The W
Views: 95604163
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.07 0814
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Susan Sarandon is stupid
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(1948 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (49 total)
Gavintzu
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 195/443
EXP: 624700
For next: 35469

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2678 days
Last activity: 2678 days
#21 Posted on 28.10.02 1717.27
Reposted on: 28.10.09 1719.16
Pool-Boy sez:

    this is, after all, a war on TERROR

So why isn't America invading Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who are much more involved in terrorist groups than Iraq?


    North Korea has China, a nuclear superpower, at its back door holding it in check. Iraq has no such thing stopping it from lobbing a nuke in any number of directions.

I'm sorry to flame you, but this is the worst argument I can imagine for attacking Iraq. Stupid in fact. Russia(1), China(2) and Israel(3) all have short and medium range nukes that could destroy Iraq. The USA(4), France(5) and Britain(6) all have ICBMs which could destroy Iraq. And if they felt the need, I'm pretty sure Pakistan(7) and India(8) have missiles that could reach Iraq. That is 6-8 countries who could obliterate Iraq with the push of a few buttons.

Scary, isn't it?


    It should be obvious that all of our moves in the war on terror are carfully calculated. We are not just attcking Iraq "for the hell of it." There is a bigger picture here...

Yeah, finally people are starting to realize! It's all about major American oil companies getting access to the rich Iraqi and Khazik oil fields ... oh that's not what you were talking about, was it? It's just a coincidence that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq help out this aim, isn't it?


Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 316/772
EXP: 1416155
For next: 69782

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 1838 days
Last activity: 1491 days
#22 Posted on 28.10.02 1825.13
Reposted on: 28.10.09 1825.16
One big problem with Iraq having ABC weapons is that basicly Iraq has no allies. Sure some countries hate the US more but Hussein is by far one of the least liked of all leaders in the world. Iraq is in the Middle East (more or less) and it's people are Muslims but Iraq is not an Islamic country it is actually anti-Islamic. That is why Reagan gave them so much money and weapons in the 80's to keep the Iranians and other hard line Islamic countries in check. So nukes really don't do Iraq much good except for terrorist reasons. I am far more worried about Hussein gasing Quwait, Saudi Arabia, or Iran and then those countries blaming the US for not taking care of the situation.
North Korea made a deal not a treaty. Sure people call it a treaty but it was not to end a war. It was to get a better trade deal with the US.
Personally I think the US should just tell the whole middle east to pretty much fuck off. They need to be willing to fix their problems that admittedly the US and FAR MORE SO the Europeans caused. But until they want peace and not to kill of first the Jews, then Hindus, and then the Christians it is pretty much pointless. Maybe Allah does truly want all us infedels killed but it is never going to happen so they should just live with it.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1106/3273
EXP: 12515781
For next: 156203

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 days
#23 Posted on 28.10.02 1843.27
Reposted on: 28.10.09 1848.42
We can't tell them to fuck off, because we want their oil.

-Jag

edit: Woo! I broke the board! I posted the same thing twice in a row! I don't know how!

(edited by Jaguar on 28.10.02 1944)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 364/1528
EXP: 4001657
For next: 4422

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2642 days
Last activity: 2484 days
AIM:  
#24 Posted on 28.10.02 1920.52
Reposted on: 28.10.09 1923.16
Jag, your insight never ceases to pierce straight to the root of the conflict. Keep playing your cards right, and that kind of brilliance might land you a job with the state department.

OFB: My point is that you are notoriously averse to any sort of logic. At least any sort that doesn't involve "Lots of people think X, therefore X is right."

For Gavintzu: So, can we EVER invade a Middle Eastern country? Your logic here (Iraq has oil. We like oil. Therefore we must be invading because of oil) is incredibly flimsy. By that logic, we just proved that Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Your point about not invading Saudi Arabia, etc makes perfect sense, but this whole oil argument is 100% speculation. If you want to introduce some evidence into the argument, how's this: Oil lobbyists don't want war with Iraq and, prior to 9-11, were lobbying for more normalized, sanction-free relations with Iraq.


And I fail to see the connection between Afghanistan and Iraq. Here are the facts of the case as I see them:

1.The Taliban was harboring bin Laden.
2. bin Laden wanted to kill us and, in fact, had just attacked us.

And that's it. They wanted to harbor him, well, they knew what they were getting in to. The United States government is, or should be, in the business of protecting American citizens. As I see it, finding bin Laden would go a long way towards that goal. Sure, they didn't find him, but I don't fault the administration and the military for trying.

