Whats up with the States- Does Bush Want War?

[toms3]

I totally understand the threat that Saddam and Iraq pose.  I agree that something needs to be done including the use of force.  I am just wondering what is up with Bush.  He is pushing so hard for war; it almost appears to be an obsession with him and his administration.  Today I hear that the U.S. may oppose return of arms inspectors to Iraq without a new U.N. Security Council mandate.  It almost appears that they are going to go in no matter what.   Anyone have any theories on this?

 

 

[onecat]

Digger, I think the reason is that Mr Bush has no plan other Iraq to get him back in power for a second term. Domesticity he‘s done nothing, ( just like his dad), and he has no goal for where his administration should go. So in his mind he has no choice but to take on saddam. And believe I want saddam out as well, he just pure evil in many ways. But for years the United State just sat by and watched, and don‘t worry we support just fight the evil Iran and you‘ll get lots of stuff. Bush points to his use of gas.... well when did that happen? It happened in the early 80‘s when he was on the good side. And the US never said a word.

Should this war happen? I hope Bush sees sence and stops it. As I doubt they can afford it. the Guf war was 60 billion and they only paid for a third of it; this time around they won‘t be a lucky. And if it happens I‘m not sure where canada will stand. Although for our benefit, we should be on their side. No telling what will happen to economy if don‘t.

 

[rolandstrong]

I think it is only inevitable that the United States would become embrolled in some kind of Middle East conflict, ever since the decision to back Isreal became a part of US foreign policy. No matter what we hear about oil, weapons of mass destruction, etc., the Bush administration wants to exert considerable control over the "gulf" region, which it sees as a threat to its sovereignty (which is predominantly economic). these threats were percieved before Sept. 11th (i.e. Gulf War, USS Cole, Iranian hostages, the Shah of Iran, etc.), but the attack certainly heightened the resolve. I think this sabre rattling has been going on long before the last year. The stakes have just step up a few notches.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Or quite possibly, Mr. Bush has learned from the lessons of Chamberlain and isn‘t going to stand idly by while a petty dictator continues to carry out policies aimed at the subjugation and destruction of ethnic minorities within his own borders as well as the creation of weapons of war with the intent to unleash them on his neighbours.

Bush is going to do to Iraq (I hope) what the western world should have done to Germany in 1938.

Kudos to them; I hope Canada does the right thing and stands by their best friends and closest allies in this hour of need. We‘ve been meekly letting the US pick up the huge slack in defending Canadian territory - and even our soveriegnty - and it is now time for us to repay them.

If Canada doesn‘t do anything to help the US, we deserve to be invaded and annexed.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Out of curiosity, then, what makes Iraq so much more worthy of our blood and treasure than any of the other oppressive regimes which have / may have / want to have weapons of mass destruction?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Who said that Iraq was more worthy? I certainly don‘t feel that way. Let‘s go after them all. Pax Americana?

I suspect it is Iraq‘s proximity to completion of WMD (if not there already) that is the deciding factor. Somali warlords were just as petty and thuglike, but they didn‘t have Scud missiles...

 

[Harry]

Saddam has proven time and again that he is dangerous, will attack and has no problem using the NBC card.

Unlike most other modern day tyrants, Saddam actually backs his maniacal words with actions.

This why he has to be dealt with. UN sanctions-smanctions, he has never respected them and in all reality considers diplomacy and negotiation as weakness (circa pre-Gulf War rhetoric).

Thanks for the Chamberlain remarks. If ever there was an example of ostrich syndrome.

And for the so-called Goe-Political scholars-pundits amongst us, the little cave by the UN to omit his palaces from scrutiny. How many of you learned people know that a majority of his prized military, industrial and suspected WMD facilities are located in so called Presidential Palace Compounds?

:skull:

 

[onecat]

Saddam, saddam saddam.

Sure he‘s a nasty little tyrant, but who put him there.......... I‘ll give ya one quess.

