time? President Bush has framed the issues and no one has made a compelling case in opposition.

I hope to hear some good ideas on what else could be done to force Saddam out of power or to quit his WMD program.

If you want to entertain theories that the US is going to start war in order to seize Iraqi oil or peddle arms or to take over the world, I respectfully ask that you start another thread for those purposes. Those theories are preposterous and obfuscate the real issues that actually merit serious discussion.

I see two serious long-term problems that will result from this war:

1. There will be a precedent for preemptive war. The danger is obvious.

2. This war will create a rush to obtain nuclear weapons among dictatorships around the world. DPRK is getting the soft-glove treatment because of its 2 bombs.

How should these issues be addressed?



38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

Well, to me it seems the only alternative at this point is if Saddam backs down, admits WMDs or development efforts, follows susequent guidelines to cease development and destroy any existing, then steps down. I hope this happens and the world would seem to be a better place because of it. The chances of this seem slim enough, and again, I think that the loud anti-war groups and things like Westerners offering human shields will only make Saddam more defiant. In short, I think the anti-war folks are undermining the only alternative possibility and this will lead to war.


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

The is no viable alternative that hinges on the word or credibility of Saddam Hussein. His promises are mere air and nothing more the instant they escape his mouth.

As I see it, the real battle here is to be fought with time.

1. Make time a gamble. Act now and play a fast and furious poker game with very very dangerous potential.

2. Make time an ally. Each second kills Saddam Hussein a little more. Perhaps time has plans to speed the process up.

3. Do nothing. Saddam could be a Hitler...or a Qaddaffi. Someone ready to cry 'uncle' and sulk away for a decade or so to return doped and unfanged.

I fear we are acting impulsively, driven by powers that feel they have so much more to do.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

HM,

Would you mind elaborating on #2? How do you see that playing out?


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Shouldnt Iraq or other countries that disarm have some assurance that they wont be targetted wiht WMD's once they disarm?

So what do we do about WMD's held by *other* equally irresponsible countries? What about the arsenals held by the US?

-Roy


User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

"These arms inspectors have been looking for proof of weapons of mass destruction. They think they've found it. Like those warheads. I thought they qualified, but since the warheads were empty, the Iraqi's said that those empty warheads mean nothing. You know what that's like? That's like your wife finding a bra in the glove compartment of your car. 'Honey, that bra is empty. There are no breasts in it. I couldn't be fooling around!'"

User currently offlineRai From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

What about the arsenals held by the US?

And what about those arsenals in India, Roy? Be consistent.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2631 times:


And what about those arsenals in India, Roy? Be consistent.


Even those.

If we talk disarmament we ought to talk comprehensive disarmament. Just disarming Iraq would be creating a situation similar to what the Allies did to Germany after WW1. It doesnt solve anything.

But that is something that is beyond the comprehension capabilities of the neo-Nazi's who defend the US govts. actions on this board!

-Roy


User currently offlineDc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Our WMD and Israels are for defensive purposes only. Iraqs or North Korea are for first strike capability. In other words they'll use theirs before we use ours.

User currently offlineKappa13 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 163 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

"But that is something that is beyond the comprehension capabilities of the neo-Nazi's who defend the US govts. actions on this board!"

Yep that's us Americans. We are Neo-Nazi's. Man I'm glad that you finally realized that.  Yeah sure

Todd


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

If we talk disarmament we ought to talk comprehensive disarmament.

Getting lethal weapons out of the hands of a madman is not a good idea, then? Shall we wait until Saddam strikes first with a nuke?

Pete


User currently offlineAlaska727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

YEP.. no war is my motto.

-VG


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

To me, the best way is to just hand Saddam the rope, and he'll hang himself. Why are we in a rush here? So far, the UN inspections have not turned up any weapons. That doesn't mean Saddam doesn't have them, but none have been found. And, unless he has them, and won't give them up, the U.S. has no legitimate case to attack Iraq AT THIS TIME. But, I'm convinced that the time will come where Saddam will precipitate another war. History tells us he will, so let's bide our time on this one.