And Moe said:
Well, by your rational we need to invade North Korea, not Iraq, as they have actually admitted that they've broken all those nice "we won't make nukes" resolutions that they signed. Oh wait, North Korea doesn't have any oil. My bad.

It probably has more to do with the fact that North Korea has one of the 5 most powerful standing armies in the world, and not oil. That, and maybe because they have nukes, and maybe because they aren't likely sponsoring Islamic terrorism, which is a direct threat to US security. Of course, it isn't just those nasty Imperialist Americans who will no doubt be getting what the deserve. A nuclear North Korea further complicates the proverbial geopolitical scene, perhaps creating enough confusion for China to seize Taiwan, which would out them in excellent position to strangle Japan and the Phillipines.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1110/3273
EXP: 12515781
For next: 156203

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 days
#25 Posted on 28.10.02 2128.01
Reposted on: 28.10.09 2129.03
Palp, just tell me what exactly we hope to accomplish in Iraq? Are we going there to depose the current leadership, and install a new regime? Are we going to search for said weapons and destroy them? Are we going to arrest suspected terrorists? Are we going to occupy Iraq?

The elimination of the weapons is really the only one of these things that appeal to me, but once you do that how do you keep Iraq in submission?

-Jag
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 626/3018
EXP: 10963890
For next: 126115

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 28.10.02 2246.15
Reposted on: 28.10.09 2255.20
First of all, Palp, let me send you a big ol' hearty "fuck you", you arrogant asshole.

Okay, let's go over this one more time for the extremely slow among us. That was a protest IN AMERICA wherein over 100,000 AMERICANS expressed their disapproval of an upcoming war in Iraq. Then, about sixty AMERICANS hopped into a pickup truck and headed down to the pro-war rally. I said, "Gee, that says a lot about the American mindset involving this war."

Lots of Americans being against the war does seem to indicate to me that lots of Americans are against the war. I realize I don't have the unending intellect possessed by you and Pool-Boy, but I'd suggest actually reading something before you act like a fucking prick. Thank you.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 365/1528
EXP: 4001657
For next: 4422

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2642 days
Last activity: 2484 days
AIM:  
#27 Posted on 28.10.02 2328.43
Reposted on: 28.10.09 2329.04
Let me just say that I am shocked at the utter lack of decorum in this forum.

Anyway, Jag... yeah. All of those are really good questions. I'm not personally gung ho about heading into Iraq, but I thought the debate needed a little more seriousness and little less "OMG CHENEY WANTS TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!"

If Iraq really was sponsoring terrorism in any serious way, outside of giving money to suicide bombers families, then I guess I'd say yeah, sure, occupy them. It's a funny situation. Because even if we don't go to any sort of armed conflict with Iraq, (other than the one that has been going on since 1991), we're still going to wind up occupying the country. Only we'll call it an inspection team. If we could knock Saddam out with minimal effort, I'd be in favor of it, if only because he's a despicable bastard. The ultimate questions, I think, are: 1.) Just how dangerous is he, and is he dangerous to us, and 2.) Are we willing to put up with him being dangerous to everyone else as long as we think he'll leave us alone? You never know. Before 9/11, no one thought people would fly planes into the World Trade Center. It's a different world, different rules.

My personal, and very unqualified, opinion is that we're going to be facing this specter of terrorism as long as the Middle East fosters a culture of violence and racism. And by insanity, I mean strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up innocent people (or flying planes into buildings). And by racism, I mean the burning arab hatred of the Jews and basically everyone else. Right now they've got the terrific combination of the will to violence and the desire to commit violence, i.e. they hate us and they're also willing to do something about it. Of course, I don't know what the hell we can do about it short of going to extremes, i.e. total isolationism or total imperialism. Others have brought this up before, so I won't go into it any more here, but we will inevitably end up asking ourselves "So, do we invade Korea now? Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? etc."
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1112/3273
EXP: 12515781
For next: 156203

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 days
#28 Posted on 29.10.02 0024.38
Reposted on: 29.10.09 0029.02
War only breeds more war. Invading Afghanistan has set a precedent that only leads to America becoming as oppressive and imperialistic as terrorists around the world already believe we are. For every bomb we drop, it can easily serve to motivate more people to strap bombs to themselves and strike back at us. Yes I agree that the threat of terrorism is not one we can dismiss, but our policies are only going to breed more hatred.

Invading Iraq does send a message. But I think the real confusion is what that message is. The broken treaty, and the weapons developement is a legitimate reason, and it sends a message that I believe that Bush can back up if he feels so inclined. "You break the rules, we'll come and get you." But, the 'Saddam is a bad man' thing just doesn't work. It sends the message, that if we don't like you, we'll come and overthrow your government. Now while this may force some countries to think, "We could be next!" and be more compliant with the US, countries that chafe under the heavy-handed US foreign policy will either secretly find ways to strike at us, or take an openly hostile position towards us.

