or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Anyone up for a good debate??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone up for a good debate??

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
So, just thought I'd bring up a subject for us to debate (respectfully of course and with no flaming ).

What is everyones thoughts on the impending "war" that is supposedly going to happen with Iraq? From what I'm reading its not a matter of "if", but "when" and I'm curious what others think about it?? I'm curious too from Anne what is Israels' standpoint since during the Gulf War Israel suffered w/ the Scud Missile Attacks?

Any thoughts guys and gals??
post #2 of 62
No one disputes the fact that Saddam Hussein is a maniac, who will not hesitate to use horrific weapons on anyone and everyone he chooses. Under ordinary circumstances, I favor letting people run their own countries, as they see fit. In this instance, however there is a real danger to other countries. Unilaterally attacking someone, as Hussein is wont to do, cannot be allowed. Remember where appeasement and isolationism got the world, sixty years ago.

Hussein is comparable to Hitler: a genocidal megalomaniac.
post #3 of 62
Oh God! I don't even know where my gas mask is! And I still didn't get the baby kit for Ron! I hope it's not anytime soon is it? Haven't been watching the news these last few days.

Last time I heard they were starting to vaccinate people against smallpox...

I really don't feel up to it right now - we have enough problems with the daily terror attacks. It's getting too scary to go to the shopping mall or the supermarket if there's another Gulf war that means going through that nightmare again - sealing up rooms, getting the gas masks and kits ready. This time around I'll have a baby to take care of as well and a husband in the army

On the other hand, if Saddam Hussein is left "in peace" then I'm afraid in a few years he'll only get stronger and may have nuclear capabilities as well... Imagine what will happen if he provides the Al Qaida people with a nuclear device... for us of course he can simply send it off on one of his scuds. Sure, lots of Arabs will be killed as well, but I don't think he would mind. He's killed enough of his own people...

So, I say better deal with him now then later.
post #4 of 62
I think they need to attack Iraq now, not later. Sadam is a lunatic. Get rid of him now, before he gets full nuke capability before he tries to wipe us out. Yes, civilians are going to die, but is it worth it to risk millions of lives down the road?
post #5 of 62
I think we should nuke them until there is nothing but a big, smoking crater. No one there seems to be too concerned about our innocent civiailans. Why should we care about theirs?
post #6 of 62
post #7 of 62
post #8 of 62
Well, I'll give my 2 cents worth, which isn't much, but quite frankly, I find this terrifying!!!!!! I just wish it would all end..without a war....and that the terrorists would be caught and killed as well as an end put to Saddam's reign of terror.

I just brought an innocent little baby into this world, and I would like to see her grow up in peace, and not have to worry about bombs or chemical attacks, but unfortunately, that is the reality we now live in.

I think it is very tragic that people can be so evil, and that we cannot somehow manage to live in peace. I hate the thought of a war....like I said, it scares the crap out of me, but yet...if we sit by and do nothing, their power will only increase, until it may be too late to do anything.
post #9 of 62
What a difficult debate. I hope Mr Bush is not using this as an excuse to 'kick ass' just because he feels it's unfinished business from when his daddy was in power (Kuwait/Iraq war).

What happened last September terrified and sickened the world. Even most muslims (non-extremist ones - and yes, surprisingly enough the majority are just ordinary people going about their daily business) were disgusted.

Saddam Hussein is a nutter. However, arould him there is serious wealth with too much vested interest for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Dubai etc to have Iraq screw up international relations, trade, tourism etc.

The arabs have said they want to deal with the problem themselves. As long as the West is able to monitor activities in Iraq to ensure nuclear/chemical/biological aresenals are not being stockpiled, surely it is best for these nations to sort out their differences within the confines of their own continent?

This is not appeasement. This is keeping an eye on things and not letting a situation get out of hand - and not going in guns blazing and getting in beyond our necks. Rather than a full scale war - which is really only boys comapring the sizes of their dicks (sorry for the analogy), we do have the intelligence to take out perpatrators on almost a one-to-one basis rather than kicking the crap out of an entire nation.

The upshot is - war frightens me unbelievably, and we really should try and exhaust ALL other options before declaring a war that may in reality never be won.
post #10 of 62
I am very disturbed that the US gov has said that it doesn't need agreement from the UN to go and start bombing Iraq. What does Mr Bush think the UN is there for?

I was talking to a man from the severe left of the Labour party the other day, and he was claiming that the proposed attacks are just an excuse for the powerful oil lobby to get their hands on more crude oil. I was a bit flumoxed by that one.