For those who might say that "wait, what if he all of a sudden drops a WMD on a US Aircraft Carrier or Israel?" Fair question. If he does, he has GOT to know Iraq will be turned into a parking lot-either by us or Israel. There wouldn't be a stick left on a stick or a stone left on a stone, and what great good would that act have done him? Honestly, I don't think he'll do that, pre-emptively.

As for disarmament, it's a nice thought, but I doubt it'll ever happen. Now that the genie is out of the nuclear bottle, someone will always have that information, and someone, even in a nuclear disarmed world, would try to covertly have the weapon. I won't dignify Roy's assinine remarks, but the U.S. is certainly not going to disarm if the rest of the world won't, either


User currently offlineJessman From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1506 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

What about the arsenals held by the US?
This is only a question asked by those who believe in moral relativism.

The United States of America is not the equivalent of Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

You can hate the policies and personalities of any politician in the USA; that's OK, In fact your feelings and freedom to voice those feelings are protected by that self-same government. In the end ALL politicians are answerable to the PEOPLE of the United States of America. NO politician; not even the president; is a dictator. To spit in the eye of all you marxists out there Capitalism is quickest and most efficient way to distribute wealth most evenly.
Business does not survive on whims of a few elite rich. Business does not survive on the backs of masses of poor. Business thrives on the development and nurturing of a strong and large middle class. In the USA we attempt to give our citizens due process and equal protection under the law. No system is perfect, but we make the attempt.

Saddam, on the other hand is a dictator. Opposition is killed. Minority groups are gassed. He has started 2 regional conflicts in My lifetime with Iran and Kuwait, WITHOUT approval of the UN; which the US has by the way. Saddam builds palaces with the money he gets from selling oil while keeping the poor in his country starving, so he can call the US evil. He lied about having chemical and biological weapons in 1991 and we are finding plenty of evidence that he is lying now.

Saddam also supports terrorists. He may not be directly tied with Al-Queida, but he does support such groups as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad when they blow themselves up in Israel. Those groups are ruthless, illegal, and they dont like Israel, the USA or India at all, therefore if they want to be an enemy they are now an enemy and those that support them are enemies.

I don't deny imperfections in the United States of America, mostly stemming from stupid people (who live in every country under the sun); but it is lunacy to try to put Iraq on the same moral plane as the United States of America.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13238 posts, RR: 77
Reply 14, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2584 times:

Largely well thought out responses on this thread, for what it's worth (and it could be for EU and UK political consumption), Blair has been claiming that intelligence shows that the Iraqi regime are getting very rattled, a whole bunch of people are starting to worry that they could soon either be killed by US/UK forces, or worse, get lynched by a vengeful Iraqi populace.



User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5040 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Dc863,

Our WMD and Israels are for defensive purposes only. Iraqs or North Korea are for first strike capability. In other words they'll use theirs before we use ours.

Uhm... Do you have something the rest of us don't?? Like, a chrystal ball or something? How on earth do you know they have them for 'first strike capability'?? Do you REALLY think any of these countries will be STUPID enough to fire a nuke at another country? That's ritual suicide, and they know that very well. Wasn't it said during the cold war that the USSR had its nukes for 'first strike' too??


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

Would you mind elaborating on #2? How do you see that playing out?

Well, look at the situation....where are the swarms of Arabs dropping everything to rally to Bagdad and defend Saddam? Nowhere. You read Friedman. Did he not point out even the most aspiring anti-American opinion on the Arab Street has no love for Saddam. Kill him, see what I care. The Muslim world will not shed tears for this guy. It could be argued even OBL hates him.