Again, all it leads to is more war. At least in my eyes anyway.

-Jag
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 62

Posts: 174/948
EXP: 1955327
For next: 29370

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2262 days
Last activity: 2261 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on 29.10.02 0114.58
Reposted on: 29.10.09 0120.43
North Korea, in it of itself, is a nasty enough situation without even attempting to compare it to Iraq. With the 2 or 3 attacks involving South Korea a year (normally over territorial water disputes), it's already fairly volatile. Add in with that the reunification talks between the two nations, and it becomes sticky; after all, how can the US (or any other nation outside of South Korea) risk pressuring a nation which already has a "demilitarized zone" rife with landmines, and still has problems with its close neighbors about sea rights?

Now toss on this heap North Korea's emergence as a recent nuclear power. Obviously, most of the democratic world's going to be very concerned about this, with the close proximity to Japan (and of course South Korea); however, sending in military immediately poses a huge risk, given as there's another Communist nation right near N. Korea. Right now, no nation - not even the US - wants to risk another Korean War over nukes. Hence, diplomatic pressure first, then economic, and finally military. (I hope it works that way.) Also, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I also think that North Korea has a tendency to be more receptive to diplomatic measures.

Iraq, on the other hand, is a different story. Palp, I mostly agree with your belief about terrorism, but once again, it's a complicated situation. I think that the US is in more of a damned if you do/damned if you don't state. If we intervene, we foster anti-American sentiment for doing so. If we don't, then we foster anti-American sentiment because we're discriminating against Muslims and not helping them out in times of need.

An interesting point which I think was overlooked was Dahak's point on Iraq lacking allies for the most part. This is the major difference between the US's stance on North Korea and their stance on Iraq (not oil). The US can enact stronger measures against Iraq in an attempt to comply, because what allies of Iraq would it alienate? North Korea, on the other hand - if you piss them off, say hello to China.

Now, do I think we should invade Iraq? At this point, I'd say I'm for it, but only slightly. I'd much rather appreciate a boating accident involving Hussein or the like. Is oil a concern? I'm not ruling it out, I do think it's one of the "unintentional" consequences of installing a new regime there. However, I really don't think it's the only reason for invading. In all honesty, Saddam should've been gone after the Gulf War, and we're just going back now to finish the job.

We'll see what happens after the UN elects to act on Iraq or not.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 410/1008
EXP: 2101761
For next: 112348

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3717 days
Last activity: 3686 days
#30 Posted on 29.10.02 0254.27
Reposted on: 29.10.09 0256.38
On North Korea, if only we had listened to MacArthur, none of this would be happening. In war we should always heed the master Sun Tsu, basically, DON'T LISTEN TO POLITICANS--LISTEN TO GENERALS!! Also, everyone, liberal to conservative, read The Art of War.... interesting stuff. Espically since Japan's attack on us back in WWII followed Sun Tsu's rules totally. Onto this discussion...... one thing I do love about the whole Iraq situation is stupid liberals (note: there are stupid republicans too.... I will listen to anyone if they can present some good ideas, saying stupid liberals ain't a knock on liberals, more a knock on idiots) who seem to think Bush is in leauge with EVERY CEO and business in America. I know tons of people who think every CEO and business is going to benefit from war with Iraq "cause of the OIL!" as they say.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 704/2085
EXP: 6375517
For next: 17282

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 2 days
#31 Posted on 29.10.02 1158.49
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1159.03
You think it was a good idea to nuke China?

"The Art of War" is good read. It's mostly a good read because it's simple, and as with most simple maxims, you can extrapolate them to apply to pretty much any situation. It's not the bible a lot of people who just discover it think it is.

Bush is no more in league with EVERY CEO than the Democrats are in league with EVERY Union local. However, just as it's a pretty good bet your average union has the ear of the Dems more than the GOP, it's a pretty good bet your average CEO is going to call up George Bush when he wants something rather than Ted Kennedy. And just as the Dems policy is to try to help unions more than CEO's, so is the GOP's policy to try and help CEO's more than unions.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 633/3018
EXP: 10963890
For next: 126115

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 29.10.02 1306.52
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1308.22
I tend to agree with Bill Maher assertion that "the major difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats are bought and paid for by a less scary group of special interests."
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 64

Posts: 417/1008
EXP: 2101761
For next: 112348

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3717 days
Last activity: 3686 days
#33 Posted on 29.10.02 1317.16
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1320.36

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    You think it was a good idea to nuke China?