As Edwin Starr sang in the 70s "War! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!"
post #11 of 62
This is a very important and very controversial topic. I'm glad it's being debated! Here is an article from the "Working Assets" website that I think makes a very good case against invading Iraq. (Those of you who agree with it - and who are beginning to get as scared as I am about it - may want to go to the following address to send an email to President Bush:


Most Americans agree that Iraq's longtime dictator, Saddam Hussein, is
a sadistic thug. Despite this, White House calls for a massive,
preemptive invasion of Iraq are dangerously misguided, and not in tune
with Americans' current priorities. Take Action!
Stop the Rush to War
Contributed by Working Assets
Most Americans agree that Iraq's longtime dictator, Saddam Hussein, is a sadistic thug who Iraqis and the rest of the world would be better off without. He has twice invaded neighbors, used chemical weapons against civilians and aggressively pursued creation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. Despite this, White House calls for a massive, preemptive invasion of Iraq are dangerously misguided, and not in tune with Americans' current priorities: Economic revitalization and the prevention of terrorism.
Nobody can predict how a U.S. invasion would fare, but we can be reasonably sure of a few things: It will cost tens of billions of dollars, alienate our allies in Europe and the Middle East, kill many civilians, further dim prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinians, explicitly violate the UN Charter and increase the likelihood Hussein might launch his nastiest anti-civilian weapons against our troops or Israel. Furthermore, a unilateral invasion is unlikely to foster democracy in Iraq, given the dominant role of generals in the opposition, and a post-invasion civil war won by Iraq's Shiite majority might even give neighboring Iran, itself a member of President Bush's ''Axis of Evil,'' a powerful new ally.
Perhaps most importantly, invading Iraq will not lessen the threat of terrorism against the United States, and may actually increase it. No evidence has been produced that links Iraq to the September 11 attacks, and a U.S. war against Iraq could incite stronger support for Al Qaeda across the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Because of these and other unknowns, saber-rattling by the White House has been met by a chorus of Republican pragmatists questioning whether a full-blown war will improve or worsen the current situation. Foremost among these war skeptics have been an array of former and current U.S. military leaders critical of invasion plans hatched by the civilian hawks who dominate the Bush administration. Even Bush's own special Mideast envoy, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, denounced the drive to war. ''It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way,'' Zinni remarked, in reference to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Norman Schwartzkopf and Scowcroft, who oversaw the 1991 war against Iraq, ''and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.''
The president, the vice-president and others have made a clear, if exaggerated, case for why Saddam Hussein is a problem. What they haven't done is convince the American people invading Iraq is the solution.
post #12 of 62
O.K. This counts as "work" because we've been asked to write an editorial on this subject, which has become quite timely with President Bush about to address the Nation this evening.

My basic thoughts on this:

First - PLEASE remember these four things:

1) In 1981 the Israelis bombed a French-made nuclear reactor in Iraq three days before it was set to go on-line (set to begin taking in fuel rods). At the time, Israel had on order and had fully paid the U.S. for 73 F-16s and F-15s. The U.S. took U.N. action. We supported the U.N. in condemning Israel, which never received the planes, nor to this day has Israel received an apology from either the U.S. for supporting the U.N. condemnation or from the U.N. itself. If but for Israel, we would now be facing a "nuclear" Iraq with 10 years of experience with U-238 (enriched uranium) or plutonium.

2) The U.S. currently imports from the Middle East "only" about 1.6 million barrels of oil per day (out of the approx. 9 million barrels a day we use). (About 20% of our oil needs). It is Japan, Europe and the global economy that are dependent upon Middle Eastern oil, and it is primarily that that we are protecting by maintaining relationships with the Middle Eastern oil producing countries.

3) With the recent Congressional act, this President Bush has effectively repealed the War Powers Act, ratified after the end of the Vietnam War to avoid specifically the type of power that has just been placed into SOLELY the President's hands. According to the Constitution of the United States, War must pass both the Senate and the Congress. This has now been effectively obviated - without changing the Constitution.

This scares me.

I understand that we as a Nation must make difficult choices between our personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and our need to fight terrorism. But I do not like our rights being violated without our say in it.

[I live in NJ and work in NYC. They still run random searches - pull over your car and search it. Is this really necessary? It is just that. RANDOM. I am guaranteed my privacy and that I will not be searched unless there is JUST CAUSE according to our constitution].

This also scares me.

4) President Bush is neither a businessman nor from the military, and yet he is facing BOTH the most difficult economic environment our nation has faced since the depression AND the one of the worst military threats our Nation has ever faced: the faceless enemy that doesn't want anything except the eradication of the "Western way of life." (Sidebar: This is potentially worse than the depression despite what the government is trying to tell us. It sure is worse now for the stock markets than it was then. Bear in mind our Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill kept telling us we didn't have a recession for a year, and until about a month ago was still projecting 3 1/2% GDP growth this year. Then this summer ALL the GDP numbers for last year were revised downwards, definitively confirming that, in fact, we were in a recession. Gary & I do not believe we are out of the woods at all yet.) [...and for Gosh sakes, I'm all for Labor, but force the dock workers at Long Beach back to work while you negotiate! The numbers bandied about in the media are that it is costing our economy $1 bn/day. This week it was revised to $2 billion/day. We estimate that SEASONALLY adjusted (HOLIDAYS!) it is closer to $4 billion/day].

