Is the US going to war with Iraq?

[red5angel]

Today I found out that the US is mobilizing 2 carrier groups and several thousand troops in a months time to go to the middle east.......

[lau gar]

yes.

[neptunesfall]

i effing hope not

[dezhen2001]

i hope not... what a waste of life :(

dawood

[yutyeesam]

My guess is that bombs will start dropping when it is closer to election time. Just a hunch.

123

[red5angel]

I was holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, something would happen so we wouldn't but after hearing this it's pretty much a done deal....

[Souljah]

I hope not, but its something we cannot prevent, **** shame that is:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

[yutyeesam]

I think theoretically, American Citizens could stop the war from happening. But it seems that there are more people who:
1. Want the war to happen
2. Don't care if the war happens

than people who don't want the war to happen.

I bet the media outlets are rubbing their hands waiting for the war to happen.

123

[Laughing Cow]

I reckon come beginning of Februrary the US-Troops will start attacking.

Jan. 27th is the deadline for the Weapons Inspectors, add a few days for the Bush Regime to come up with an excuse to attack and .... Whammeee.

:( :( :(

But I also agree with Yuyeesam.

Most of the US-Citizens I meet here and other non-us places are firmly opposed to Bush and the War.
Actually a lot of them left because he won the election.

[Stacey]

Yes we will. people will die senselessly and we'll have a new generation of embittered people. We'll start getting bombed like Israel. Fun times. At least we'll all start living for the moment more.

[LEGEND]

Yup. We going to WAR. Either that or if the ARABs can convince SADDAM to go into EXILE. The US already allied with Afghanistan, Turkey and Israel. With IRAQ in US hands...ARAB power would be NIL.

[JOHNNY]

I think it is inevitable. I dont exactly want to go to war because i will likely be sent but I know its my duty. We'll see what happens.
johnny

[yutyeesam]

I know it is absurd to say this, but,

how much of this is a self-fulfilling prophecy? We get all these news bits and images all promoting that America is just itching to go to war...so much so that we believe it and expect it and accept it, and thus do nothing about preventing it. I wonder what, if anything, would happen, if the American public actually believed that we have the power to prevent war?

whether we have it or not is not the point, but the point being, would there be changes in behavior if we actually believed we had this power to prevent war?

123

[rogue]

First stop on the Axis of Evil Tour. Maybe make a few stops in Samolia, Eritrea and other points.

[Xebsball]

Evil Empire vs Axis of Evil

The world really is sadisticly funny

[Radhnoti]

I think the U.S. will invade WITH a majority of U.N. support. I think U.S. intel already has weapon of mass destruction info that they'll share after the buildup is complete. The U.N. will verify or the inspectors will be denied entrance, at which time our intent to attack will be announced. Give it a few months to play psyop games with them, then bombing...eventually invasion.
Laughing Cow -"Most of the US-Citizens I meet here and other non-us places are firmly opposed to Bush and the War."
Where are you hanging out? Ted Turner's house? I've yet to see an opinion poll with the majority of citizens voting AGAINST a war.
Stacey-"We'll start getting bombed like Israel."
The Twin Towers, embassies, night clubs U.S. tourists frequent...c'mon it's already happening.

[Stacey]

oh, my bad, we are getting bombed all the time. I wonder why? I wonder what we can do to put out napalm? How about stomping on it? Thats the nature of terrorism. Rember when England stomped out the IRA and they gave up............oh wait, no, they kept terrorist activities for the next centuries. They finally cut them some slack and no more bombs are going off. Funny huh?

The problem in the US is education. I've met many people who claim that every muslim is to blame and that they are all in on it. Scary? You bet. I love Americans, its just that many of them think that a high school education is adequate. We have peasants and they vote.

[Sasha]

Hmm...
Two of my best friends are Muslims. I'll ask them, but I have a hunch they're not in on it.

Ah well. The end of the world is nigh. What can you do?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Radhnoti

Laughing Cow -"Most of the US-Citizens I meet here and other non-us places are firmly opposed to Bush and the War."
Where are you hanging out? Ted Turner's house? I've yet to see an opinion poll with the majority of citizens voting AGAINST a war.

