Iraq

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hasty Ent - C-Span broadcasts over the net. Also - a lot of news organisations broadcast over the net. Since you're on Entmoot - I must assume you have access to the net. You can also get all or most of the President's Speeches off of Whitehouse.gov

yes, I do ck out net news sources...however...how many people have that access? many don't have computers, and if they go to a local library, don't know how to use them... in terms of sheer numbers, more people get their news from broadcast tv, and of those people, I'm afraid most reach for their remote if they see anything political interrupting their 'must-see tv'

but back on topic, you're right -- we're not at war yet

however, it seems inevitable, and regrettable

btw, I may not agree with some of what you say, but I always truly enjoy reading your posts

[osszie]

Originally posted by Sween
What are your personal feelings on this? would an attack be justified? Has Iraq acctually made an attack on the US?

JD these were the initial questions asked in this thread.

IMO you've answered the first question but you have not answered the last two, although you seem to think that they are being answered by justifing past events regarding Iraq.

would you care to answer the remaining questions now?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

And just because Cirdan mentioned it was on CNN doesn't mean it actually was. If there was a CIA spy on the inspectors team and he ADMITTED it - there would be some news story about it on the web somewhere. No one has produced anything that supports this,

So, your calling me a liar, JD? Why would make up something like that? I noticed you only said there is no proof. My guess is you beleive there were CIA there. I only said they were on the CIA payroll, not that they were spies.

Where do you think the CIA gets its information... the Internet.

It's people like you for whom the phrase "ugly american" was coined.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
When I had tried looking at how BBC was reporting the debates going on here over Iraq - they never mentioned all the discussions that Congress was have, nor did they mention all the meetings the President was having with Congressmen. They were basically reporting at that time that we were going to war and that was it.


Because the world doesn't get involved unless America does. Also - as I've said - I think that America should take it's troops, it's aid and it's foreign policy and leave it all up to the rest of the world. Have Britain send troops to Indonesia - and lead the charge. Let France, let New Zealand, Germany. If you don't like what America is doing then get involved and you guys go in and attempt to fix the problems. Don't constantly stand behind us and critisize.

Which BBC broadcasts did you watch???..............I have never seen or heard a BBC broadcast the stated "America is going to war with Iraq" ....................... I have seen/heard a few that said "America was willing to go to war with Iraq".........why should they mention the discussions and meetings? it is the outcome of these that effects the world

We do get involved, you've stated several times how America becomes involved with the worlds problems at the request of other nations................because we make a decisive stance, to help a country in need, first and then ask for America's aid does that put us in the wrong?........no we make the moves first to help people........if you have a problem with america becoming involved, take it up with your politician.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well maybe because it is?

Well if you barely watched it and it just resently started being shown - I don't know how you could judge it so quickly.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there are many left that have any semblance of respect for Bush......

Well here he still has a VERY high approval rating and that is the only place that really matters.

Ah, but you see, I don't want the US to go barging into Bali to try and sort it out. It would only make it worse. As would an Australian resolution. The extreme hatred for Australians in Indonesia is overwhelming... You really think that Aussie or US troops sent in would sort things out? It is unfortunate, but the only way these things can be resolved is if they have a chance to mature.... an endless vicious cycle, because they won't get a chance with us breathing down their necks: and with good reason too.... close to 200 people died. I want to personally strangle them myself. But. Our interference wouldn't acheive anything. The change has to come from within.

Wow - we should just let them go on. Even though the US government has been TELLING the indonesian government that there were terrorists there for the past year.

Yeah, and that's a great reason to start a war, and kill thousands of civilians. "We suspect you have WMD and you won't let us in so we are going to level you."

Well then don't come whining to the United States when he starts to attack his neighbors or sell his weapons to terrorists then.

Give me, and the rest of us, proof that there are WMD in Iraq. I don't want conjecture or speculation... I want actual proof.

No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

ANY proof...................it could be a note tied to a camels back.......but ANY proof would be greatly recieved

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if you barely watched it and it just resently started being shown - I don't know how you could judge it so quickly.

How long am I supposed to watch something before I can form judgements? I have watched CNN for about a year now, and I have watched ABC off and on for the past fortnight. In my opinion, they are both very biased media.

JD:
Wow - we should just let them go on. Even though the US government has been TELLING the indonesian government that there were terrorists there for the past year.

No. I didn't say that. I said that it needed to be resolved by the Indonesian govt. not the powers that be.

Nice example of putting words in my mouth, btw.

JD:
Well then don't come whining to the United States when he starts to attack his neighbors or sell his weapons to terrorists then.

JD:
No proof will be acceptable for you becuase you will not believe it.

And again, I state that you have not shown any grounds for these assumptions. I have seen no proof, only conjecture in your posts. If you can give me conclusive unbiased proof that Saddam has WMD then and only then will I "stop whining" as you put it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
So, your calling me a liar, JD? Why would make up something like that? I noticed you only said there is no proof. My guess is you beleive there were CIA there. I only said they were on the CIA payroll, not that they were spies.

Where do you think the CIA gets its information... the Internet.

I didn't say you lied - I asked for proof on it. I am perfectly aware of the rumours. I don't believe 100% that there weren't CIA agents there - but I believe it was a possibility. If they weren't spying (in which case I'm not sure what the exact difference would be since they were there to INSPECT and check out what Hussein was up to) then Hussein still had no right to kick out all the inspectors. He did not want ANY American or British inspectors in Iraq at all.

It's people like you for whom the phrase "ugly american" was coined.