It was the United States, and all though the 80‘s they could careless that he gased his people in 87. They even wanted to give him more money for it 1988 knowing full well what he was and what he did. There lots other warlords out there that need to taken of, but none of them have oil.

I‘m all for going if the United States has a plan on the books for reconstruction. But they don‘t plan on staying, they‘ll just put a new leader in most likely someone who doesn‘t support woman‘s rights, and it will end up very much like the rest of region. Look at the Gulf war did anything change? Can women vote, or even drive car in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? I think the only thing that changed was that bought more military equiptment from the west.

"And for the so-called Goe-Political scholars-pundits amongst us, the little cave by the UN to omit his palaces from scrutiny. How many of you learned people know that a majority of his prized military, industrial and suspected WMD facilities are located in so called Presidential Palace Compounds?"

Yes they need to take of care of. The UN does need reform. But the reform just can‘t be at the call of westfor the west. It must speak for the whole world.

 

[Harry]

Radiohead, I am very aware of the lay of the land over there and who put who where.

Yes the west turned their back while he did their bidding in Iran. France, UK and US helped him to get his programs going and then he fell out of favor and in walked the Soviets and gave him more toys and technology.

But like all good tyrants for whom the West supports, once and awhile one goes completely rogue. Saddam is a rogue. Even Qaddafi who the US loved to hate was to a measure more predictable. Since he managed to stay alive this long and with the way he has softened his stand on many issues, including terrorism. The US needed a new poster child.

In today’s world and compared to who’s who in the world of tyrants and dictators, give me another example of someone who has the ability to lash out and wreak vengeance with the disregard he has for us.

Most western economies and the US need to have a war stance stimulation. Like it or not. And Saddam has done a masterful job to draw the ire of the West. Capitalism needs oil to keep going. Like it or not we need oil and he poses a very real threat to it. Was the Gulf War really about Kuwait and giving freedom to the lesser and infidels in the eyes of Islam or oil?

 

[combat_medic]

I‘m very much in agreement that Bush is trying to use the Saddam card as a way to get re-elected. People in the US say that he found his voice as a leader during the 9-11 crisis. That‘s bull$hit. He, like his father is only capable of leading in a warring state, so he went to war at the very first conceivable oppportunity.

Other than the increased security, the guy has done NOTHING domestically. He‘s a southerner hick gun nut who, like Saddam, won‘t listen to anything not pointed down the end of a barrell. While he may not like Saddam, Bush understands that he‘ll onyl listen to force.

I‘m still not sure though where I stand on an all out ground war in the Persian Gulf. I think we stand to lose a lot for very little gain.

 

[Bill Smy]

The only war I ever approved of was the Trojan War; it was fought over a woman, and the men knew what they were fighting for.

William Lyon Phelps
In a sermon at Riverside Church, New York
25 June 1933

:fifty:

 

[muskrat89]

Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?" I imagine. Anyway, a nice debate nonetheless. War for oil? Doubtful. Everyone said that about Kuwait, and it didn‘t turn out to be true. War for re-election? Probably not - not a popular enough idea. Hasn‘t done anything domestically? Like what? I am curious as to what someone would base that opinion on I have mixed feelings about a war over there - it is naive at best to think the Canadian or American public & even media have access to the same intelligence info as the President of the United States. My main feeling is better to err on the side of caution, then to err and underestimate the psyche and ability of ol Mr Hussein. Oh - and Gun nut? I think I am one too

 

[onecat]

I haven‘t been watching alot of American news lately; but I think this the type of things they should be talking about. Instead of rolling themselves in the flag. The reason behind this new push to take out saddam needed to talked about in the US media. What I‘m interested in seeing, what happens after the Nov elections. Will UN peace deal be okay then if the republicans win or lose?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?" I imagine. Anyway, a nice debate nonetheless. War for oil? Doubtful. Everyone said that about Kuwait, and it didn‘t turn out to be true. War for re-election? Probably not - not a popular enough idea. Hasn‘t done anything domestically? Like what? I am curious as to what someone would base that opinion on I have mixed feelings about a war over there - it is naive at best to think the Canadian or American public & even media have access to the same intelligence info as the President of the United States. My main feeling is better to err on the side of caution, then to err and underestimate the psyche and ability of ol Mr Hussein. Oh - and Gun nut? I think I am one too

Good responses, Muskrat, I have to agree.