Not on US-Soil, many of my US-friends are at the moment very dis-illusioned with their home-country..
Some polls already show that over 60% of US-Citizens are against the wars.
But than Polls will always show the results that they takers are paid for to show.
Polls and statistics are the worst way to judge anything.

[Stacey]

who cares what the majority of the US people want? Thats not what this country is about anymore. I'm not ****ed, it is what it is, an american dictatorship. Not neccesarily negative. Its more efficient in war time. He'll get two terms to fcuck everything up and then Hillary will save it, fix the economy and restore order. Its like a scandinavian saga.

Bush is like Loki, he's amoung the Gods, but he's half oil Giant.


of course if it was really a saga, bush would have to turn himself into a mare and get screwed by a horse to save asgaard...awe, nevermind, my analogy is shot.

[WinterPalm]

I think Bush already got screwed by a horse.

Ever notice how every time Little Bush does something, like sign a military budget bill or cut the social programs and protect the homeland, he is surrounded by old white guys that either own a lot of oil, are Energy CEO's or have extensive ties to arms manufactures.
Does it scare anyone that only three months ago, Iraq was invited to an arms show?

Every Canadian I talk to thinks that Saddam is evil but so far, with no evidence, this is disgusting what the civilians are going to face.

[rogue]

Most of the US-Citizens I meet here and other non-us places are firmly opposed to Bush and the War. Yo Cow, do me a favor and keep those pussnut not willing to voice their beliefs in their own country mouth breathers there will ya? I don't agree with much Al Sharpton has to say but at least he's involved.

[dezhen2001]

im staying well out of this one :eek:

dawood

[Slayer]

Qoute

"I think it is inevitable. I dont exactly want to go to war because i will likely be sent but I know its my duty. We'll see what happens.
johnny"

Our hopes are with you my friend.

Slayer

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by rogue
Yo Cow, do me a favor and keep those pussnut not willing to voice their beliefs in their own country mouth breathers there will ya? I don't agree with much Al Sharpton has to say but at least he's involved.

Don't worry, most of them got NO interest of going back to the States.

Some of them are looking forward to settling in Europe, Asia and other places.

Seeya.

[TjD]

i'm more worried about north korea than iraq.

saddam aint building nukes and making threats

[ZIM]

Saddam is building nukes, but he's not making threats, YET. Historically, he has used force in the region against his own citizenry and Iran/Kuwait.

N. Korea IS more worrisome, but they're not making threats so much as just building nukes. Economic sanctions won't work against them.

Johnny: If you go, thank you for going and good luck. Don't worry too much- the last ground war lasted only 100 hours. If it takes longer than about a week, we should be ashamed. Our military was streamlined for just this kind of scenario after the USSR fell.

Sidenote: in Afganistan, we were using Cavalry! My God, its back! Who'd have thought? Maybe some of those old style KF moves will become battle-tested again! :D

[red5angel]

Just for the record, I belive this war should happen.

Johnny - Semper Fi brother, you go, you take care of yourself an dthe rest of those devil dogs for me....

[Radhnoti]

Hey, if there's one thing I think we ALL can agree on, it's that we love and respect the troops that put it on the line and keep us all safe. Thanks Johhny and anyone else in the armed services.

Cow...I think I've always disagreed with everything you've ever said, but I'm glad you say it. Helps me define myself. ;)

[GLW]

Those serving in the military will get screwed again.... In the view of those in charge, they are tools to be used and NOT humans deserving of respect.

The prospect of going to war - no matter what the UN finds, Bush wants this war and unless something very big happens - not very likely - it WILL happen.

It is the old shell game - Bush daddy got screwed over by the economy - he was out of touch.

right now, the economy is sitting on a precipice. It can go up or really down. Bush and company have a LOT to gain by a war. The rest of the US - probably not much. The big problem will be that it MAY stimulate an economy in the short term. More military contracts, more people going into the military and thus being removed from the pool of folks vying for jobs... But in the long run, it will send an economy spiraling downward. The bills for a war MUST come due. They will be paid with higher deficit spending - but hey, that is OK because it is military and not social programs ...Never understood that one...both ways mean that we sell our future to pay for our past.