We're about to use a massive chunk of our fighting machine to stage an occupation against an entire country. It increasingly looks like we'll catch hell from the rest of the world for it. So why aren't we going to war against the system that keeps Saddam in power? Why don't we have the patience to "blue jay" his regime?.....one insignifigant entity with small but constant attacks at a larger threat until the threat relents. That entity could be the Iraqi opposition, or one part of it. Another entity could be added by American covert operators. Selected assassinations, air attacks, bribes, intelligence. It has worked before, indeed we used to be quite good at it when the spectre of communism reared its' head in a regime. Hell, maybe even get lucky & whack out Mr. Big Man himself. Formulate a coalition as we did in Afghanistan to step in when the dust settles. A cynic (like me) says taking the sneaky, devious road would work (and if all the truth came out...well, we'd probably catch hell from the rest of the world for it, but thats gonna happen anyway.) But a cynic (like me) also reminds himself that this plans leaves a key element out of the picture; Exxon-Mobil's access to what's under Iraq. Three dozen sets of conservative eyeballs just rolled, but so be it. You're being naive. The politicians are saying this has nothing to do with oil. Please notice that line started with "The politicians are saying....". That means it has to do a great deal with oil.

Now ponder this for a moment: It's no secret I'm no fan of George II. The guy wants to turn my country into one big Texas, where those with the most power think Right is never wrong, and independent thought is to be cherished...as long as it remains thought. I moved out of Texas, and I'd prefer it didn't follow me here. I'd also prefer another President.
But if a foreign army invaded my country tommorow, for the sole purpose of dislodging that President, what would be my reaction? Go git 'im!? Hell no. I'd dig under the boxes of cds and socks for the AR and defend my country to the death. I wouldn't be defending or dying for George Bush. I'd be fighting for the land I was born, raised and prosper in.
Why should we expect anything different from Abdul Sixpack in the narrow alleys of Bagdad? Ten years ago Iraq got its' lunch handed to them in Kuwait...a place they had no business being. That was Saddam's offense. THIS...is Iraq's defense. And that same scumbag SecDef who tells me it has "nothing to do with oil" is also counting on Iraqis to rise up against Saddam...as their country is being attacked.

(sigh) Here's where I remember I can't do anything about it.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Thanks to those who posted the thoughtful responses. I am particularly intrigued by idea that we could somehow wait this crisis out. I think Alpha 1 and Heavymetal made very similar suggestions on this point. If we remove the military pressure from Iraq, what will prevent them from resuming their misbehavior?

The regimes of the DPRK and Iraq are extremely unpredictable and are ruled by men who are not all that concerned about the well-being of their people. That is how they are unique from other nuclear powers. And that is why the rest of world must act on the assumption that these countries are not worried about acting in a suicidal manner.

From what I understand about the 'wait it out' option in Iraq, I am unconvinced. I do not want to know whether Saddam is crazy enough to nuke an aircraft carrier or Israel and then act afterwards. Prior to 9/11, no one really imagined that OBL could attack the US mainland. Hussein may develop a terminal illness or just get old and decide he wants to martyr himself and a million of closest Iraqi friends by lobbing something deadly at Israel.

If we decide to adopt a reactive posture, there are other risks. Once a nuke or other WMD is used anywhere, the world will enter some turmoil that is hard to predict. Anyway, that is part of why I think that the President has made a fairly compelling case for the world to act preemptively against Saddam.

If any of you are interested, Condoleeza Rice wrote an interesting op-ed today about Iraq and their lies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/23RICE.html


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Nothingness springs to mind to be honest.. though not viable - it's a lovely thought.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2548 times:


I think everyone would prefer a discrete method of taking this guy out. However I think the massive security apparatus that Saddam uses to subjugate Iraq cannot subtly be defeated. I really do not think special forces could get to him easily. If he detects such an attempt on his life by the US, that just might set him off in a very bad way and with his military intact.

I think there is a big difference between "Joe" and his cousin "Abdul" sixpack. Abdul has probably entertained the thought of sneaking onto an overcrowded ship to Austrailia, Europe, or even the US for the chance at taking a stab at asylum. Iraqis have been fleeing their country for years and many are interned in refugee camps in eastern Europe as they make their way west. Although Iraqis may love their country, I don't see them putting up anything near the fight that Americans would defending their country. During the Gulf War, Iraq's fighting men surrendered in droves.

