VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 869 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Are we going to war with Iraq? Do you think we should?<br><br>
And what is it with W's approval rating anyway? I never meet anyone who likes him...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,573 Posts
it looks like the UK is. Amateur resevists have given their call up papers and a load of ships have set sail. One man, a pen pusher in my husband's office has been pulled out from March. And the news is full of bioterrorists arrested in London and so on. ugh. I think a holiday in Turkey is off the menu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,573 Posts
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,870967,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...870967,00.html</a><br><br><br><br>
Train drivers yesterday refused to move a freight train carrying ammunition believed to be destined for British forces being deployed in the Gulf............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
I believe that the military build up in the region speaks for itself. It seems to me that no matter what if anything the UN finds in Iraq that the US will still attack. Do I personally think that Iraq should be attacked? I dont know. I do know that the administration has neglected some of consequences of an attack on Iraq. The administration has neglected to take into consideration the stability in the region. I think the administration has neglected to consider the political implications of an attack (in international politics). I think the administration is frustrated over Bin Laden and is looking at Iraq to take some of attention off its failures both on the war on terrorism and domestic issues.<br><br><br><br>
I think an attack on Iraq will further anti-Americanism throughout the World. The rise in anti-Americanism will lead to more attacks against Christians and anything Western. I think that attacking Iraq has more to do with politics/oil (US lost 765,000 barrels a day from Iraq) than whether or not it has weapons of mass destruction. I think this is an example of our biased polices (Iraq/North Korea). I think Bush is an ass.<br><br><br><br>
I think his approval rating is due to the environment that surrounds him. I think people feel the need to stand behind the pRESIDENT because of Sept 11th. His approval has declined since then and I believe it will continue to fall as the environment/climate around him changes back to a pre-Sept 11th state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
A CASE FOR WAR IN IRAQ<br><br><br><br>
WHY DO LEFTIES HATE U.S. MORE THAN BIN LADEN?<br><br><br><br>
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS<br><br><br><br>
Well-known foe of U.S. foreign policy Christopher Hitchens has shocked observers and admirers on the left by advocating a war on Iraq. Here are his reasons, as explained in his final column for U.S. journal The Nation.<br><br><br><br>
I suppose I can just about bear to watch the "inspections'' pantomime a second time. But what I cannot bear is the sight of French and Russian diplomats posing and smirking with Naji Sabry, Iraq's foreign minister, or with Tariq Aziz. I used to know Naji and I know that two of his brothers, Mohammed and Shukri, were imprisoned and tortured by Saddam Hussein -- in Mohammed's case, tortured to death. The son of deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz was sentenced to 22 years of imprisonment last year; he has since been released and rearrested and released again, partly no doubt to show who is in charge.<br><br><br><br>
Another former friend of mine, Mazen Zahawi, was Saddam Hussein's interpreter until shortly after the Gulf War, when he was foully murdered and then denounced as a homosexual. I have known many regimes where stories of murder and disappearance are the common talk among the opposition; the Iraqi despotism is salient in that such horrors are also routine among its functionaries.<br><br><br><br>
Saddam Hussein likes to use as envoys the men he has morally destroyed; men who are sick with fear and humiliation, and whose families are hostages.<br><br><br><br>
I don't particularly care, even in a small way, to be a hostage of Saddam Hussein myself. There is not the least doubt that he has acquired some of the means of genocide and hopes to collect some more; there is also not the least doubt that he is a sadistic megalomaniac.<br><br><br><br>
Some believe that he is a rational and self-interested actor who understands "containment," but I think that is distinctly debatable: given a green light by Washington on two occasions -- once for the assault on Iran and once for the annexation of Kuwait -- he went crazy both times and, knowing that it meant disaster for Iraq and for its neighbours, tried to steal much more than he had been offered.<br><br><br><br>