There will be a rift grown in the US over this war...

And, the good ol' Homeland Security Act - just passed....basically repeals many of the "self-evident" and "inalienable" rights that we have.

And if you think that ANY government EVER gives rights back to its people once they have been taken away, you have not studied history much.

All in all, this entire thing will be a bad deal...but it is so close to a certainty that to make a bet against it would also mean you believe in Santa Claus.

And...it will not end the terrorist threat....because they do NOT have a single homeland.

[yutyeesam]

Originally posted by red5angel
Just for the record, I belive this war should happen.


Why?

[Laughing Cow]

GLW.

Nice post.

You are touching on some of the subjects that my US-friends mentioned.

Simply, different horses for different courses.

Radhnoti:

Glad to be of assistance.

[dezhen2001]

happy new year laughing cow :)

dawood

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
happy new year laughing cow :)

dawood

Thanks.

Same to you and the rest of the KFO members.

May 2003 be better than 2002.

Cheers.

[Radhnoti]

...I think the purpose is not "to get them all". It's "minimize the threat".

Nerve gas, biological weapons, nukes...it takes big funding. Probably a government's funding.

Happy New Year to all. Thanks for an interesting year, looking forward to another. :)

[Braden]

GLW & others -

How do you explain claiming this war is about Bush, let alone all Bush's doing?

Weren't we in open war with them before he was elected? Weren't we dropping bombs after that, still before he was elected? Isn't Bush's position so far exactly the UN position, which also dates to before his election?

[Souljah]

reasons.....? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2617783.stm)

[Laughing Cow]

reason .... ? (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&e=4&u=/ap/20030101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)

[Braden]

What/who are you guys replying to? :confused:

[Souljah]

jus putting up info, thats all, thanks 4 link lc

[Radhnoti]

I agree with Braden. It's pretty convenient that Bush foes "forget" that the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghanistan without a Bush in the White House.

Clinton hit Iraq with popular support:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/17/iraq.poll/

And Afghanistan/Sudan:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.02/


But, yeah, it's easier to blame one man in office instead of admitting that's it's our foreign policy...and that some things just have to be dealt with.

[Braden]

Also, don't forget an important difference: the Clinton attacks were in violation of international law.

[GLW]

Hmm...so you are saying that BEFORE Bush, we were telling the UN that we didn't give a d@mn what they said...we were going to attack with or without their approval?

Sorry...but the threat from Iraq has not changed substantially since 1990. At that time, Saddam was at the height of his power and military might. Yet it took our military a very short time to devastate his forces.

We used armor piercing shells that have end up spewing radioactive dust into the air....and have contaminated large sections of Iraq. The birth defect rate from this alone is staggering in Iraq.

The elite guard turned tail and ran. If Saddam was going to do anything, that would have been the time.

This administration has worked hard to try to make a connection between the Sept. 11 attack and Iraq. Many buy into that...with ZERO proof.

It is sowing the seeds of hatred and chaos.

The ONLY ally we have supporting us is tony blair...and he is a stones throw away from a vote of no confidence.

We claim to have proof of weapons in Iraq...yet the proof is not produced and we are standing alone...and it you listen to international news out of the US borders, we come off looking like the bully on the block.

The news we are given in mainstream media is so slanted it is not even funny. Dig a bit deeper and you get some very disturbing questions.

The entire handling of Iraqu...going back 30+ years has been ridiculuous. the timing of this push...given what has been going on for more than 10 years is questionable.

But...believe what you will. If it ends up OK...great. If it ends up a mess...well remember where you stood on this day.

Committing US troops is not something that should be done lightly and NEVER without the intnetion of finishing a job. War is about death and destruction...not about kicking someone's a$$...And should never be rushed into.

And as for the troops...let me see...Viet Nam vets are still struggling with Agen Orange problems and getting screwed. The Gulf War vest have Gulf War Syndrome...likely from same armor piercing shells....and getting nothing...

And ...in both of those "Wars" Congress NEVER declared war....and nothing was really accomplished. What a great track record..... Yet lead on McBush....

