Quantcast

IRAQ invasion....yes or no

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
I was wondering what you monkeys are thinking about this situation.

If it is found that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, chemical or nuclear weapons...and wont disarm....are we right to invade?
 

Triphop

Chimp
Sep 10, 2002
96
0
Like Serial Midget said....should we? no Will we? yes

Yes indeed...Congress has just voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq without further discussion.

Now the measure is in the senate.

Hopefully the Senate has the wisdom to prevent this from passing. Otherwise...look out...shyt is definitely gonna hit the fan.
 

Spud

Monkey
Aug 9, 2001
550
0
Idaho (no really!)
Let’s not forget you we are dealing with a leader placed in power against the popular vote. A government that has tested nuclear and biological agents on unsuspecting citizens, and a country that has long ignored U.N. resolutions when they didn’t serve its national agenda. And that’s just the United States, we haven’t even talked about the Iraqi cess pool.

Invading Iraq is a fantastic recipe for growing Al Queda. I fear we are on the brink of a foreign policy blunder that history will long remember.

Fvck it, I’m going riding.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
I say yes.
It's amazing that Saddam Hussien has more sympathy than George W. has support in the eyes of the world. I don't like the current administration or this situation either. Yet i'm still not convinced that the United States motives in this aggression are not without reason. I realize that proof, other than George W's accusations, are seemingly non-existant. But what the hell else does a muslim psychotic dictator in the middle of the desert have to do with his time.
I'll be watching the situation though, and when the dust clears, i'll be and history will be looking for concrete proof to terrorist ties and weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise we'll all have to face the facts that George W. pulled a fast one on some of us, and America would be no better, if not worse, than Iraq's regime.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
You yes people give me the heebie jeebies.

If the US invade Iraq it is certain that thousands of lives will be lost. If the US does not invade there is no certainty only a possibility, and therefore a possibility that thousands of lives will be spared.

Which is better?

And why the hell would you ever trust George W Bush?

(For the hard of thinking I should point out that this is a NO vote.)
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Fluff,

When the possibility of lives lost is centered around the threat of a nuclear holocaust or biological warfare...dont you think that a line has to be drawn?

If you've been keeping up with the news, it seems that more and more countries are beginning to agree with us. So now its not all George W.

The presidents duty is to protect and lead the American people, in taking care of a potential threat to millions...i think the president is well advised to proceed and oust the Iraqi president for good.

When we first presented the idea, many countries wanted nothing to do with it...but as evidence has filtered out, we are seeing a change in policy from many countries, ie Russia and France.


In short...Yes.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by BurlySurly
Fluff,

When the possibility of lives lost is centered around the threat of a nuclear holocaust or biological warfare...dont you think that a line has to be drawn?

If you've been keeping up with the news, it seems that more and more countries are beginning to agree with us. So now its not all George W.

The presidents duty is to protect and lead the American people, in taking care of a potential threat to millions...i think the president is well advised to proceed and oust the Iraqi president for good.

When we first presented the idea, many countries wanted nothing to do with it...but as evidence has filtered out, we are seeing a change in policy from many countries, ie Russia and France.


In short...Yes.
What evidence?

Diplomatic pressure perhaps, after the US is in much the same position as Rome 2000 years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there just the one nation that has used nuclear weapons on civilians so far?

The prevailing viewpoint here is highly USA-centric and short sighted.

Still I guess it's only a matter of time before the world gets totally fvcked up so you may as well be the ones to do it.
 
Jan 14, 2002
75
0
Zwolle, the Netherlands
Originally posted by fluff


What evidence?

Diplomatic pressure perhaps, after the US is in much the same position as Rome 2000 years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there just the one nation that has used nuclear weapons on civilians so far?

The prevailing viewpoint here is highly USA-centric and short sighted.

Still I guess it's only a matter of time before the world gets totally fvcked up so you may as well be the ones to do it.
hear hear.