    "The Art of War" is good read. It's mostly a good read because it's simple, and as with most simple maxims, you can extrapolate them to apply to pretty much any situation. It's not the bible a lot of people who just discover it think it is.

    Bush is no more in league with EVERY CEO than the Democrats are in league with EVERY Union local. However, just as it's a pretty good bet your average union has the ear of the Dems more than the GOP, it's a pretty good bet your average CEO is going to call up George Bush when he wants something rather than Ted Kennedy. And just as the Dems policy is to try to help unions more than CEO's, so is the GOP's policy to try and help CEO's more than unions.



I don't want to nuke China..... I guess what I meant was if we should have either never crossed the parralel, but since we did, we should have gone all the way. We let some of our guys rot in a hellhole, and we could have done more.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 253/1759
EXP: 4825010
For next: 167860

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1127 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#34 Posted on 29.10.02 1434.46
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1439.56
I love how this is being turned into a Democrat vs. Republican debate... I mean, jeez...
All the Democrats on this thread are lashing out saying that Republicans are invading Iraq for no real good reason at all (oil, or whatever) and blah blah blah. Where were all of you people when Clinton was threatening the same? Were you all just as vehemantly against going into Bosnia at the time? And don't try to feed me the "Oh, but there was GENOCIDE there!" What do you think Hussein is perpetrating against the Kurds?
The fact is that Democrats are against this for one reason, and one reason only- a Republican is in the White House. All of the Democrats decisions in the last year on EVERY topic have not been based upon ideals, or facts, or anything else other than - Republican X thinks this, so we are against it. And frankly, it disgusts me. Where do you want us to strike? We have been attacked. AN ACT OF WAR WAS DECLARED ON US. Iraq harbors those that attacked us. Iraq SUPPORTED those who attacked us. Why are they not a target? There is nothing LEFT for us to bomb in Afghanistan that is of any military importance. Are you saying the war on terror is over?
Al Quaida is not dead, friends. They are supported by MANY nations around the world, and it is our right to root them out. We destroyed the Taliban because they supported and hid our enemy. We are going to do the same to Hussein, for the same reason. DEMOCRATS bring up oil. DEMOCRATS bring up the connection to Bush Sr, and DEMOCRATS bring up weapons inspectors. The fact is that Democrats do not seem to give a rats ass about this country, except when it comes to their own political maneuvering. And it is really starting to get old.
So there is a big "anti-war rally." So what if a bunch of fanatical, brainwashed, Demo-philes got conned into going out with banners? Those substanceless people are a dime a dozen. Sure they know they are "Against War, Man!" but they have no explaination for their position besides tried and true cliche's.
So I ask you, all of you "Anti-war Democrats." What SHOULD we do then? Who do we attack? If NOT Iraq, where do we go next? Was Afghanistan our last step, or is Iraq really (and it is) the first of many more steps that will lead to our eventual victory? OR do we just sit on our hands and wait for the next several thousand Americans to get murdered by terrorists before we do something about it?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 29.10.02 1237)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1113/3273
EXP: 12515781
For next: 156203

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 10 days
#35 Posted on 29.10.02 1639.10
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1641.53
Our eventual victory over what, exactly? Over terrorism? How does leveling country after country help us stop terrorism?

-Jag
El Nastio
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 608/2196
EXP: 6885593
For next: 30335

Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 7 hours
ICQ:  
#36 Posted on 29.10.02 1644.42
Reposted on: 29.10.09 1645.21
The question I don't think has been asked outright is that does this war help preserve life? Life shouldn't be tossed away needlessly, as such war should be something that is well thought over. Would this war preserve more lives than the life lost in battle?

The thing about life is that it doesn't matter hwere you are, who you are, or what you believe, life is life. Not one life is more important than another. Bush's life is as important as Al Gore's, as important as David Letterman....and as important as the guy working the cash at the local 7/11. This war, whose life are being preserved? And are others unfairly having their lives being taken away?

(edited by El Nastio on 29.10.02 1745)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 708/2085
EXP: 6375517
For next: 17282

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 39 days
Last activity: 2 days
#37 Posted on 29.10.02 2119.13
Reposted on: 29.10.09 2119.18
Iraq harbors those that attacked us. Iraq SUPPORTED those who attacked us.

This is not true. If it were true, I'd probably have a different opinion about going to war (which I haven't really made up my mind on anyway). The fact that Bush/Cheney and company have to, at best, cite very flimsy evidence for a almost incidental connection and, at worst, outright lie, rightfully raises liberals suspicions that this war is about something else, whether it's oil, or revenge, or whatever. And regardless, there are a lot of other countries and organizations before Iraq in the "harboring and supporting terrorists" list. And W doesn't seem to be that gung-ho on going after them. And you have to ask why.