[Braden]

"Hmm...so you are saying that BEFORE Bush, we were telling the UN that we didn't give a d@mn what they said...we were going to attack with or without their approval?"

You did worse, you dropped bombs and killed people against international law - a war crime.

Whereas, now you're actually not saying the above at all.

All of this is discussed in as available a resource as the four articles allready linked up in this thread.

"This administration has worked hard to try to make a connection between the Sept. 11 attack and Iraq. Many buy into that...with ZERO proof."

This isn't the main factor and isn't claimed to be the main factor.

"The ONLY ally we have supporting us is tony blair..."

Supporting you in what? What Bush has said? You have everyone's support. What people on internet chat rooms claim Bush said? Well, let's not hold him responsable for that.

"The entire handling of Iraqu...going back 30+ years has been ridiculuous."

I would agree whole-heartedily. Bush is a breath of fresh air. Which doesn't mean I like him. It's relative.

"Yet lead on McBush...."

Now Bush is responsable for Vietnam? :confused: And you're associating him with the crime of not declaring war, when open declaration of his intentions is exactly what he's doing differenly than everyone else? :confused: I hope you understand if I say your personal attacks against him don't make any sense.

[ZIM]

Also, don't forget an important difference: the Clinton attacks were in violation of international law.

Since not many decided to look into this, even when asked directly, I decided to. :)

As I'm reading currently ["Unfinished Business", Harlan Ullman, fmr prof. US War College & Bush I/II cronie], apparently Clinton pursued the matter of OBL on a criminal justice footing rather than a military one. As OBL is not a national leader, he figured there was no one to declare war on, and besides, he had more leeway for retribution.

So goes the logic, anyhow. Not saying I agree with it. The book, BTW, seems to be being widely read by policy-makers in this administration, incl. Powell, Rumsfeld, et al. and is a very good source.

I'll say one good thing for Bush: he stopped the policy of engagement- the policy that got us into Somalia and other fuzzy-headed humanitarian missions that the military isn't suited for, just as he said he would.


...in both of those "Wars" Congress NEVER declared war

Correct in the case of Vietnam- it was a 'police action' [interesting parallel to the above note] so Congress passed the resolution to limit armed forces involvement after a set period without said declarations AFTER that war. One cannot persecute or take to task for a law not yet passed.
Incorrect in the case of the Gulf war, however- that was declared, IIRC.

[GLW]

Braden,

I will not spend much itme with you on this. you have made up your mind and a closed mind is a waste of time in discussion.

However, please read for CONTENT and not jump to conclusions.

Bush is another in a long line of the same people. Those in his cabinet and the power structrue actually can be traced back to the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush senior years. their stripes have not changed at all.

The foreign policy from 1950 to now has not changed. We support tyrants and give them weapons. We look the other way when they use them against their own people and commit genocide. We get involved in wars and destroy while ignoring the needs of those who fight the wars and those who stay home.

Bush himself is NOT responsible for much. He is not a fresh air but a younger version of the same old air that was around in the 1970's and 1980's. Back then, such things as are being planned now were NOT possible because we had a second super power to worry about. That is about the only real difference now.

We have a homeland Security Act that pretty much turns the US into an anti-Constitution state. We have a congress that is a rubber stamp for this...but NOT declaring war in an official way..and why NO?

We are tying Al Qaeda to Iraq...but the ty to our good friends the Saudis is much tighter.

We will be in this war and people will die. The deficit will go up. There will be greater animosity bred in the middle-east against the US and all westerners. We will estrange our traditional allies and friends.

We will NOT be any safer after it than we were before it.

Simple reason...the roots of why there are terrorists are still there. The people all over do not stand up and say no to terrorism. We ourselves support terorism in many states...nearest in Central and south America.

It will be a costly mess and already is sowing division in the country...doubt it, look at this single thread.

Lived through this stuff once...and I am saddened to see we have learned nothing from the past.

But...what rights are you willing to give up to be safe? how many lives are you willing to accept on both sides and what do you expect in return for the loss of life?

