Powell\'s key points on Iraq

Originally posted by ooseven


the problem is that Iraq has nothing to do with the events of 9/11

Oh really can you prove they don\'t?  Who knows... like I said earlier in this thread making that link would be very hard regardless of if there was one or not.  Iraq does sponsor terrorism, whether it be Bin Laden and friends or Hamas... he hands out prize money to suicide bombers in Israel.

OK, I have decided we will never come to terms about what should be done. That\'s fine, we can disagree to disagree. The question is, what do think we should do with Saddam and Saudia Arabia and any other country that is linked to terrorism?

Ace

Ahem... uh Ace you are supposed to let the liberals throw in the towel first... didn\'t you get my "psx2central Axis of Evil official memo"?  

Seriously, this is turning into a circular argument... Ace is right, instead of arguing lets discuss N. Korea!

Originally posted by GigaShadow


Oh really can you prove they don\'t?  Who knows... like I said earlier in this thread making that link would be very hard regardless of if there was one or not.  Iraq does sponsor terrorism, whether it be Bin Laden and friends or Hamas... he hands out prize money to suicide bombers in Israel.

i am shure for 3 reasons

[list=1]

• Saddam is a tyranical dictator who has Bin Laden as a moral and actual enemy due to his Circleur ways (in Fact Bin Laden has went on record that he would like to see him die because he turn his back on Islam)
• A Leaked UK inteligence (Released yesterday and dated LAST WEEK) report not only proved that there is no link to al Quida, but that members of the group have been and are being hunted down within Iraq due to the threat outlined in point 1.
• This war has nothing to do with Oil, Human rights or Terrorism . its to do with the potential of one country in the middle east riseing to dominate the region.

Not throwing in the towel. I just figure the best way to do in liberals is let them talk. Then just sit back and let their words speak for themselves.

Ace

Oh, oh, Ace, can I talk myself into a circle?

I\'m not gonna directly address the Iraq topic.  People know my opinions on it, and the arguement not only get no where, but also grow too fast for me.  I\'m just gonna pick out random points that caught my eye as I skimmed the topic:

Originally posted by Bossieman
War IMO is never the way to go.

I´m more afraid of Bush than Hussein. Im not alone in this belife.
I think and belive the G.Bush is the most dangerous man on this planet. IMO he is a monster and the world should fear him.

Although in an ideal world, war would never be the way to go, it is unfortunately necessary in certain situations in the world we live in.  I happen to not believe that this is one of them.  However, if you are in a country ruled by an oppressive government that is denying its people their basic rights, and is an incredibly oppressive state, would a revolution not be an appropriate last resort to make changes to such a situation?  Also, there is a difference between starting a war and fighting a war.  Basically, I think the only reasons for war are for self defense or to preserve your basic rights and liberties.  This war does neither of those things, if you ask me.  We are the agressor.

As for fearing Bush more, however, I agree in some ways.  I think Saddam is a much worse person than Bush is, but the resources Bush has to work with are incredible, and his decisions have much more effect on the people of the world.

Originally posted by Ace
Your comment about GWB just shows there is no amount of evidence that would sway your mind about this situation. I think if looked at that statement with a clear mind, you would realize how ridiculous it is to say that you fear GWB more than SH. :rolleyes:

Regardless of his statement, how is his situation any different than yours?  If you can say that his hatred for Bush means that no amount of proof would sway his opinion, could one not in turn say that your hatred for Saddam means that no matter how lacking the proof is, your opinion also would not be swayed?  It goes both ways.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
I\'m in the minority!?!?

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 601 adult Americans who watched Powell\'s speech or heard about what he said, 57 percent said they favored military action against Saddam, 15 percent said they were opposed and 26 percent were unsure.

Well of course one would expect results like that.  The people had just watched a presentation of a man making every arguement he had for why we should go to war, so the results would be expected to be skewed in his favor.  Perhaps if that presentation were followed by one saying why we shouldn\'t go to war, the poll would be more accurate.