On the matter of his support for international nihilism, I have already written my memoir of Abu Nidal, the murderous saboteur of the Palestinian cause. I have also interviewed the senior Czech official who investigated the case of (September 11 bomber) Mohammed Atta's visit to Prague. This same official had served a deportation order on Ahmed Al-Ani, the Iraqi secret policeman who, working under diplomatic cover, was caught red-handed in a plan to blow up Radio Free Iraq, which transmits from Czech soil.<br><br><br><br>
It was, I was told (and this by someone very skeptical of Plan Bush), "70 per cent likely" that Atta came to Prague to meet Al-Ani. Seventy per cent is not conclusive, but neither is it really tolerable.<br><br><br><br>
Meanwhile, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan holds several prisoners from the Ansar al-Islam gang, who for some reason have been trying to destroy the autonomous Kurdish regime in northern Iraq. These people have suggestive links both to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It will perhaps surprise nobody that despite Kurdish offers of cooperation, our intrepid CIA has shown no interest in questioning these prisoners. (Incidentally, when is anyone at the CIA or the FBI going to be fired?)<br><br><br><br>
I am much more decided in my mind about two further points. I am on the side of the Iraqi and Kurdish opponents of this filthy menace. And they are on the side of civil society in a wider conflict, which is the civil war now burning across the Muslim world from Indonesia to Nigeria.<br><br><br><br>
The theocratic and absolutist side in this war hopes to win it by exporting it here, which in turn means that we have no expectation of staying out of the war, and no right to be neutral in it. But there are honourable allies to be made as well, and from now on all of our cultural and political intelligence will be required in order to earn their friendship and help isolate and destroy their enemies, who are now ours -- or perhaps I should say mine.<br><br><br><br>
Only a fool would trust the Bush administration to see all of this. I am appalled that by this late date no proclamation has been issued to the people of Iraq, announcing the aims and principles of the coming intervention.<br><br><br><br>
Nor has any indictment of Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity been readied. Nothing has been done to conciliate Iran, where the mullahs are in decline. The Palestinian plight is being allowed to worsen (though the Palestinians do seem to be pressing ahead hearteningly with a "regime change" of their own). These misgivings are obviously not peripheral. But please don't try to tell me that if Florida had gone the other way we would be in better hands, or would be taking the huge and honourable risk of "destabilizing" our former Saudi puppets.<br><br><br><br>
Moreover, it's obvious to me that the "anti-war" side would not be convinced even if all the allegations made against Saddam Hussein were proven, and even if the true views of the Iraqi people could be expressed. All evidence pointed overwhelmingly to the Taliban and al Qaeda last fall, and now all the proof is in; but I am sent petitions on Iraq by the same people (some of them not so naive) who still organize protests against the simultaneous cleanup and rescue of Afghanistan, and continue to circulate falsifications about it.<br><br><br><br>
The Senate adopted the Iraq Liberation Act without dissent under Clinton; the relevant UN resolutions are old and numerous. I don't find the saner, Richard Falk-ish view of yet more consultation to be very persuasive, either.<br><br><br><br>
This is something more than a disagreement of emphasis or tactics. When I began work for The Nation over two decades ago, Victor Navasky described the magazine as a debating ground between liberals and radicals, which was, I thought, well judged. In the past few weeks, though, I have come to realize that the magazine itself takes a side in this argument, and is becoming the voice and the echo chamber of those who truly believe that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden.<br><br><br><br>
(I, too, am resolutely opposed to secret imprisonment and terror-hysteria, but not in the same way as I am opposed to those who initiated the aggression and who are planning future ones.) In these circumstances it seems to me false to continue the association, which is why I have decided to make this Minority Report my last one. From The Nation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by MsRuthieB</i><br><br><b>Me neither. But enough people obviously liked him or else someone played a very mean trick on Americans <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/huh.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":confused:"></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Um, not really. Al Gore actually won the popular vote. Bush was elected by the Electoral College, and the whole process was (and still is) incredibly suspect.<br><br><br><br>
I have a hard time understanding Bush's high approval rating, too. I've not spoken with anyone who's for another war in the Middle East, even those (including my parents) who voted for Bush. Even most of the editorials I've read in my local paper are against aggression in the Middle East. It just doesn't make sense.<br><br><br><br>