Even Jimmy Carter, when accepting the Nobel Prize, told a cyncial French journalist that this is not about oil. Oil is part of the issue but it is not all or even most of the reason. As Friedman said, just because big oil will benefit is not a reason to avoid taking action against Saddam.

I think one thing we could do short of war is tighten the noose on Saddam economically. That could really destabilize him further. Currently, Jordan and Turkey make a killing by letting things slip through to Iraq. I think we should ask them to shut off the tap and compensate them to an extent- under the table.


User currently offlineHerman From Singapore, joined Jul 2000, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2551 times:



jessman- Usa They're not that perfect u know. Although Iraq might be worse than Usa- we wouldnt really know for sure with propaganda everywhere(eg: news, etc.). Might be exxagerated.

Alpha1- I agree very much with you. The point of matter is there is no conclusive evidence that Iraq has WMD. It has not been found and a war on Iraq would be unjustified. America cannot just attack Iraq and put the lives of millions of innocents in jeopardy. Its a question of morals. Too get rid of 1 man(saddam) u kill hundreds of thousand more. This is morally wrong and can never be justified.


P.s: war is not the answer- Bush and Sharon share the same sentiment and that is- " Fight fire with fire". Tell me; Has peace been achieved in Israel since sharon came?


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030122-iraq01.htm

Things that make you go HMMMMMM.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 2520 times:



The United States of America is not the equivalent of Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.


What you are saying is this: since I have been a good boy in school, I get to take guns to school, and since Saddams Iraq has been a “bad boy” they have to be disarmed! Please! I mean Puhleeze! It’s the Guns that are the issue, not the people holding them!

Now lets see things from Iraq’s perspective for a moment. They are located in a region festering with WMD’s of all kinds. Israel is also known to have WMD’s of all flavours. In that situation how can you speak of selectively disarming one country while leaving the others fully armed?

Why should ONLY Iraq be made to disarm? Because it’s a Muslim country?


Saddam, on the other hand is a dictator. Opposition is killed. Minority groups are gassed. He has started 2 regional conflicts in My lifetime with Iran and Kuwait, WITHOUT approval of the UN; which the US has by the way.

Yes he is a dictator. But there are as of today atleast a dozen other dictators, who also hold WMD’s, and whose human rights records will make Saddam look like a saint! And guess who keeps these dictators in place?! $30bn of US taxpayers money and a dozen 777’s has gone to help just ONE such dictator keep his job and brutally throttle opposition within his country! But that’s alright, because he is a “Democratic Dictator” (!!!).

Frankly, The US administrations “Good Dictator, Bad Dictator” theories, used so liberally by such luminaries as Colin Powell are laughable at best!


Saddam also supports terrorists. He may not be directly tied with Al-Queida, but he does support such groups as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad when they blow themselves up in Israel. Those groups are ruthless, illegal, and they dont like Israel, the USA or India at all, therefore if they want to be an enemy they are now an enemy and those that support them are enemies.

Guess who funded bin-Laden’s rise to infamy? Guess who supported Islamic terrorist groups fighting in Chechnya, Indonesia and Kashmir before these guys turned on their benefactors? Just how is it that insurgent groups fighting India in Kashmir and Russia in Chechnya managed to get US made Stinger missiles? The US was playing a dangerous game with Islamic Terrorism, thinking that they could use Terrorism to weaken potential rivals. In a sense, from the Reagan administration onwards, Terrorism became one of the instruments of American state policy, and that policy now backfired.

Its ok if the US govt funds terrorist groups. Its bad if the Saddam pays you guys back in the same coin? Why?  Laugh out loud


Our WMD and Israels are for defensive purposes only. Iraqs or North Korea are for first strike capability. In other words they'll use theirs before we use ours.

The US has refused India’s request for nuclear powers to sign a no-first use policy (which we follow nevertheless). Says a lot about their intentions!