Let me try to explain. You know how some conservatives don't believe a word that came out of Clinton's mouth? How, no matter what he might say were reasons for things, they would always look for the hidden motives? How sometimes this made them overlook the fact that, maybe sometimes, he actually WAS telling the truth, if for no other reason than he didn't need to lie? How they sometimes seemed a little paranoid and out-of-touch with reality because of it (most notably with the "Clinton killed Vince Foster" thing)?

Now realize, whether or not it's true or justified, that many liberals have the exact same view of W. Keep this in mind and you can figure out the liberal responce to the whole war thing. You trust President Bush. A lot of us don't. You probably believe him when he says that Iraq harbors terrorists. Would you have quite the same level of confidence in that statement if it was coming from President Clinton's mouth? That's the difference. It has nothing to do with "giving a rat's ass about this country" any more than conservatives not trusting Clinton didn't give "a rats ass about this country."

So in a way, you're right. I agree that many democrats are against this because mostly because of the person in the White House. Not so much because he's a republican (remember the anti-war crowd in the 60's was protesting a democratic president), but because they don't trust him.

I don't mean this as a debate over whether Bush or Clinton is more trustworthy or whatver. Personally, I think they are both politicians, and like almost all politians, both are not above flat-out lying to get what they want. I'm just trying to give you some insight as to why your assumptions and a lot of the anti-war crowd's assumptions are not the same.

Regardless, I believe both camps have America's best interest at heart, and it's incredibly insulting to say they don't or to question their patriotism. I'd advise you to do a "limbs lost fighting for their country" comparison between democrat and GOP Senators for starters. Then you can move on to the "Congressional Metal of Honor awarded" catagory next. True patriots don't feel the need to prove their loyalty to their country with other people's lives. Chickenhawks do.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 102

Posts: 636/3018
EXP: 10963890
For next: 126115

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 9 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on 29.10.02 2133.46
Reposted on: 29.10.09 2134.38
Just for the record:

I am against war in Iraq under the Bush administration.
I was against war in Iraq under the Clinto administration.

I was in favor of going to war in Bosnia to remove Milosovic.
I was in favor of going to war in Afghanistan to remove Bin Laden. (Even though I wound up horribly against the way we conducted the war.)

Just for the record.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 367/1528
EXP: 4001657
For next: 4422

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2642 days
Last activity: 2484 days
AIM:  
#39 Posted on 29.10.02 2233.46
Reposted on: 29.10.09 2237.36

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Just for the record:

    I am against war in Iraq under the Bush administration.
    I was against war in Iraq under the Clinto administration.

    I was in favor of going to war in Bosnia to remove Milosovic.
    I was in favor of going to war in Afghanistan to remove Bin Laden. (Even though I wound up horribly against the way we conducted the war.)

    Just for the record.



You've got me curious, OFB. What is your rationale for removing Milosevic?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 268/1759
EXP: 4825010
For next: 167860

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1127 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#40 Posted on 30.10.02 1213.53
Reposted on: 30.10.09 1214.39
Well, the only thing I can say at this point (to avoid repeating myself too much) is that Iraq may not have the strongest ties to Al Quaida, but I firmly believe Sadaam does. He has the motive (revenge for the Persian Gulf attack), opportunity (take those meetings between Iraqi staffers and Al Quaida, and there is circumstantial evidence to support it (terrorist hijacking training facility outside of Baghdad, for example). The evidence is enough to support he has ties with that group, and that is enough.
As far as the overall scheme of things goes, even if Iraq is not the strongest supporter of Al Quaida right now, strategically, a position in Iraq would be very valuable. Think about it- Afghanistan and Iraq sandwich Iran, a probably supporting nation. If it happens that Iran IS a strong supporter of Al Quaida, that gives us perfect positioning. Al Quaida, no doubt, is throughout the middle east and southern Asia... and these two positions give us an incredible amount of flexibility to send ground troops. And, with Iraq bordering almost every major Arab nation (or close to it), any of those who are harboring Al Quaida will be much more willing to give them up if we have a stronghold right in their back yard like that.
And to me, a war on terror is a lot bigger than just a war on Al Quaida... Hamas is a big enough terrorist group as well, and God knows Iraq is a huge supporter of THEM...
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Wellstone Memorial Decried as Political Rally
Next thread: A Nightmare in the Senate
Previous thread: This forum
(1948 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Susan Sarandon is stupidRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.216 seconds.