This is about power. This is about oil. This is about finishing what his father couldn't. This is not about creating peace because peace cannot be a bi-product of war.<br><br><br><br>
Sure, Hussein is a tyrant who cares nothing for his people. He should be removed from office--by his own people. Does anyone know how well our regime change is doing in Afganistan? You know, the one that our goverment rallied us over ("Those poor women in their burquas, etc, etc.") ? We've basically abdicated it, and there is so much lawlessness in Afganistan right now that the people there are actually craving the return the unjustly strict ways of the Taliban! Seriously.<br><br><br><br>
It has been said that Colin Powell is not for this war. It has been reported (by NPR) that Powell was put on a short leash recently and was prohibited from speaking freely at press conferences and such for fear that he'd imply or relay his disapproval to the American public. Powell is the only one in Bush's Administration who has actually seen war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/hitc-o07.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oc...hitc-o07.shtml</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I am 100% against the war, but on the other hand...I was really rootin' for that pretzel...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,573 Posts
UN weapons inspectors say Iraq has violated sanctions by importing missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel.<br><br><br><br>
I just read that on Ananova. Oh dear. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":(">
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by FemmeDemonica</i><br><br><b>Um, not really. Al Gore actually won the popular vote. Bush was elected by the Electoral College, and the whole process was (and still is) incredibly suspect.<br><br><br><br>
I have a hard time understanding Bush's high approval rating, too. I've not spoken with anyone who's for another war in the Middle East, even those (including my parents) who voted for Bush. Even most of the editorials I've read in my local paper are against aggression in the Middle East. It just doesn't make sense.<br><br><br><br>
This is about power. This is about oil. This is about finishing what his father couldn't. This is not about creating peace because peace cannot be a bi-product of war.<br><br><br><br>
Sure, Hussein is a tyrant who cares nothing for his people. He should be removed from office--by his own people. Does anyone know how well our regime change is doing in Afganistan? You know, the one that our goverment rallied us over ("Those poor women in their burquas, etc, etc.") ? We've basically abdicated it, and there is so much lawlessness in Afganistan right now that the people there are actually craving the return the unjustly strict ways of the Taliban! Seriously.<br><br><br><br>
It has been said that Colin Powell is not for this war. It has been reported (by NPR) that Powell was put on a short leash recently and was prohibited from speaking freely at press conferences and such for fear that he'd imply or relay his disapproval to the American public. Powell is the only one in Bush's Administration who has actually seen war.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Um, really. And enough people voted to give him the electoral college victory. Oh, and the fiasco in Florida was not quite as suspect as some allege. Take a look at who runs the election boards in the most disputed counties. A majority of democrats in each case. Hhhhmmmm.....<br><br><br><br>
Second, the majority of those in Afghanistan are happy with the regime change. There are some serious issues in the outer areas, as there were under the Taliban. Overall, the people are better off. Oh, and don't even front about going in there - regime change or not, we needed to take the fight to Al Queda.<br><br><br><br>
Wow, NPR sources about Powell. I'm sure they would not be biased. Of course, Powell should understand his job enough to disagree in private, but support the administration in public. Or resign.<br><br><br><br>
Apple - So we are invading over 765,000 barrels of oil/day. Even though we have pushed for limits on Iraqi oil exports. You are aware the if Iraq had upped production, OPEC would have other countries pull back? That is how the cartel manipulates oil markets. Look into it.<br><br><br><br>
Are the policies with North Korea and Iraq different? Yes, but they are different countries and situations. North Korea has developed nuclear technology, so they must be handled differently. China also is a factor as they are neighbors. To even try and draw parallels is foolish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Tame:<br><br><br><br>
No I don't think we are invading over 765,000 barrels a day. But I do think that oil is on the administrations mind.<br><br><br><br>