And how is that? Because I stick up for my beliefs and won't roll over on this issue?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't think we are really working outselves into a frenzy over war with Iraq. I think most Americans are still in a wait and see attitude. I think the latest poll showed only 50% - 60% support for all out war with Iraq if our allies and UN supported it. Yet it fell to mid 40% without their support. More Americans support taking out Saddam Hussein than actually going into an all out war.

When has THAT been a very high approval rating?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
When has THAT been a very high approval rating?

That's not the President's approval rating. Those were the poll numbers for support of war with Iraq. It has nothing to do with Bushes approval rating.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And how is that? Because I stick up for my beliefs and won't roll over on this issue?

No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's not the President's approval rating. Those were the poll numbers for support of war with Iraq. It has nothing to do with Bushes approval rating.

So there does not neccessarly have to be approval of a war initiated by your president for there to be presidential approval

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by osszie
No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS

Yeah, that's it, in a nutshell.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
JD these were the initial questions asked in this thread.

IMO you've answered the first question but you have not answered the last two, although you seem to think that they are being answered by justifing past events regarding Iraq.

would you care to answer the remaining questions now?

I feel that if Iraq does not let unfettered inspections - the military action is justified. If weapons are found - military action is justified. Before when we were going to attack him without seeing if inspectors could go in again - I felt was unjustified.

He has not DIRECTLY attacked America - but once he has the weapons he WILL attack others or sell them to terrorists.

Whether you agree or not - those are my feelings. I believe I have stated them through this thread. Maybe not as straigtforward as I have there - but that is how I feel.

Iraq hadn't attacked the US before the Gulf war either - as Sween had pointed out. No one seems to be questioning our use of force there. So asking the question of whether Iraq has attacked America is unfair. Does Iraq pose a POTENTIAL threat to America and world peace would be a better question. And the answer to that is YES.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
So there does not neccessarly have to be approval of a war initiated by your president for there to be presidential approval

No - the President's approval rating deals with how people feel he is doing overall. It get's broken down into economy, war on terrorism, etc. Those numbers that I had supplied show how many people SUPPORT the idea of going to WAR. The numbers have NOTHING to do with the president.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
No, it's because you cannot provide any FACTS to back up you CLAIMS

What claims have I made? I FEEL that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to world Peace. As does the majority of Americans. He may not be an immiediate threat - but the majority of Americans don't feel like waiting around until he has all his weapons he needs.

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - the President's approval rating deals with how people feel he is doing overall. It get's broken down into economy, war on terrorism, etc. Those numbers that I had supplied show how many people SUPPORT the idea of going to WAR. The numbers have NOTHING to do with the president.

I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

To be honest you are confusing me JD.........you stated earlier that you would like to see Europe pay back what "it owes" after the Marshall Plan (the great fiasco of insuring that Europe traded with America instead of the communist block IMO)...........yet you state later in the thread that another, modern day Marshall Plan (the plan that fed the horse after it had been starved IMO) should be implemented ..........do you feel that the American public would support the government rebuilding the Middle-East at the cost of the taxpayer?............you have already stated several times that you feel America should look after its own interests first

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Iraq hadn't attacked the US before the Gulf war either - as Sween had pointed out. No one seems to be questioning our use of force there. So asking the question of whether Iraq has attacked America is unfair. Does Iraq pose a POTENTIAL threat to America and world peace would be a better question. And the answer to that is YES.

Actually, Iraq sank a couple of US ships before the gulf war... but claimed that they thought they were Iranian ships. The US brought it. Yep, he's a wiley bastard.

Iraq poses a potential threat to the US but so do alot of other countries. Come to think of it, so does New Zealand for that matter, ya know, since we're anti-nuclear.

JD:
What claims have I made?

Several, actually. Only now have you changed your tune and changed it to "I feel" statements as opposed to "Saddam will" statements. What about these claims of Saddam smuggling weapons out the back door while the inspections were going on? Burying them? These were backed up how? At what point did you state that these were opinions rather than facts?

[osszie]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What claims have I made? I FEEL that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to world Peace. As does the majority of Americans. He may not be an immiediate threat - but the majority of Americans don't feel like waiting around until he has all his weapons he needs.

Surely I do not need to remind you of your own posts JD

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by osszie
I see, so the war on Iraq may not sway public opinon as to how the president is doing overall .......... even though any war will cost billions in US dollars.

To be honest you are confusing me JD.........you stated earlier that you would like to see Europe pay back what "it owes" after the Marshall Plan (the great fiasco of insuring that Europe traded with America instead of the communist block IMO)...........yet you state later in the thread that another, modern day Marshall Plan (the plan that fed the horse after it had been starved IMO) should be implemented ..........do you feel that the American public would support the government rebuilding the Middle-East at the cost of the taxpayer?............you have already stated several times that you feel America should look after its own interests first

Why is it so confusing? This is what I said.....

One thing the US needs to do - and I know I keep saying the US needs to be more isolationist - but if we're going to be a world player and do these type of things then we need to set up programs like the Marshall Plan. The international community needs to go in there and build hospitals, build schools, build roads, etc. We are doing these things in Afganistan - but does the Arab world see anyof it? The US and the west in general has to do a better job of promoting the things we do. The Arab world needs to see, understand and accept that we don't condemn their religion or condemn their culture. We're never going to win over the extremists - but we need to make sure that it is harder for terrorist groups to use proganda against the west as a recruiting tool. We need to show the Arab world the good things we do and we can't just topple Hussein and then leave (yet we can't act like an occupying force). It's a huge balancing act the west will have to do once Hussein is removed.

I may want us to be looking more inward - but currently we don't. If we are going to be a world player then there are certain things WE HAVE TO DO. We just can't leave countries unstable like we did with Afganistan after Russia left.