I also vote a big NO
 

Bikecrasher

Monkey
Sep 24, 2002
127
0
Tacoma, Wa
Seeing how the US is the last true "super power" w/ the means and $ to project and maintain or force, it is up to us. Of course, we could just ignore Iraq
and I'm sure they would be nice to everyone. Don't think so...give war a chance.
 

Ridemonkey

This is not an active account
Sep 18, 2002
4,108
1
Toronto, Canada
We had this "woulda coulda shoulda" debate after 9/11 in regard to the Taliban and Al-Queda. Apparently the US had plans to do something about them but were dragging their feet until it was too late.

So now we are supposed to pursue the peaceful solution.... until when? Until we get nuked? Why is it that its only ok to act in retribution and not in self defense? When 10's of thousands die in a nuclear or biological attack, then will you people say "uh ok now its time to invade"?
 

Triphop

Chimp
Sep 10, 2002
96
0
I don't think most people are completely opposed to the use of force to get Iraq to comply...it's the way that Bush has approached the issue. Colin Powell has been consistently in favor of getting the U.N. resolution passed, and failing that then using force. Bush, just said, screw the resolution we will just use force...

the proper approach would have been to first *publicly* push for the U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to comply with strict new regulations or face force. Which we did do...but only after Bush declared that we would go in unilaterally without concern for the position of any other nation. He forced countries like Germany, Russia and France to take a public stance against us, they were not going to publicly support a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq, completely disregarding the U.N.

Due to Bush's outlandish statements...everyone has been forced to backpedal. Bush has behaved like a loose cannon.

I think we need to avoid war at all costs at the present time...ideally the U.N needs to get some balls and force Iraq to comply, knowing that will never happen, we need to get a strong coalition if we decide to go to war.

ugh...I hope that made some sense...it is much easier to discuss these things verbally. :)
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by Serial Midget


Tony Blair does. I'm beginning to think FLUFF is a flea on our lap dog's back.
That's no kind of endorsement.

And thank you for the kind words about my good self, if I only thought you really knew what irony is....
 

Serial Midget

Al Bundy
Jun 25, 2002
13,053
1,896
Fort of Rio Grande
Originally posted by fluff
...if I only thought you really knew what irony is....
I think Tony Blair knows which side his bread is buttered on.

Don't assume JW is so incredibly popular over here; he is just who we ended up with by way of voter apathy and a Reagonite weighted Supreme Court. His presidency will run it's course, people will die, Carter will win another Nobel Peace Prize and Maggie will finally get that face lift she so desperately needs.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by Ridemonkey
We had this "woulda coulda shoulda" debate after 9/11 in regard to the Taliban and Al-Queda. Apparently the US had plans to do something about them but were dragging their feet until it was too late.

So now we are supposed to pursue the peaceful solution.... until when? Until we get nuked? Why is it that its only ok to act in retribution and not in self defense? When 10's of thousands die in a nuclear or biological attack, then will you people say "uh ok now its time to invade"?
Exactly what im thinking.

If they have the capabilities...why delay?

If we didnt have good reason to think they had the capabilities, why would we invade? And dont give the crappy excuse about bush wanting to finish daddy's work. Thats the most worthless idea ever.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Like where is Osama? Assumed dead...hmm, ok. That makes me feel better. Then we have Saudi Arabia...most of the highjackers were from there, but we just keep sucking up to the House of Saud (just maybe one of the top ten ugly regimes in the world). Then we have the issue of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Things aren't going so well over there either. Let's finish one thing before moving onto others.

Of course, having a president with the intelligence of a houseplant don't much help either. I'm pretty sure he'd royally screw up any invasion.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by BurlySurly


Exactly what im thinking.

If they have the capabilities...why delay?

If we didnt have good reason to think they had the capabilities, why would we invade? And dont give the crappy excuse about bush wanting to finish daddy's work. Thats the most worthless idea ever.
So how many lives is that 'if' worth?

Not even the guy who commanded the US naval forces during the Gulf war thinks an invasion of Iraq is a good idea and you can bet he has more information than we do.