If anyone has anything like a an actual source or quote to back up any of the preposterous claims made in this thread, feel free to provide them. Conversely, if anyone can prove Saddam Hussein isn‘t preparing WMD (good luck) feel free to do that, too.

 

[toms3]

Ok...Michael I will try. I have this friend....he knows this guy and he said that his uncle was at band camp and he heard that....blah...blah.. Sorry...had too.

Quote..."Interesting posts. I wonder what the reactions would be, if we had Yanks on the list, pontificating about the motivations of Canadian politicians, and the intricacies of our policies? "How dare they?""

Personnally, I think we have every right to debate this point, because their actions will directy affect the world in some way. Its not a domestic issue...its has international ramifications .

 

[muskrat89]

I am not saying that we don‘t have the right to debate it. I‘m saying that you lose some credibility when you tie this "international situation" to US Domestic motivations - to which the average Canadian (or American, for that matter) cannot really call themselves an authority. Hopefully that made sense. To call the President a "gun nut" for example, or that the US is waging war for oil can‘t hold a lot of water if it is only based on the trickle-down opinions of media, especially if you don‘t even live in the US. I actually enjoy the Iraq debate - both sides have valid points. I just think it detracts from a person‘s argument when they over-simplify the US‘, or any country‘s position.

 

[toms3]

No worries, that made sense and I agree, I feel in these situation there is always more then meets the eye. It could simply be that he believes in his soul that Saddam is a futurer threat that must be dealt with and the UN is blind for not addressing it right away. Conversly there could be another reason...what it could be...we will never know. Is it the fact that he is willing to send troops to their deaths, risk a wider conflict in the name of re-election...I highly doubt that and should leave that story for a Tom Clancy novel.

I believe its in his nature. Much the way he ran Texas. If there is a murderer.....excute him...and unfortunetly for Saddam...he is a murder.

It will be interesting to hear what Bush has to say tonight.

 

[combat_medic]

Conversly there could be another reason...what it could be..

OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL

that is all.

 

[Marauder]

I think we should listen to all those luminaries who signed that petition, and just wait for NY and LA to be turned into glassed-over parking lots before we issue another UN resolution that tells Saddam that we‘re not happy with his using WMDs against civvie populations . But this time we may think about using stonger wording, even though he is just a misunderstood Arab looking out for the best interests of his "People"(is there any other kind?)

Hey medic, I realize you may not be tuned into the whole DeathTech vibe from the Force here, but you do realize that most of the people in the combat arms are there because they like playing with those little C7 and C9 muskets, right? You seem to be parroting the Liberals with their whole "people owning guns = people worshipping Satan and eating children" outlook here. I know you‘re out in BC there, but c‘mon....

And yes Digger, it is very unfortunate that Saddam is a murderer... one who possesses chem/bio weps and is crotchhairs away from having baby nukes thanks to the French and S.Africans.

 

[combat_medic]

My grandfather, a decorated WWII vet FROM the combat arms, told me that no good soldier ever really wants war. The only people that desire war are sociopaths, and those that stand to profit without themselves risking their lives.

Yes, we‘ve all trained for combat, and we all want the chance to practice those skills, but does that mean the desire to do harm? Ask any vet, ANY vet who‘s had to kill personally, close enough to smell their breath and see their blood and they‘ll say that it still haunts them, decades later. Anyone eager for war, death, and destruction frightens me, as well it should do to anyone.

Just because I disaprove of Bush‘s international policies does not make me a leftist. Neither does living in BC make me a tree-hugging hippie. Just as being a soldier doesn‘t make you a baby killer, despite what many civillians may think.