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

Chuck Mize cmize at goiter.com
Mon Dec 22 09:42:54 UTC 2003


On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 00:53, none wrote:
> > 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.

So why are we still there? Why are soldiers being killed almost every
day? Why are Iraqis on Nightline saying life is so much worse under
American rule that they wish Saddam was back? Because we blew off the
U.N. and went in by ourselves we are going to have to work long and hard
to regain any goodwill with the rest of the world community. It's a
disaster any way you look at it.
>  
> > > 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.

You're right in that these aren't wars. War was never declared on Iraq.
> 
> 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.

Why would they forgive debts just because we want them to? Would your
Visa company forgive your balance if your mom called them up and told
them that you were a little tight for cash right now?

> 
> > 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.

The proof was in the text of the bill that gave Bush his $87 billion
dollars. It lays out very neatly what the money is earmarked for and the
lion's share is already promised to Halliburton and their subsidiaries.
That's nice that you talked to a deck officer who served on a carrier
but I fail to see how that lends any authority to your statement. It's
funny that you think fixing the oil infrastructure is the right thing to
do because of Iraq's current economy. Who do you think is responsible
for the state of their currency? Maybe the country who invaded them and
is now trying to force democracy on a population that doesn't want it?
> 
> 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.

A little hardship? Law enforcement can now label you an "enemy
combatant" and hold you as long as they want without allowing you to
have a lawyer, a trial or any of the other rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. The FBI can now tap your phone line for 72 hours without a
warrant or approval from any court. Police can now search your home
without notifying you. George Bush is not acting as a leader, he's
acting as a fear-mongerer trying to scare the country into letting him
and his right-wing cronies pass any laws they want while using the 3,000
deaths from 9/11 as justification.
> 
> > > 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.

The problem is that Bush told the American people that Hussein *already*
had weapons of mass destruction. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein
was not a threat to the United States and this "war" is nothing but a
get-rich-quick scheme for the friends of the Bush family.

I bet you did a little happy dance when Clinton was impeached for lying
to the American public. Let me ask you something--how many people died
as a result of Clinton's lie? How many thousands more will die and how
many more personal freedoms taken away before Bush is stopped?





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list