And if you think deposing Saddam by force will reduce terrorist attacks on the West you are kidding yourselves. An attack on Iraq will alienate so many more Arabs whilst we ignore the Israeli action in Palestine that a new generation of suicide bombers and fanatics who hate the West will be created.

A rather less crappy excuse is the distraction of the US populace from the economic situation by uniting them against a common enemy. What better target than the Islamic world, a world which so few people in the West have any knowledge or understanding of.

Dubya's 'final solution' perhaps?
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by fluff


So how many lives is that 'if' worth?

That goes both ways.

Im not saying terrorism wont exist after it all, but the threat of possible terrorism on a nuclear level will be considerably reduced.

So 'if' they can make nukes....it could be worth alot of lives.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
There's been blood on the hands of top U.S. officials since the beginning. That stated I've always had distrust in my government. With the terrorist attacks that have happened some small some great. Yes i have no proof about the viruses, or the stray weird happening you hear on the news about a train derailing and emitting toxic chemicals, or the sniper. I wish the government would tell it to us straight, so a lot of people would realize why an action like this would be necessary. Ideally everyone would like to go on with our lives and not concern ourselves with potential threats. That kind of thinking brought two planes barreling into the world trade center. If G.W. is doing this for oil, i'll tip my hat to him for being a true monster. I'm thinking that they are holding back information, that's why i say yes....
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by grimm
since when did Russia change its mind to support a war against iraq?? what else have i missed....?
The UK & US have underwritten Russia's investments in Iraq.

In other words, we bought them off.....
 

dg806

Chimp
Apr 26, 2002
77
0
Charlotte, NC
Originally posted by fluff


So how many lives is that 'if' worth?

Not even the guy who commanded the US naval forces during the Gulf war thinks an invasion of Iraq is a good idea and you can bet he has more information than we do.

An attack on Iraq will alienate so many more Arabs whilst we ignore the Israeli action in Palestine that a new generation of suicide bombers and fanatics who hate the West will be created.



As many as it takes, which will be few on our side.
And I assume you and all the no people get national security breifings every morning, right? Then how do you know what Iraq has or not. We don't know 1-10th of it, I promise.
And all the Arabs hate us now anyway. So no matter what you do they won't hate us anymore or change anything. And they say that in private most Iraqies want saddanm out! But can't say so publicly.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by dg806

As many as it takes, which will be few on our side.
And I assume you and all the no people get national security breifings every morning, right? Then how do you know what Iraq has or not. We don't know 1-10th of it, I promise.
And all the Arabs hate us now anyway. So no matter what you do they won't hate us anymore or change anything. And they say that in private most Iraqies want saddanm out! But can't say so publicly.
I always appreciate a balanced and well thought out argument. I also live in hope.

Are you implying that Iraqi lives are worth less than some others?

Do you have information that you cannot share with us from security briefings? Why can it not be shared with us if we are being asked to support military action? In whose interests is it not to provide evidence supporting such action?

Why did the guy who commanded US Naval forces in the Gulf War offer his view last week that the US should not attack Iraq? Maybe he's as stupid and cowardly as the rest of us no people?

And if all the Arabs hate the US now and it doesn't matter why don't you simply suggest that everyone who doesn't agree with US policies should be eliminated as potential terrorist sympathisers? That McCarthy chap would be in his element right now.

I don't know what Iraq has or doesn't have, I don't know what Tony Blair knows about it either. What I do know is that I personally cannot morally support military action, with its consequent killings, with the evidence that has been put before me and I am not willing to follow blindly behind corrupt, power-hungry and self-serving politicians who may well be motivated by far less worthy aims than saving the world.
 

KrusteeButt

I can't believe its not butter!
Jul 3, 2001
349
0
why the hell do YOU care?!
Hmmmm...I'm not going to get in Fluff's and S.M.'s debate, that's for them to work out.
I agree that there is a butt-load of information being withheld from the masses...sometimes that's the better thing to do. In this case, I think there'd be a heck of a lot more world-wide suppport for this if we at least had more info. I agree that the way it's being portrayed to the public is very much like the Roman Empire...keep in mind that I don't think that's what is happening, that's simply the way it's being made out.
I'm not saying yes or no...I'm saying that most of us are probably very ignorant when it comes to ALL of the factors involved here.

