Attacking Iraq. A rapist's perspective.

[rumpletumbler]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61788,00.html

RT

 

[jetexas]

Good ole Clinton. Just stands by and hopes all is well. He bombs the h*ll out of Yugoslavia (?) while letting IRAQ kick out U.N. weapons inspectors and allowing Bin Laden to increase his momentum enough to hit the towers, twice.

 

[rightrudder]

I thought this was an aviation board, not The O'Reilly Factor

 

[Chunk]

Come on....

A man with "Religion is the opiate of the masses" for a signature is giving someone crap for making a non-aviation related statement?

Riiiiight.

 

[Sean]

Clinton

Clinton…it’s about time he gets off the side lines and comes on in for the big win…all his rhetoric does is make the Bush administration look bad…Clinton, Gore and all the other actors that said if Bush made it into office would leave and live in Canada…well we are all waiting.

 

[rightrudder]

There, all better now!

 

[rightrudder]

Here's a good website for your Clinton discussion


http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/

 

[Chunk]

RightRudder,

You don't get the point. I have no beef with your previous signature. I don't agree, but I respect your right to say it. I just expect you to give everyone else the right to say anything they want.

The bottomline:

Your sig was non-aviation related (no big deal), the thread is non-aviation related (no big deal), you give him crap, I call your hypocrisy. Okay? Easy to grasp....

Chunk

 

[rightrudder]

Geez, can't I get away with anything?

I believe W avoided service in Viet Nam as well. Clinton did because he was smart enough to become a Rhodes scholar. Bush because his daddy had $$ and connections. Come to think of it, that is why they both became president as well: Clinton due to his hard work and intelligence, Bush because of $$ and daddy's connections.

details, details...

p.s. the former signature was done as a joke, the latter as well

 

[EagleRJ]

This guy never ceases to amaze me. Clinton has a lot of nerve coming in and trying to make trouble for our Commander in Chief, after what happened on his shift. His risk-adverse and poll-driven presidency is the primary reason we're in the situation we are in now!

Let's see- we have two choices here. We can go in and take down Saddam before he can further develop his WMDs and delivery technology. Or, we can stand 8000 miles away and warn him not to try anything funny. Then, when he gets bold enough to attack Israel with chemical or biological weapons, Israel responds with nuclear weapons, the whole region goes to war, and we get to clean up the mess. What a brilliant idea!

There are numerous clues that suggest Iraq might have had a hand in planning, training, or financing for 9/11, and that alone is sufficient reason to go in and take Saddam down hard and fast.

 

[Dep676]

Clinton

What a DUMBA$$!!!!! Send him and his wife over to Iraq to live along with his butt buddy Al Gore. See how they like living over there. They said they would leave no leave and don't come back. Better yet strap all 3 to a cruise missle and launch it right at Saddam. Then they can kiss his A$$ over there on the way through his palace.

 

[willi7]

Refresh my memory, wasn't it Bush Sr. that didn't get the job done in the early 90's. When are people going to realize that whatever horse you pick they are both run by the same thing.. Whichever company gives them the most money!!!!!!!! They call it a payoff in the mafia. The government calls it campaign contributions...

 

[kilomike]

Willi7, you said it right!!!

So true!!!!! Bushboy Sr. did not finish the Gulf War and now we have to deal with Saddam again. Your post was the best one of all of them on this thread.

 

[Bataan]

My, how quickly we forget. George Bush Sr. ONLY said we would remove Saddam from kuwait in '91. This was the UN mandate. Had he gone any farther towards Bahgdad, he would have been publicly "crucified" as a warmonger, and for going against the UN. He did exactly as he promised. No more.

I'll bet alot of you weren't even teenagers during that war.