Giving up freedom for safety and security...Sorry- I don't wish to do that at all. And I don't want to see the children of friends sent off to fight for a cause that is unclear and doomed in the first place....

Unless of course the reason is a firm military base presence in the middle east and making a number of enemies....

We will probably get both...and pay for it for 30+ years.

[Braden]

ZIM - I know the logic, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it to be absurd. I also know that the current admin seem to be fans of alot of it; don't confuse my pointing out of Clinton's mistakes for being a support of Bush, et al's mistakes. They, at least so far (and that's all I'm willing to judge them on), seem to be fans in ideology but not action of this logic. I hope it sticks.

[rogue]

Bush is another in a long line of the same people. Those in his cabinet and the power structrue actually can be traced back to the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush senior years. their stripes have not changed at all. I'm sorry but what does that mean? I notice that you left out the Kennedy, Johnson Carter and Clinton admins. So only Republicans wage, as some would say, needless war?


The foreign policy from 1950 to now has not changed. We support tyrants and give them weapons. We look the other way when they use them against their own people and commit genocide. We get involved in wars and destroy while ignoring the needs of those who fight the wars and those who stay home. No we support Gov'ts that many times are the lesser of two evils in regards to Americas self interest. We also will only support those tyrants as long as neccessary and then clean up.


We are tying Al Qaeda to Iraq...but the ty to our good friends the Saudis is much tighter. Financially yes, but there has been a link between Iraq and al Qaeda since 1993.


Simple reason...the roots of why there are terrorists are still there. The people all over do not stand up and say no to terrorism. We ourselves support terorism in many states...nearest in Central and south America. Could you list them for me?

[Braden]

"I will not spend much itme with you on this. you have made up your mind and a closed mind is a waste of time in discussion."

What do I have a closed mind about, exactly?

I mean, I didn't ask a question which was answered explicitly in a press release in the post I was responding to, so I figured I was doing pretty good, relatively speaking.

"Bush is another in a long line of the same people."

If by 'people' you mean 'american presidents', I'd have to agree. Although I'd wonder what alternative situation you have in mind...

"The foreign policy from 1950 to now has not changed."

If this is true, it would seem all the more reason not to base your arguments as attacks on Bush personally, which was exactly my one and only point.

"We support tyrants and give them weapons. We look the other way when they use them against their own people and commit genocide. We get involved in wars and destroy while ignoring the needs of those who fight the wars and those who stay home."

Thank you Mario, but our Princess is in another castle.

"He is not a fresh air but a younger version of the same old air that was around in the 1970's and 1980's."

Well, so far he's not waking up in the morning and deciding it's time to fire some cruise missiles, then firing them without worry of international law. That's a change. I consider it a welcome change. Perhaps you don't.

"We have a congress that is a rubber stamp for this...but NOT declaring war in an official way..and why NO?"

In what way is war not being declared in the official way?

"We are tying Al Qaeda to Iraq...but the ty to our good friends the Saudis is much tighter."

No we're not. As I've pointed out previously on this thread, and totally perhaps a dozen times on this forum to no avail. Please read what you're commenting on. This is not the reason for the potential war.

"We will be in this war and people will die. The deficit will go up."

I'm not sure why you're arguing this with me, as I don't recall ever being pro-war. Although, to play devil's advocate, wars typically have had remarkably good long-term economic effects for us.

"Simple reason...the roots of why there are terrorists are still there."

Ignorant propaganda? I'd have to agree.

[ZIM]

"We are tying Al Qaeda to Iraq...but the ty to our good friends the Saudis is much tighter."

You are correct, sir! OBL, who had his citizenship revoked by the Saudis, is publicly reviled there by his relatives as "the son of the slave" and would like very much to expand operations there over the dead bodies of the rulers. He regards them as traitors for allowing the US to base planes and miltary there during the Gulf war, claiming we have somehow 'infected' Muslim Holy sites.

Cooties! We dropped da Cootie Bomb!!!

[dezhen2001]

as far as i know fro my Saudi friends at Uni here... OBL has had his citizenship revoked and is not allowed back there on fear of death... so i guess that makes it a tie :D

But his family are pretty rich so who knows :confused:

dawood