Basically, there is no question as to whether Iraq has violated the UN resolutions.  They have.  The only question is whether or not that is cause for war.  I don\'t happen to believe it is.  The UN also doesn\'t.  I believe it was Giga that asked why we even need the UN with us in this war.  Well, maybe it would be important, if you\'re using their violation of UN resolutions as justification to also take into consideration the opinions of the UN.  The two go hand in hand.  

And as for Saddam and Bin Laden being connected, why should you have to prove beyond any doubt that they aren\'t connected to avoid war?  Shouldn\'t it be that you have to prove that they are to start war?  9/11 is still fresh in many peoples minds, as people have already said in this thread.  It is what set this whole action into motion, really, and it\'s what has support for the war so high.  However, there really is no direct link between the events of 9/11 and Iraq.  It just doesn\'t seem like a valid connection to me.  

And as for support ratings, maybe if the American people were told more of the reasoning against the war, instead of just the reasoning for it, the polls would be different.

shockwaves,

Bossieman\'s statement is irrational to me. Don\'t get me wrong, he can have any opinion he wants no matter how irrational it is, but there is no comparison of the two men. This is my opinion, of course, and I would like to hear from Bossieman how he can have these feelings.

And as for support ratings, maybe if the American people were told more of the reasoning against the war, instead of just the reasoning for it, the polls would be different.

The American people are getting both sides now. Just watch the slant from the networks and the buffoons in Hollywood and you can see both sides.

We have been told that the American people are not for this war but attitudes are changing by the day especially after Powell\'s incredible work in front of the UN. Also, lets not forgot Powell was telling the president to go slow in the beginning and was no where as hawkish as everybody thinks Bush has been since 9/11.

Ace

The networks, at least the ones around here, are very slanted in the pro war direction.  For example, yesterday my local ABC network showed the reactions of school students to Powell\'s words.  The students were very much in favor of war, and the news station was sure to convey this point.  However, what the neglected to tell the viewing audience is that the children interviewed were from a private military school :rolleyes:


As for bossieman\'s statement, you have your opinion of the two people, and he is entitled to his.  Sure, you can disagree with it, but dismissing it as irrational, and saying it discredits the rest of what he has to say doesn\'t seem to be appropriate to me.  And as I said, on some level, I agree with what he said.  Bush hasn\'t done the same sort of things that Saddam has, but my personal opinion of his character tells me that he could do some bad things.  Although what I would consider bad wouldn\'t be nearly to the level of what Saddam does, it would be on a larger scale, whatever it is, because it is being done in or by the United States.  That is what makes Bush potentially more dangerous than Saddam.  It\'s not just what they would do, but also what they could do.

And I still think that Powell\'s work in front of the UN was garbage.  Once again, just an opinion.

As I said, it\'s my opinion and Bossieman is welcome to his. Sure, logically I guess we have more to work with if GWB wants to go on a rampage. Is it something that should be feared? I think not!

I think the only way we can settle this is with a duel.

Ace

pistols at dawn?

Well I guarantee that we will see something within the next month UN or no UN. I really don\'t want war, but if that takes Hussein out of power then so be it. Why do we care what other people think once everything is done and gone away with and Iraq is a stable normal Muslim country again people will be praising the US. You really think that the US is the cause of so many of those childrens lives because of embargoes, well if Hussein would have listened and never gone into Kuwait we wouldn\'t of put those embargoes in place, and all of the Presidential palaces he\'s built, I\'m sure that could have been a shit load of food for some hungry kids in Iraq. The man obviously does not care for his people, or anyone else for that matter besides himself!!!

/me gets out his dueling glove

Originally posted by mjps21983
Why do we care what other people think once everything is done and gone away with and Iraq is a stable normal Muslim country again people will be praising the US.  

Thats what you think. Stable governments will be hurt by a war as well as this non-stable Iraq. It wll promote an increase in anti-US sentiments and provoke more terroist attacks. It will only be the beginning IMO. To attack without concrete proof anyway.

I would assert that no matter what proof we have, the radical Islamic world already hates us and they need nothing more to want to do us harm.

Ace

I agree, however an attack without concrete proof will only increase those  terrorist attacks IMO. This can possibly turn stable or your average person into a radical.

Im sure the radicals werent always radicals. Not the majority of htem anyway.