MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
Got to go with L-188 on this one...he needs to go and someone needs to tell him. If the schoolyard bully isn't stopped, then he keeps beating up other kids, until someone bigger and/or stronger makes him stop. Same thing here but it just a whole lot bigger schoolyard!
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1639 times:
Now that I've safely made my case on what a mistake this is, I can chime in on why it needs to go fast and efficiently to keep from becoming a BIGGER mistake....and part of what will make that happen is the abrupt and hopefully painful dispatch of Mr. Hussein and his two scumbag offspring.
Iraq is NOT his country. Hell is his country. Time to stamp his visa home.
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
You go ahead and call it his country if you want to, but the hell if I ever will. Do you honestly think he doesn't know that WE have to re-elect him? He doesn't just get to decide that he's going to be president for another twenty years. WE will always have the power in this country to at least decide who leads our country.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
To keep this in perspective, Saddam could have stayed in his own country had he disarmed like he was supposed to. Getting him out of Iraq is the only sure way that can know that he is not in control. In the minds of non-tyrants, exile is better than an invasion of his country.
Hussein and presidency of GWB is ludicrous.
Ilyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Leave it to Bush to make a totally unrealistic, demeaning statement like this. I honestly think that if it weren't for the tremendous pressure from the US to comply with resolutions, Saddam might actually be willing to work with the rest of the world. However, I think, like Bush, Saddam's ego is huge, and being TOLD what to do with his weapons, and now being TOLD to leave Iraq, there is no way in hell he will ever comply. It's human nature to resist when TOLD to do something.
I don't want Saddam in power any more than anyone else, but I think the way Bush is going about removing him is extreme, and his lack of diplomacy is a disgrace.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
En, you're a smart man.....answer these questions:
First the Administration said he must 'disarm'. Do you think for the Administration that point would...have...ever....been reached?
Second...if Saddam had through some miracle in the past four months expedited monitoring and WMD destruction, and Hans Blix reported to the UN last week that most if not all were accounted for and in the process of being negated, that we would have brought our forces home?
And finally....suppose Saddam had actually sometime today gone on tv and said me & the boys are outta here, Iraq is now under UN control. Do you think Bush's mission would be accomplished? Do you think at that point not one Abrahms or Bradley would have crossed that border? Everyone would just pack it in and go home?
I answer no, no and no.
There are reports surfacing tonight that several Republican Guard commanders have made inroads to stand their forces down. I can only hope that's NOT wishful thinking. If it is, Baghdad has just awoken to its' last quiet sunrise for awhile.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
1. Yes, it certainly could have been reached in my opinion. Saddam's game playing and our refusal to play ball made Bush look an insatiable madman to anyone that is capable of feeling boredom or impatience. Even I got sick of hearing about Saddam from GWB. But Bush was not insatiable rather he was fiercely persistent. For that, he has my respect and admiration. In the past, when Saddam played this game, the world sort of said "f' it" after a while, "I have other shit to worry about." Only Tony Blair really kept an eye on Saddam from I what I hear.
If Saddam actually (key word) handed over and Blix verified tons of the real bad stuff (not missles that exceed UN limits by 12 miles or whatever) like VX, sarin, botulinum, and anthrax, I would bet money that the escalation would have stopped. If we had actual unconditional disarmament, the sanctions would have been lifted and Iraq (sans Saddam probably) would have been open for business. They could sell oil and natural gas and buy Starbucks and Blockbuster memberships.
But I think that the Bush Administration reasonably concluded that Saddam would never disarm...thus the goal became regime change. Given the importance of not showing any weakness in the tribal society that Saddam hails from, there was no way he could do it and not be overthrown.
2. I think that I might have answered two. I would bet we would have rolled it back signficantly but kept forces in Kuwait around...just in case. I do not think that we would or should ever trust Saddam completely even if he did surrender his WMD. That is being prudent in my opinion.
3. Assuming that Saddam grabbed the kids and left, (this is a huge and almost absurd assumption) how would the UN secure Iraq? Walking away in this situation could be really bad because of the uncertainty post Saddam. There is no one esle around but us to go in and make sure that the guy passed over for two promotions doesn't just step in and take over. Saddam's police state apparatus would not just disappear. The WMD would still be a threat. I see nothing ominous by the fact that the US would not just disappear from the scene.
Look, I consider myself a realist. I realize that guys like Perle and probably Cheney are dirty. But I do not see a war for oil or vindication for dad here. I understand that you hold very cynical views and that's just the way you view events. But I enjoy post and replies regardless. Good discussing with you.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
James Carville had a screen put up with the names of the President, the Vice President, The Secretaries of State and Defense, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Condi Rice. He then asked Eagleberger, without giving names, just a number, how many of those people he thought were happy today that diplomacy failed.
Eagleberger squirmed uncomfortably and said "Can I take the Fifth?"
Carville reminded him he need not name names, just give a number.
"3." was the reply, "and probably more. But at least 3. "
The meandering justification for taking out Saddam was so hopeless from this despicable bunch, a reasoned soul cannot help but ask if they were mere cover. And yet for ten hours yesterday along the Thames, Tony Blair nobly pointed out reason after reason that likely would have justified all of this in the world's eyes, and the shred of reasoning that gives me some comfort as 200,000 Americans, and 1 I have close ties to, get ready to go in.....the destruction of the tyranny of Saddam. No WMDs. No ties to al Qaeda. No regional threat, no threat to Israel, no exile to wherever. The argument was so simple from the beginning for honest men.
When has George W. Bush spent ten consecutive hours arguing for anything?
He's still too arrogant to bother to learn how to say "nuclear" right.
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1427 times:
Bush telling Saddam to leave the country was dumb cause Bush and the rest of the world knows he will not leave Iraq.
It sounds nice for the public opinion... "Bush gives Saddam the last chance to avoid war" <--- sounds nice, not? And this while Bush knew very good before this statement that Saddam will never leave...
BTW: has America gone crazy completely? Nice move from Bush: put police on all corners of the street, on several tv posts is a clock with the time ticking away before the attack, documentaries are shown of how to run away from your house if it is on fire due to terroristic attacks etc etc.... It's unbelieveble how the people are influenced with the 'bad people that will attack the US', and how people are given the scary impression that they are in real danger, and that it is for their own sake that the great Bush will attack Iraq.
Same on CNN: every time that they speak of 9/11, they also show Middle Eastern people. And if you want it or not, people really link those people to the attacks.
Result --> the bad Middle East.
Go on Bush, in the name of God! GOD BLESS AMERICA!