IRAQ Invasion Test....

[TheShrimp]

:shrug:

I don't know what to tell you dude. Here it is..

1. He made a post directed at me with a statement about the UN in it.

2. I responded mentioning the UN.

How did I bring it up?

Why am I arguing about who brought something up? I have no idea.

If you want to talk about something going on with our impending invasion, I'm always game. I can't sit here and argue reading comprehension though.

 

[Blitz]

No problem...:shrug:

 

[djv]

Oh man how true some those things are. And then some may be half truths to. In any case it is true we look the other way many times. And It is true we helped this madman. Reagan gave him all he wanted. We hepled teach him. But you see he's trying to go to far. So now it's like haveing a child that dont behave. So we need to give him a time out. This maybe a big time out. We sure have a way of cuasing some of our own problems.

 

[AR182]

Shrimp,

The reason why I asked you about your support of Clinton's action in the Balkans was because I have found people playing both sides. They are voicing their concerns that Bush is not following the un, but I have found some of these same Bush critics supported Clinton, eventhough he refused going before the un also. I just wanted to know if you were one of those people.

You said that Bush is part to blame for this war. I strongly disagree with this. Bush is just doing the un's job, that is enforcing their resolutions.

A question for you, Shrimp: What would you do if you were in Bush's shoes?

 

[TheShrimp]

Now that's a good question. I haven't really considered it too much.

Off the top of my head...

At this point, we probably have to go in. I like to think we wouldn't have gotten to this point if I was there. I wouldn't have sent 300000 troops over.

See, I don't fear Saddam like some of you do. I don't think they're capable of delivering WMD here and I don't think (at least under the eye of the UN and the US) that they're capable of constructing them.

I think these suitcase bombs and releasing of viruses are very far-fetched scenarios. I don't think Saddam just sits around all day making googly eyes dreaming up schemes to wipe out the US like he was "Pinky and the Brain" or something.

I think that Clinton and "Bush I" were keeping him in check. When they entered the no fly zone, we'd send a couple bombs in, shoot down a plane. Keep the spy planes up. Keep an eye on 'em. You can do that for a LONG time for 90 billion dollars.

I think that continued inspections would not have allowed him to very easily put together a weapons program. A nuclear bomb isn't something that you build in a toolshed in a day.

Quite simply, I think we can ignore him (at least on a grand scale, keep an eye on him on a smaller scale). I know everyone says "we'll be sorry for ignoring him when a bomb falls." But I just don't think like that. There are lots of nutso despots -- many closer to the bomb than Saddam and we basically ignore them.

I'm outie now. Too much for one day.

Later.

[man, I bet Madjack loves the traffic this has created, not the cause of it but the hits, anyway]

 

[Turfgrass]

AND JUST WHAT DANGER DOES SADDAM PRESENT TO THE UNITED STATES?

Former U.S. Middle East envoy Lawrence Eagleberger made a very good point recently as to just why Saddam Hussein presents a threat the safety and security of the United States. Eagleberger points out that "terrorists do not make weapons of mass destruction. States do." This would mean that terrorists don?t have the means to produce the chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons they would like to use against America. A nation would have those resources. A nation like Iraq. The solution? Crystal clear.