Well, look at the situation....where are the swarms of Arabs dropping everything to rally to Bagdad and defend Saddam? Nowhere.

I am sure you wont see Arabs and other Muslims hitching a ride to Baghdad to defend it from “American crusaders”. I am sure they have learnt far better ways to take on the crusaders. They have learnt by now that it makes much more sense to take this war onto American soil. 9/11 proved that America isnt as invulnerable as previously thought. And therein lies the danger for now these people have tasted blood. Danger for America, and yes the rest of the democratic world as well. But “Nuke Them” mentality is hardly the solution to this.

In a sense the “War on Terror” would have been a golden opportunity to rally the Democratic World together and fight for values that we all believe in. instead we have the Bush Administration supping with “Democratic Dictators” and installing puppet regimes in areas of interest. And unfortunately you have some brainwashed American members come on forums like these and advocating exactly this kind of adventurism. Members like N79969 and Alpha1 are undoubtedly in a minority in the US (which I hear is a good thing these days!!  Laugh out loud) and its unfortunate that this minority is draggin the rest of their people into a needless war. So I think its time that the “silent Majority” in the US should raise its voice.



If any of you are interested, Condoleeza Rice wrote an interesting op-ed today about Iraq and their lies:

Condi Baby? Ahem! Now that’s a neutral source!

Maybe its just a coincidence. But how many of you guys noticed how the different officials making up the War-Bush’s govt. virtually fanned out to all TV channels (atleast I saw them on all American channels available to us in India! And its not just FOX!). Just look at the far right nonsense of the some of the members on this forum! Unfortunately, this propaganda seems to be taking effect! Herr Goebbels would have been proud of Bush’s propaganda machinery.


I think there is a big difference between "Joe" and his cousin "Abdul" sixpack. Abdul has probably entertained the thought of sneaking onto an overcrowded ship to Austrailia, Europe, or even the US for the chance at taking a stab at asylum. Iraqis have been fleeing their country for years and many are interned in refugee camps in eastern Europe as they make their way west. Although Iraqis may love their country, I don't see them putting up anything near the fight that Americans would defending their country. During the Gulf War, Iraq's fighting men surrendered in droves.

Some more racist crap from a closet Nazi. N79969: you have been tuning into “GOP Live” for too long I think!

Ofcourse! Nobody understands patriotism like an American! What does the rest of the world know about Patriotism anyway! Only an American can think of laying down his life for his country. The rest of the world consists of cowards! Yeah Sure! Being anti-War or even suggesting that War is not the best solution makes you a coward.

Frankly, I don’t think that N79969, Alpha1 and other members with such far-right, racist views represent the mainstream of American public opinion. Heck, lets just wait till the body bags start coming off the ships. And then we will know what the “man-on-the-street” American REALLY thinks about this war and the policies of War Bush.


-Roy



User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 10 months 3 days ago) and read 2518 times:

Give the people in the Middle-East the feeling that they belong to the Western world, and the extremism will stop itself.

War only makes things worse... and I hope that in case of a war, sanctions for the US will follow. Don't forget that big countries like France, Russia, China... are against the war!!!

Bush thinks he can rule the world, and he says everything that his advisors wrote for him on paper, because he is simply to stupid to say something with sense itself.

He hopes that, with a more Western policy in the Middle-East, people will change their mind about the Western World. He also gains access to oil etc. But how would you feel you, if we, Western people, get the policy like in Iraq suddenly. We would start to feel hatred towards this policy. The same hatress that the Middle Eastern people have towards us. And so you create extremism. And this is one of the reasons how terroristic networks become actif (do you think that we would have had the attacks of 11/09 without Bush?).

At this moment, Korea is a much bigger threat than Iraq. Why doesn't Bush attack Korea if he wants that the weapon industry works? Afraid to loose maybe?

