[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[none]

> You're right the government should get back to national defense and
> interstate commerce and not starting wars all over the globe.
 
I don't want to see the U.N. in charge of Iraq and we didn't start
a new war by going into Iraq, we went in to end embargoing the Iraqi
people and spending a billion+ a year patrolling Iraqi airspace.
 
> > No, so long as there are people like you who will allow evil people to
> > do as they wish because "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings". I'd
> > rather do the right thing for the right reason than the wrong thing for
> > the sake of political correctness.
 
> What about when Reagan and Bush I sold chemical and biological weapons
> to Saddam and funded the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were those the right
> things for the right reasons?

There was a concept of deterrence during the cold war.  It seems like
it worked, though it's as wrong to say it did as it is to take the past
out of context solely to attack the present administration.  Iran and
Russia, which was the USSR, evoked greater fears then Iraq or Pakistan
back then.  The enemy of the enemy is our friend was very important
during the cold war.  The longer a war goes, the more blurred right and
wrong becomes.  I am proud of our military for the speed with which it
has operated in Iraq to get this war over even coming from a war in
Afghanistan.  I believe we can come away from Iraq leaving that country
in better shape.  It disappoints me how impatient some people are with
our nation during a war, these short military actions we've
gotten used to are not wars.  Terrorists hope public opinion will
destroy any campaign against them after just a short time.  At
least we evidently intercepted a lot of Al Quaeda drugs which
should bolster public support of the fight against terrorism.  
Hearing Al Quaeda lost $9 million is good news.  This has been on 
television news shows and in the Oregonian.

I support what our military is doing.  I do worry though that we must
work for justice in many ways which includes forgiving the debts of
some poor countries to achieve peace.  With Iraq having a chance to
be free and prosperous, it's a shame France and Germany won't forgive
certain debts owed to them by Iraq.

> I remember the Twin Towers and I am sickened that those 3,000 deaths
> were used as a justification to take away personal freedoms, alienate
> the world community and make war for no other goal than monetary profit.
> I am also disgusted by people like you who throw it back in the face of
> anybody who speaks out against those atrocities.

> > Russia, France and Germany seemed to see the oil for food program as a
> > way to make large sums of money for themselves. I wonder how much the
> > leaders and higher ups from those countries(and the U.N. for that
> > matter) made off of that "humanitarian" program.
> 
> I can't believe you would even make that argument when all of Bush and
> Cheney's cronies are getting set up to make billions in profit on the
> "rebuilding" of Iraq.

Consider for a moment that no proof has been presented and you are
speculating.  Besides, fixing the oil infrastructure is the right
thing to do right now because of Iraq's current economy.  
Haliburton is willing to take the risk to get that infrastructure
repaired.  Alex is right on here.  I've talked to a deck officer 
who has served on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf that agrees  
France and Germany were making money off of Iraq.

As far as the erosion of personal liberties argument, a little hardship
in time of war is to be expected.  An attitude that their can be war
as long as it doesn't affect me when American soldiers will give their
lives for this country is just plain wrong.  This president is facing
multiple difficult problems at once and acting as a leader, respect
that.  We need to be with the troops at least in spirit.  It's too
early for the level of talk about personal liberties being lost that
is going around, the president has talked about having powers he
hasn't used and likely won't.

> > Uh, no. Most of the destruction in Iraq is because Saddam refused to
> > follow the mandates set forth by the U.N.
 
> Oh really? Just because the weapons inspectors couldn't find any
> imaginary weapons of mass destruction?

Saddham tried to buy missiles from North Korea.  Unfortunately for him,
it looks like the North Koreans took the money and broke the contract.
His army was armed well enough with RPG's, etc., to cause far more harm
to coalition troops.  How fortunate most Iraqi troops simply
surrendered.  Maybe we stopped Saddham early.  It's easier to fight  
a man before he acquires weapons of mass destruction than is to 
wait till such weapons are visible, then attack.  It's safe to say he
would have had terrible weapons eventually and use them against Iran,
Israel, or even our troops.  I'm not so sure Saddham wouldn't attack an
Arab country if he could get the chance.  He did attack Iran and the
Kurds.  There is some misconception that Saddham is guilty before
committing a crime.  It's hard to believe with his psychological profile
added to the fact that he has already committed atrocities that he
won't, if he gets free, commit more atrocities.
  
> Getting the infrastructure of Iraq up and running as quickly as possible
> is the job. Who else can you name to get it done? Maybe we should put
> the U.N. in charge and then it can be like Afghanistan. I would argue
> that the people there are in fact no better off now than when we ran the
> Taliban out. WOW! Let's have the U.N. run the world!!!!!!
 
> I'd rather see the U.N. put in charge of it than Halliburton.
 
Don't come out against a corporation just because it's a 
corporation.  It is just as wrong to prejudge people because 
they are from labor unions as being against any employer needs 
before their own.  Business against labor is not a good thing 
in any country.  

I would like to see laws that state you can't take a living 
wage job, move it overseas, and underpay some foreign worker.  
I also want to see tariffs applied on any imported product 
where a U.S. company moved overseas to avoid complying with 
sound and scientifically validated environmental policy.  
This said, we should probably tariff any foreign product 
as well where it can be shown underpaid or illegal labor 
was employed during manufacture or the importing company 
moved overseas from wherever it is based to violate sound 
and scientifically validated environmental law. 
 
I also want to see an employee benefits federal protection 
statute where people can not be a year or two away after 
many years working from getting retirement and get nothing.  
Companies should not be allowed to shut down to avoid paying 
retirement.  Protecting retirement will, I believe, strengthen
the economy even more.  I've heard comments that some young
workers will cut corners and play dirty because they don't
trust that what's good today will be good tomorrow.  There
needs to be incentive to do a job right where retirement has
traditionally been an important factor in obtaining quality 
work.

Switching to Chirac...

Chirac's attempt to make students in public schools follow
a secular code which obviates religious expression is in
affect the establishment of a state religion, specifically 
secularism.  I hope the french people find the courage to 
strongly criticize Chirac's plan and if necessary elect 
his replacement.  How much longer is his term in office?

I say Alex is the star in this thread, I'm quite impressed.