|Soliciting opinions about Saddam vs US situation...||funknuggets|
Sep 9, 2002 10:11 AM
|Im not trying to rustle any feathers, but I want to know something. Is it possible that other countries that are voicing their opposition to the US desire to attack Saddam doing this to force the US hand to their own political gain? I mean, really, if any of these countries could have stopped Hitler or Milosevich before they did any serious damage... wouldn't they have? I cannot understand why anyone would ignore such a situation, so Im curious if other countries, ie: China, Germany are grandstanding to get the US to "sweeten the pot" so to speak on particular issues to get them to back the US attacks.
For example, the US and Taiwan... if the US would relax its position OR change its policy towards Taiwan to favor China I would bet you in a second that China would suddenly change its position and back any US strikes. That is insane.
What does everyone predict? I could see Saddam either attacking (nuking...biologically?) Israel, polarizing the region, forcing the US's and everyone else to choose sides, thus making a very, very ugly mess.
Just a thought.
Sep 9, 2002 10:30 AM
|Have we really been shown any overwhelming evidence that Saddam is getting nukes soon? Who knows...maybe he already has 'em. Bush/Cheney seem so gung ho to go in and fight him. Not really sure why the urgency unless there is something else they aren't telling us. In any event this is starting to sounds as if war is inevitable and it's not gonna be Operation Desert Storm this time. It's likely to be really ugly for all involved.|
|Do you really want to see overwhelming evidence?||jose_Tex_mex|
Sep 10, 2002 4:42 PM
I understand your point and I am hardly an advocate/supporter of either Bush. However, let's be realistic. The second someone gets their hands on nukes you can say goodbye to the US. We cannot wait. We cannot afford to be wrong on this subject. Saddam advocates terrorists. If Abu Nidal living in Baghdad wasn't enough evidence then what is?
As for not "telling us" of course there's more to the story and they are right to not tell us. I am not trying to be facetious, however, most adults really just need a kiss on the cheek from the gov't every night before bed time and a promise that everything is well.
Did you see the movie on the Bay of Pigs with the Kennedy's? I often wonder what movies they will release 30 years from now when I am about to retire. Will I look then and say - oh my God?! I cannot believe that was what was going on... No wonder why Bush didn't come back to DC... Who knows, it will be interesting. Perhaps, it is best to not know now what I will know later.
Do I want a war - No. However, the wheels are greased are the machine is in motion.
Keep the rubber on the road...
|not convinced they would use them||ColnagoFE|
Sep 12, 2002 7:58 AM
|after all the US is the only nation to have used nukes in war. russia and the us hated each other and built up their arsenals for years during the cold war and no nukes were ever used. if iraq did send a nuke to the US or israel it would trigger a full scale nuke response which would be suicidal. i suppose if you think hussein is insane enough to allow his country to be destroyed then there is cause for alarm, but i would hope a person sane enough to run a major government would have the sense to realize that the only way to win the game is not to play it (a la wargames).|
|Isn't unilateral action on this scale a dangerous precedent tho?||Sintesi|
Sep 9, 2002 11:36 AM
|Couldn't China use the same justification for invading Taiwan because of Taiwan's armaments? Or Israel againts any number of it's neighbors in the not too distant future? I'm sure there are plenty of examples in the world. I agree the danger is there but there other considerations such as exit stategies, political liabilities, human costs, etc,... Is Iran next? Are we prepared to be consistent in our actions in the world or is this unimportant?
This ain't going to be a cake walk.
BTW, Israel has nukes of its own. If Saddam launched against Israel you could pretty much say goodbye to Bhagdad and there ain't a thing anyone could do about it. Who would argue with them? I couldn't even see Lybia backing Saddam after a move like that.
|re: Soliciting opinions about Saddam vs US situation...||OutWest|
Sep 9, 2002 8:48 PM
|Good questions, I have of my own. Following Sept 11th, Bush's popularity rose with the assault on the Taleban. Is this an attempt to maintain a high popularity rating with the American people. Perhaps that is too cynical a way to put it and he doing this as he feels it is what the American people would approve of. Lets face it, there is a part of most of us that would love to wipe Saddam's face in a pile of sh-t!|
|Saddam isn't going to . . .||Steve98501|
Sep 10, 2002 1:37 PM
|strike first against any target that can effectively strike him back. His goal is primarily to stay in power (his job doesn't have a pension and retirement plan) and expand his empire if he can without much risk. (Recall that he was told the U.S. wouldn't intervene if he invaded Kuwait. He acted on what turned out to be bad information and got kicked pretty bad.) If Saddam strikes first at either Israel or the U.S., he's a dead man, and he knows it.
He is a de-stabilizing influence in the middle east, so it's reasonable for him to build as strong a defense system as he can out of fear that someone is going to try to whack him. Consequently, it's not that hard to understand that he would try to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in hopes that nations that could do so, won't be putting the hurt on him out of concern about retaliation.
I conclude that Bush/Cheny are hyping an attack on Iraq for political reasons. The U.S. tolerated the Soviet Union's possession of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons for over 40 years and did not attack. Nor did the Soviets attack us. The USSR was a larger nation than Iraq with a lot more global influence. We've long tolerated China's possession of some or all of those same weapons, and we haven't attacked them, nor has China attacked us. I have to question what exactly we fear of Saddam Hussein. Is Iraq likely to become a super-power? And is the U.S. justified in pre-empting that?
I think Bush foresees a difficult re-election, having been elected by a mere 5-4 majority. A country at war may be less likely to change national leadership. So perhaps we're going to war to facilitate his re-election and maintain another four years of compassionate conservatism.
|Bingo! My suspiscions exactly.||OutWest|
Sep 10, 2002 7:32 PM
|Alot of things may become clearer tomorrow. Regarding tomorrow, I wish to offer my condolences to the American people for their great loss a year ago, this from one Canadian.|
Sep 12, 2002 8:03 AM
|i think this is right on unless there is something the us govt is not revealing (entirely possible). it would be suicide for ANY nation to use nukes. i don't believe saddam is insane enough to do that to himself--no matter how hard the us media likes to paint him that way.|
|I'd rather have a president with 10 interns in his pants||Kristin|
Sep 13, 2002 7:39 AM
|Than one who is willing to blow people up just to stay in power. I haven't been following this too closely, but if its true that this is a political move for Bush to stay in power, then I'm sad. But of course, I don't know if its true or not, I haven't been following it. Even if I was, I'm not sure I could tell if its true or not. Its seems like you need two PHD's to understand the complexities of our government.|
|re: Soliciting opinions about Saddam vs US situation...||Pygme|
Sep 11, 2002 9:18 AM
|Of course it is. Ever notice how Saddam comes up with the "We arabs got to stick together" line when the pressure is on? Really, what he is saying is "We Arab DICTATORS got to stick together because if democracy comes to Iraq, your county is next."
Besides, if a "freindly" regime is in place in Iraq, what will that mean to oil prices for Saudi, et al?
As far as China: Sure they dont want a consensus. They are our enemies and want it as tough on us as they can.