Iraqi Invasion Implications

[ch47fe]

What has Iraq done?

JTB,
We exert no real influence on Iraq and that's one big problem. they have only commited themselves and their government to the destruction of the US and publicly proclaimed it.

You mention Pakistan and India. Pakistan, we can bargain with them and make deals that control them. India, they are not on the same level of insanity of Iraq nor their leadership, they also do business with the US and could be hurt eceonomically by any deals teh US tries to plot againist them. Both of these countries are not predominately Islamic and do not beleive the infidel should die a slow death.

I think Bush senior screwed the pooch when he let Powell talk him into his plan instead of Norman's drive it home theory. Powell was wrong aboutcalling off the dawgs then and is just a token used to get votes in Bushy's current campaign.

We have been denied the right to inspect Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, an agreement Saddam agreed to.

Hell yes, we should do something. The liberals and peace yippees are going to have a hay day if we attack Iraq short of another attack with Saddam caught dropping the bomb himself with CNN filming it as it happens.

We carry a big stick and it's time we used it in some fashion on the big towel head himself.

Later

 

[surplus1]

Re: What has Iraq done?

You mention Pakistan and India. Both of these countries are not predominately Islamic and do not beleive the infidel should die a slow death.

Pakistan is not predominately Islamic? Considering that 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

You said Pakistan is our ally and we can deal with it. Well I suppose that's technically correct. Don't forget that Pakistan became our "ally" because we "forgave" hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and granted many millions more in "aid" to ensure their "allied" status. At some point the US Government may come to realize that you can't buy friendship.

The Pakistani's are Islamic my friend and they are on "our side" because we paid their current dictator to be on our side. He rules that country as the result of a military coup and is no less a dictator than Saddam Hussein. He just happens to be OUR dictator de jour.

 

[rumpletumbler]

In many of these countries the citizens are no more islamic than the people in the U.S. are Christians. They will tell you they are Islamic just like most folks here will tell you they are Christians. In both cases most would be wrong.

RT

 

[ch47fe]

My Point

Well, I have not taken surveys but I have worked with many Indians that actually live there told me not everyone is an Islamic extremist. That's were I came up with that statement.

My only point is that we have formal political relations with India and the Pakis.

As far as Pakistan we made our own bed with them so no one should act like they really owe us anything they are dirty like the rest of the Amerihaters in the middle east and we played ball.

Personally, I am waiting for Pakistan to side with the Arabs and dump the US if it really starts flyin' in towel land.

 

[Boeingman]

Generally during war time, don't most majors run military contracts and ferry troops around? Wouldn't that require a recall of some pilots?

Not necessarily. The block hours flown on CRAF missions would be taken from normal scheduled operations.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Towel land. (snicker)

How come no one saw the importance of my earlier post?

FoxNews would put Laurie Dhue back on the air during regular news! And if that isn't worth fighting for what is?

 

[surplus1]

Re: My Point

Well, I have not taken surveys but I have worked with many Indians that actually live there told me not everyone is an Islamic extremist. That's were I came up with that statement.

I haven't taken surveys either. The percentage I quoted is statistical.

You keep wanting to confuse the Indians with the Pakistanis. What is now called Pakistan was once a part of India. It became a separate country precisely because of religious conflict between the Indians, most of whom are Hindus, and the Muslims who left India to become known as Pakistan.

Additionally, India is the world's largest democracy. Pakistan is a totalitarian state with a military government run by a dictator army General. There's a substantial difference.

My only point is that we have formal political relations with India and the Pakis.

This is true. It is also true, as the other gentleman pointed out, that we also had formal political relations with the Iraqi when it suited our purpose to support them in their war with Iran. We also supported what became the Taliban when that was convenient in our dispute with the Soviets.

If it is necessary that we engage in a war with Iraq in order to protect the interests of the US or defend the American people, so be it. However, I'm not at all willing to declare war on a nation that has not attacked the US in order to satisfy the power plays of George Bush or the oil mongering of Dick Cheney.

The fact that the US has unchallenged military power does not justify hegemony or the invasion of another man's country. In my opinion, our military might is to defend our own country and its interests. Not to dictate the rulers of other countries, no matter how unsavory they may be.

If and when we can prove that the government of Iraq in fact poses and immediate threat to the security of the United States I would support action to protect this country. So far, I have seen no hard evidence of that. A few speeches by George Bush is not enough to risk the life of my grandsons. Neither are the interests of the Israeli state.

Our national interest in the Middle East is oil. When it was threatened by Iraq, we acted to repel the threat. I agreed with that. Not to "defend the freedom of Kuwait" which was and remains non existent, but to protect the economic interests of the USA, i.e., Saudia, from invasion. That I can see, such a threat does not currently exist from Iraq. I'm not alone in that view.

As for the Islamic extremists, they are a serious threat. I keep hearing that not all are extremists, but those that are not are remarkably quiet and have notably failed to denounce those that are, including right here in our own country. That leaves me wondering about which one is extreme and which one is not. Frankly, the enemy within bothers me far more than Saddam Hussein.

I'm probably confused, but upwards of 5 million potential enemy "soldiers" hiding in our midst is a Trojan Horse that frightens me much more than a nasty dictator in a relatively weak country 6000 miles away. Especially one whose every move is closely monitored by our active military presence. JMO

 

[ch47fe]

Mountain Dhue

I guess we missed your point while our chests were swelling up, preparing to swap blows over this heated topic.

I have to admit Dhue is the best chic on the FOX news cast.

Founding fathers, apple pie, women, and protecting liberals have always been worth risking our lives for.

 

[aceshigh]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.............aaahhhhhhh

I wouldn't mind climbing those rockies, especially for some of that
Bus(c)h. Beer, of course.

Aceshigh

 

[GoingHot]

NOT SO!

I think Bush senior screwed the pooch when he let Powell talk him into his plan instead of Norman's drive it home theory. Powell was wrong aboutcalling off the dawgs then and is just a token used to get votes in Bushy's current campaign.

There was no "Drive it Home Theory". The mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait which was done. Bush 41 made a promise to the third world types in the UN that we would not remove Saddam form power. Without it, none of the Arab countries would have come on board, nor would other American haters like the French and Germans. It would have been us and the Brits. Bush 41 didn't think we could sucessfully go it alone like that.

Sure, we should have destroyed all of the Iraqi weapons and equipment while we had a chance. We left far too many tanks and heavy weapons untouched, making rebuilding his military easier than it should have been. But, going to Bagdad was NEVER on the table.