 

[jetexas]

As a Desert Storm veteran I can tell you with full assurance that we knew we'd be going back one day. It was a hollow feeling leaving Saddam in power but that was not the goal . The goal was strictly to free Kuwait.There was a lot of political pressure amongst the coalition to not continue on up through Iraq. It would have been nice to have "finished" the job, but that would have required a different political angle. While Saddam was generally hated, especially by the Kuwaiti's and the western allies, it was thought he had been shown enough to moderate somewhat and cooperate. The cooalition could have completely wiped out his military. We did'nt. We left him with some tanks and a fighting capacity to stop a void from being filled by Iran.
It was not Bush's 'fault' that Iraq was not taken out then. It was a UN mission and while the US had about 70% prescense there, we were not the deciding factor in the politics. The UN was. Blame the UN.
Times have changed. Saddam has decided to thumb his nose at the UN mandates placed upon him. The 'coalition"we had back then is no longer in place and chooses to 'let things be'. Just like the Clinton administration decided to let Bin Laden be. Now how far did that get us? He got more and more bold and we all know the results.
If anyone thinks Saddam is playing from a different set of cards, they do not know their history. Just read up on the atrocities commited during the Iran/Iraq war. Some would have surprised even the Nazi SS.
It's time to go back to Iraq.

 

[Sean]

Jetexam:

Well said. I read Norm's book about the Gulf War and your right on! We did what we were supposed to do and then some. Who would have thought that Iraq would come back and try to F with us again. It's ashame that we might have to go back in and kick some as*.... I will tell you this, I will back President Bush 100%, even if it means I have to go and die for my country!!!

Clinton dropped the ball years ago and now Bush will have to pay the price...let's just hope Bush Jr. get's a second term.

God bless American!

 

[surplus1]

If anyone thinks Saddam is playing from a different set of cards, they do not know their history. Just read up on the atrocities commited during the Iran/Iraq war.

Not trying to start anything but I am curious. Wasn't the United States supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war and while he was actually committing all of the atrocities, that we are now complaing about? I wonder why we didn't complain while they were happening?

 

[FL000]

All you liberals whined and moaned about proceeding into Baghdad in '91 to oust SH. "No, don't do it. It's inhumane. Innocent civilians will be killed. We've completed the mission. Bring our men and women home."

Now it's Bush's daddy's fault that things weren't mopped up over there. Yeah, right. Now I see why a flake like Gore is the best y'all could come up with in 2000. Please, send him up for slaughter in '04. I can't wait.

 

[jetexas]

From Surplus 1,
"Not trying to start anything but I am curious. Wasn't the United States supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war and while he was actually committing all of the atrocities, that we are now complaing about? I wonder why we didn't complain while they were happening?"

True. The public opinion as well as our government in the 80's was expressly against Iran. This was due to the rise of the Ayatollah with his vohment anti-american ways. Don't forget the hostage crisis. I think the gov't made some dire miscalcuatlations supporting Iraq in the 80's, but we saw that as a way to get back at Iran. Most probably had reservations once Saddam gassed the Kurds and then there was the USS Stark incident (Saddam never paid for its repairs as he said he would).
The atrocities that stick out in my mind most are the ones against the combatants and in some cases his own troops. He used to order the the dead Iranians be piled up and covered with Lyme in order to make roads for his tanks through the southern swamps. He also ordered that one of his 'hesitant' colonels be lashed to a Scud missle and launced towards Tehran when that Colonel refused Saddams orders to kill innocent Iraninan civilians. Pretty sick stuff.
Saddams sons are even more radical than him. I think thats the real goal here. To get rid of his sons before they take over power one day. They are the type to lob off nukes just for fun.

 

[willi7]

The U.S. has a long history of medling in the affairs of the middle east starting in the 50's. Can't remeber the country now, Egypt I think.. We decided that the leader elected by the masses wasn't in our country's best strategic intrest. We reinstated the brutal ruler that lost the election and the rest is history. This was the start of the Arab worlds dislike of western world. Anyone who thinks that it is an easy desision to go blow SH up is not thinking about the global inpact that an attack on Iraq would have. Unfortunatly SH is and so is the rest of the world. Attacking Iraq now would cause chaos in a fragile middle east (Possibly Nucuelar War among a couple of countries). It would be costly on our econemy, which means the world econemy. We would have to rebuild to countries with taxpayer money. And then cross our fingers and hope that another insane, crafty leader doesn't rise to power. And we all know that there are plenty of those waiting in the wings. I could go on longer with more angles that an attack on Iraq would have, but you get the picture. This isn't the time for Texas style justice. There is a little more on the line than getting votes for the next presidential election, Liberal or Conservative this is to big of a descision for our corperate puppet politions to make. Hopefully we still have some people at the top of our millitary that arn't influenced by money or votes.