What really bites my butt is when sh*t hits the fan, and we (the U.S.) gets involved, it's always looked at as "Oh, look at the U.S., they think they're the police of the world!"...but then when we don't take any action it's looked at as "Where was the U.S. to help on that?! They've got all the money and power, why aren't they helping?!"
Double-edged freakin' sword. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
Originally posted by KrusteeButt

What really bites my butt is when sh*t hits the fan, and we (the U.S.) gets involved, it's always looked at as "Oh, look at the U.S., they think they're the police of the world!"...but then when we don't take any action it's looked at as "Where was the U.S. to help on that?! They've got all the money and power, why aren't they helping?!"
Double-edged freakin' sword. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The problem is a consistent approach, it does appear that the US takes on its Global Policeman role when it suits US interests (which is much the same for any nation really). One difficulty here is that if you portray your actions as motivated by one factor when could be something else less lofty then people begin to lose face.

Really it's the UN's role - maybe the US should show more willingness to work with the UN if they wish to shed the policeman role....
 

disclosednot

Chimp
Jul 16, 2002
30
0
Asheville, NC
maybe I missed the bus but...

since when does the US decide who gets nukes and who doesn't?

aren't we in pocession of such weapons? who is monitoring us and asking us for access to our weapon storage facilities?

I vote no

We as citizens should be provided with a clear list of reason supporting this attack.

Retribution and revenge is a joke. Like Gandhi said an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind.

Do we really think this will be the last attack? I think not. We have entered a viscious cycle of destruction here. If we do attack they will probably also retaliate. I do not see the need to launch an invasion that could possibly prompt them to use these weapons of mass destruction. I mean if we do invade is that not what they are for.

and for the yes people,
Are you willing to sign up for this fight? I'm not. If you are then I congratulate you for supporting your decision.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by fluff



Really it's the UN's role - maybe the US should show more willingness to work with the UN if they wish to shed the policeman role....
Maybe if the UN actually functioned, the US would have that option.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
Originally posted by Spud
Let’s not forget you we are dealing with a leader placed in power against the popular vote. A government that has tested nuclear and biological agents on unsuspecting citizens, and a country that has long ignored U.N. resolutions when they didn’t serve its national agenda. And that’s just the United States, we haven’t even talked about the Iraqi cess pool.

Invading Iraq is a fantastic recipe for growing Al Queda. I fear we are on the brink of a foreign policy blunder that history will long remember.

Fvck it, I’m going riding.
good point!
Originally posted by disclosednot
maybe I missed the bus but...

since when does the US decide who gets nukes and who doesn't?

aren't we in pocession of such weapons? who is monitoring us and asking us for access to our weapon storage facilities?
another good point.....why is it ok for us to have Nuclear weapons but no one else?...what makes us so much better?

the US needs to worry about it's own children before trying to take care of somone else's kids....D
 

Jorvik

Monkey
Jan 29, 2002
810
0
I honestly don't know anymore.
Originally posted by Damn True


The U.N. without the U.S. is like Rafael Palmerio without Viagra. Impotent.
Too true DT. What makes this a bit weird is that I passed in a report in Psych class about advertising not 2 days ago, and Rafael Palmerio/Viagra was my basis for the entire paper...

ANYWHO

My vote, yes.

I'd rather go the route of assasination, followed by some good ol' fashoned nation building. No Shah, but try to put a REAL democratic gov't (I know it won't happen, but I can dream) in place.

What with the body doubles and all, a simple assasination will be borderline impossible. I'd be willing to bet Saddam isn't even in Baghdad, but instead controls things from a remote location, making him a downright pain in the ass to kill.

There is our anti-assasination policy too, damn Bay of Pigs invasion...
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
Originally posted by BLOODAXE



There is our anti-assasination policy too, damn Bay of Pigs invasion...
That is why we have the French Foreign Legion.:)
Im actually thinking of joining those guys after my tour in the Marines.