/Frederic


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

For those who might say that "wait, what if he all of a sudden drops a WMD on a US Aircraft Carrier or Israel?" Fair question. If he does, he has GOT to know Iraq will be turned into a parking lot-either by us or Israel. There wouldn't be a stick left on a stick or a stone left on a stone, and what great good would that act have done him? Honestly, I don't think he'll do that, pre-emptively.

I agree with you on that point Alpha1, glad you've changed your mind.




Falcon....like a limo but with wings
25 Erj190 : --- I think I don't like Mr Bush policies I am certain that persons like Mr. Rumsfeld give me the chills. I think that America policies, under the cur
26 Heavymetal : Well said, Paulo....
27 N79969 : Thanks to all who posted thoughtful comments. At the beginning of this thread, I respectfully asked that asinine American-bashing remarks be taken to
28 Post contains images Alpha 1 : I agree with you on that point Alpha1, glad you've changed your mind. Don't give me too much credit here, OO-AOG I haven't changed my mind all that mu
29 AerLingus : The problem is that President Bush and his cabinet have fabricated a sense of urgency. For some reason he is very good at doing that.
30 N79969 : AerLingus, When President Bush first started talking about Iraq in early 2002, I could not understand his position. How did Iraq come to the fore all
31 Post contains images OO-AOG : Don't give me too much credit here, OO-AOG I usually don't Alpha1, but for once I agreed with you...so it had to be notified And, to add a thought her
32 N79969 : Apparently France has done something to seriously irk Colin Powell. Powell successfully urged the President to act against Iraq through UN mechanisms
33 Artsyman : I posted this in its own thread already, but it may be appropriate here also. Uday, who is Saddams son, today warned that 9.11 will be like a picnic c
34 Erj190 : Just another thought here. Back in the 30ies Mr. Hitler and the Nazis, decided to re-arm Germany. Then, they took back demilitarized zone of the Rhur
35 N79969 : Erj190, Those are the answers that I am also looking for. But I think the US Administration is handling this the only way it can be handled. As the ti
36 KRIC777 : "America cannot just attack Iraq and put the lives of millions of innocents in jeopardy. Its a question of morals. Too get rid of 1 man(saddam) u kill
37 Wardialer : The United States government should send a group of FBI or US Marshal agents to conduct an investigation to track Saddam Hussein down (if OK by Intern
38 Post contains links N79969 : This is what I call a "viable alternative." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/opinion/29FRIE.html I posted this in another thread as well.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
War In Iraq An Error According To US Army Expert posted Wed Jan 14 2004 20:13:16 by Qb001
Winning A War In Iraq, Crucial To Global Terror Fi posted Mon Jan 13 2003 19:01:59 by Galaxy5
Have We Reached True Civil War In Iraq? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 20:36:10 by Falcon84
UH60FtRucker's 10 Point Plan To Win In Iraq posted Sat Nov 11 2006 18:28:06 by UH60FtRucker
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
RAF Officer Who Refused To Serve In Iraq Is Jailed posted Thu Apr 13 2006 23:08:40 by BMIFlyer
War In Iraq, The Most Foolish War Since 2000 Years posted Wed Nov 30 2005 09:07:17 by Oldeuropean
A Marine's Report On The War In Iraq posted Thu Nov 17 2005 04:47:22 by PROSA
Was War In Iraq Madeup By Bush? Good Vid posted Wed Nov 16 2005 06:25:33 by MidnightMike
6 Billion A Month For A War In Iraq... posted Wed Sep 7 2005 03:22:06 by B744F
800,000 Privileged Youths Enlist To Fight In Iraq posted Sat Jan 20 2007 00:41:12 by Aaron747
Soldier Chooses Not To Fight In Iraq posted Thu Jan 4 2007 08:52:43 by ZKSUJ
Have We Reached True Civil War In Iraq? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 20:36:10 by Falcon84
UH60FtRucker's 10 Point Plan To Win In Iraq posted Sat Nov 11 2006 18:28:06 by UH60FtRucker
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
RAF Officer Who Refused To Serve In Iraq Is Jailed posted Thu Apr 13 2006 23:08:40 by BMIFlyer