Printable View
06/16/02 14:42 EDT
WASHINGTON (June 16) - Prominent Democrats in Congress called Sunday for removing Saddam Hussein from power, endorsing a classified Bush administration plan that gives the CIA broader power to take action against the Iraqi leader.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/...ess/index.html
great...but then what?
and aren't we already in a war? I think we should finish that little thing up first....or is this just another diversion...
you know. they never got rid of Castro.
Why try Saddam? Just let the people of that country pick their representation... if they can choose, that is.
Gerbick, I agree on the popular vote theory, unfortunately I also feel that Middle Eastern countries are also plagued by radical Islamic groups and a lot of previously prosperous countries like Iran and Afghanistan have fallen into despair under their regimes. It's my fear that a popular election would open the door to a radical Islamic government similair to the Taliban and the people may be worse off than they were under Saddam.
I don't oppose the removal of Saddam , however as is so often the case I have not heard anything from our leaders as to how they plan to rebuild Iraq after we depose Saddam- so will it be business as usual where we go into a country- completely disrupt it and then high tail outta there? I hope not- this always seems to lead to more hatred of us , which is somewhat understandable.
<apathy filter on>
Rebuilding a nation that allowed it to happen to themselves? What's in it for anybody to help them? I mean... if we step foot into that country, we become more of an enemy than the regime/dictator that is leeching that country dry.
so, why do it? I see zero advantages.
If the people don't want to change, then we have zero right to go in there, and tell them that better things exist. Ignorant is bliss. They are not fighting, in mass, for changes... so, let them be.
Help them when they show the initiative to change.
Same goes for Cuba. And we're becoming an enemy each day we are in Afghanistan. As seen by reports coming from there, or coming from now, Kuwait. Who we helped. Go figure.
I think Bush should try it. If Bush administration can't anihilate all terrorist, Bush should focus mainly on eliminating leaders who harbor and support terrorism.
Bush, others before him, et al, can't get rid of militias in our own country. Terrorists won't go anywhere either.
Extremist nature probably dates back to the cavemen times.
Unga bunga.
i agree with gerbick...
what is it with US government and middle east? why can't they just stop meddling... no offence but this kinda thing is exactly wat started sept 11th... USA trained and funded OSAMA and now he came back and bit USA on the ass so before anyone start labeling him "terrorist", get some answers from your government 1st...
as far as i know no muslim attack any other western countries other than USA... anyone from Denmark? any muslim attacked your country? what about Italy? or France?
what's in it for america to "help" all those "poor countries" apart from making those fanatical muslims hate them even more? it's only one of those armament show to sell more weapons to other countries isn't it? as i remember it the sales of the "PATRIOT" missiles was up after that show in Iraq during the early 90s... what did Iraq do again this time? i don't recall reading any news about them occupying any other countries lately...
besides we got the UN remember? what are they for?? why can't the US army go as part of the UN peace keeping corp instead of going on a crusade on its own?
this is so true,I seriously doubt an invasion of Iraq will be helpful to anyone.Quote:
Originally posted by gerbick
<apathy filter on>
Rebuilding a nation that allowed it to happen to themselves? What's in it for anybody to help them? I mean... if we step foot into that country, we become more of an enemy than the regime/dictator that is leeching that country dry.
so, why do it? I see zero advantages.
If the people don't want to change, then we have zero right to go in there, and tell them that better things exist. Ignorant is bliss. They are not fighting, in mass, for changes... so, let them be.
Help them when they show the initiative to change.
Same goes for Cuba. And we're becoming an enemy each day we are in Afghanistan. As seen by reports coming from there, or coming from now, Kuwait. Who we helped. Go figure.
I think this is more a diversion than anything else. Nothing against Bush but he seems to be at his best when he's playing Cowboys and Indians and seems pretty confused the rest of the time.
I don't get the Afghans though- they should be happy to be rid of the Taliban- I'm sure that no women were asked about how they feel about it-
our media seems to source a lot of middle eastern "opinion" on a couple of cabbies they find here and there
they just had an story on Kuwait on 60 Minutes last week or so.
Anyway, women can not vote there... due to their religion. And some of the women did not want to vote. Leave it to the men. And they also think that America is wrong for getting involved in muslim state countries.
That's an opinion that's quickly becoming a favored opinion. Fair enough.
Guess that's thanks for heeding their request for help. I think it should proxy through NATO next time... and make them fill out the proper paperwork. And then let Florida vote on it. Twice.
I see no advantage on it anymore. I'm not an isolationist, but man... that's crazy.
sorry Gerb but who actually asked for America's help? like i said before couldn't the UN do something like multinational strike force or something rather than USA acting alone and therefore open to speculation as to their real purpose of helping?Quote:
Originally posted by gerbick
Guess that's thanks for heeding their request for help. I think it should proxy through NATO next time... and make them fill out the proper paperwork. And then let Florida vote on it. Twice.
I see no advantage on it anymore. I'm not an isolationist, but man... that's crazy.
oh i just got my footer working 13000 something bytes acceptable?
well I'm sure what the average person on the street thinks and what the government position is are different things
Gerbick- I'm not disagreeing with you but TV news magazines tend to be a little biased in that they may have 100 people say one thing and 2 say the other and they will just report on what the 2 people said if its controversial.
We should always proxy with NATO- it reduces resentment towards a single country and provides solidarity to whatever the cause may be
Also we never do anything unless its in our interest to do so -Iraq is just such a case and I doubt anything we do there will be good for the people therefore I think its a little unfair to expect their residents to appreciate our presence
just a different perspective trying to make some sense of it here
I think we're doing fine in the war against the evil saddam already, the continued trade blockade denying them food, medical supplies and clean drinking water should finish off the poorer elements of the country soon.
Man, that plan is f****d. What would happen if the Belgian government decided one day that it didn't like the US policy on Kyoto, so it sent someone over to assasinate President Bush ??? there'd be uproar - the UN would impose all sorts of sanctions on Belgium, but it wouldn't matter because the USAF would probably have carpet bombed Brussels back into the stone age.
You can't go and 'whack' the leader of a country just because you don't like him - that makes a mockery of just about everything that international law stands for. As the so called leader of the 'free world', America should be setting an example to everyone else, but instead it blatantly flaunts international law and the UN whenever they don't happen to agree with it.
Have the American government learnt nothing from the screw up they have made of their foreign policy for the last 4 decades ?
evidently not.
I'm American.
I don't believe that we can go 'whack' a politician in a country that we don't seem to like.
so, evidently some think otherwise.
Unfortunately Gerbick, you are not in power.
and that's an unfortunate thing!? ;)
it is for sadam.
yeah. he's such a humanitarian.