What about Turkey? It's a neighbor to Iraq. It's a factor. I don't think the administration is considering Turkey. What it basically broils down to is that if you have nuclear weapons the United States will not attack you but if you do the U.S. will.<br><br><br><br>
North Korea is the country threatening nuclear war - Iraq is not. I would find North Korea more of a threat than Iraq.<br><br><br><br>
What about Israel? It's in firing range of Iraq (which has chemical and biological weapons). Should we not take that into consideration? Or do we only take consideration or a different approach when we are talking about nuclear weapons?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,022 Posts
Turkey is not the same player on the international level that china is - not even close. If China doesn't want us to react to North Korea, we can't.<br><br><br><br>
Is Israel a consideration? Yes. Are they safer with Saddam in power? Certainly not.<br><br><br><br>
Is oil an issue? Yes. It is vital to Western strategic interests. Someone sitting in the middle of a large chunk of the worlds' oil supply with chemical/biological and possibly nuclear weapons is a major concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Tame wrote to Apple: "To even try and draw parallels is foolish."<br><br>
I think that is a condescending statement.<br><br>
Tame also said, "And enough people voted to give him (Bush) the electoral college victory." (Well, the Supreme Court did stop the count...odd, especially considering that Gov. George Bush voted in support of hand recounts in his own state)<br><br>
I do not believe that Bush was "elected" president.<br><br>
Fem D. wrote:"It has been said that Colin Powell is not for this war." (I've always liked him)<br><br>
Oil, shmoil...it's time America found another way to get around.<br><br>
And where is Osama? And can't anyone teach our...cough...president how to say nuclear?? Just after Sept.11th, Bush always said "tera" instead of terror...but I noticed that has improved. Mr. President, the word is nuke lee er NOT nuke ya ler. Is he saying it that way, just to bug me?<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/424/424_08_BushDoctrine.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-...Doctrine.shtml</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Tame</i><br><br>
Um, really. And enough people voted to give him the electoral college victory. Oh, and the fiasco in Florida was not quite as suspect as some allege. Take a look at who runs the election boards in the most disputed counties. A majority of democrats in each case. Hhhhmmmm.....</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
But it's not just FLA, there was some sketchy business going on with absentee ballots in several states. Also in FLA, many minorities found themselves turned away at the polls, supposedly because they had felony convictions--BUT THEY DIDN'T! Many had no record at all! Their names had "erroneously" been placed on the convicted felons list! It's all in Michael Moore's book, <i>Stupid White Men</i>. You should take a peek at it. I think you'd enjoy it. <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">www.michaelmoore.com</a><br><br><br><br>
This war isn't about oil? At all?<br><br><img alt="" src="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/images/involved/bushsaddam.jpg" style="border:0px solid;"><br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/involved/operationoily.php" target="_blank">http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/i...rationoily.php</a>
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
I got the dirtiest look the other day. We were visiting my yuppy aunt and we were stopped at a stoplight where people were collecting change. My aunt was talking about how she hated it because you never really knew what your money was going toward. She said they could be collecting money for Al-Qaeda. She said how they'd love to take our money and use it for terrorism and then brag about it. I said "Yeah, that's what we pay taxes for." Eek. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/blush.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":eek:"> Her and my cousin looked at me like I was holding a knife or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,573 Posts
I read this today. Big boat full of kids sets sail.<br><br><br><br>
Britain's flagship aircraft carrier, HMS Ark Royal begins its journey to the Gulf, via the Mediterranean.<br><br><br><br>
The largest maritime deployment for 20 years is to head to the Gulf to give Britain the necessary options should the Iraq crisis deteriorate.........<br><br><br><br>
............Captain Alan Massey, commanding officer of the Ark Royal, says there is an air of uncertainty among his crew, the average age of which is 24, but the ship will be ready for whatever was required of it.<br><br>
Many sailors are just 18 and have not long finished training. The youngest person on the ship, Angela Scales, 18, a radar operator who "just makes sure no missiles hit the ship", said her family were scared by the prospect that she could soon be at war.
 
1 - 20 of 869 Posts
Top