So O.K. The war. The war we waged against Iraq in 1990/1991 was quick and successful because our sole intent was to get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. That war was good for the economy and the stock markets. But we went into no Iraqi towns or cities. This war would be VERY different. We don't even have good intelligence about where facilities are. This will be a very difficult war. Hussein may be a Dictator, but the Iraqi people hate us. This could be worse than Vietnam. An extended war in the streets of Iraq with a hostile population will exacerbate an already ailing economic situation for the U.S. and global markets and economies.

I ask the same question Andy Rooney asked on 60 Minutes last night: Are we going to "smoke out" Saddam Hussein like we've smoked out Osama bin Laden? To date we have captured or confirmed killed NO senior members of al Qaida.

I totally agree with flimflam. What is the U.N. there for? Of course Iraq is a threat. But President Bush is not acting like a President. He's acting like this is Rome and we rule the known world. That's exactly one of the attitudes of "the West" that the terrorists have a problem with, and he's feeding right into it. President Bush is acting like a child, who when told to "play nice" replies - "But the other children don't know how to play." Are we not a member of the World community?

About our rights. Yes. We as a society are making tough decisions regarding freedom every day, but as Walter Cronkite so eloquently put it "this time we are being asked to make decisions without being given the information we need to make informed decisions." He was speaking to the fact that U.S. citizens are being asked to swallow new policies based upon a whole lot of "trust me, we have information" as the sole input for policy changes. For Gosh sakes, we've gotten more information from Israeli Intelligence on 60 Minutes than we have from our own government. How many of us have had the opportunity to see what is really going on in Afghanistan, not to mention the 5,000 or so other Special Forces groups in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Yemen? These are soldiers that represent U.S. citizens, yet we are unable to find out what they are doing in our names through the media. That is an unacceptable situation. How do we know what to ask our Congressmen to vote for when WE ARE NOT BEING GIVEN ANY INFORMATION with which to make a decision? The government "learned well" from Vietnam (they're convinced the media lost us the war). (How many of you even knew we had Special Forces troops in the Philippines, Indonesia and Yemen?)

I would chasise the "media moguls" for letting this happen. But this is the 00s. They are profit driven. News shows, which used to be "loss leaders" in television, are now expected to turn a profit. Well, it is our loss as watching citizens.

Finally, I have a problem with our moral stance here. There has never been a more critical time in our Nation's history than now. We have become the preeminent power on the earth. With the demise of the Soviet Union and with The People's Republic of China unable to effectively project its military power more than a few miles off shore, it is the United States that stands alone as the world's Uberpower (Gary's word). The question then becomes to what end will we use this awesome might and responsibility? President Bush talks a great talk about moral responsibility. I suppose we can rationalize, but we should not try to excuse, our very real part in the ongoing tragedy in Iraq (with over 500,000, yes, more than half a million dead children in the past 10 years). One could argue that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of these children, but how have we as a Nation and a Global Community allowed this to go on for so long?

Yola - it IS unfinished business from 1990, and it should have been taken care of then.

Now it is too late, and a war waged by the U.S. alone is not a long term solution. What do we achieve by killing Hussein? The population of Iraq hates us. And the funding for al Qaida has come principally from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran. ????

And let's review the U.S. record of putting new "Presidents" in power (or supporting against the population's wishes). Let's see....Samoza, Pinochet, the Diem brothers and those who came after (too many to list), Baptista, his Majesty the Shah of Iran, Marcos, Lon Nol, Noriega, and many African Nations that had dismal Dictators I don't even know about off-hand. etc...

Oh that's right. The U.S. has a great record of finding the right people to rule nations.

post #13 of 62
(The U.S. support of Lon Nol led directly to Pol Pot assuming power in Cambodia. Pol Pot is the single worst genocidal maniac in world history).
post #14 of 62
This has to be quick because I am studying (yeah right!) LOL

But my thoughts are Bush has an ulterior motive besides to erradicate saddam. I wish he would do it covertly- secret ops, bribery, whatever foreign intelligence could get into the circle and destroy saddam without making it an all out offensive. To much hate, to much death and to much politics will be in this decision, which I fear has already been made and out of our hands anyway.
post #15 of 62
Very thought provoking editorial Laurie. I have to say, although yes I am a Republican, I am really not liking a lot of things that this administration is doing. I do not like that we are giving up our indiviual rights and due process to wage this "war against terrorism." I hate to say it, but America is turning more and more into a dictatorial power with each administration. It's not just Bush, Clinton did his share, too. Presidents are given more and more power with less and less checks, balances and accountability.

As for the war on Iraq, I think something has to be done about Hussein before he sets out to completely destroy everything non-Islamic and has the weapons to do so. However, the UN needs to do this, not us. I also think that the UN needs to grow some cojones and put up or shut up about the inspectors. He has ignored and scoffed at their resolutions for years now, and if they don't either insist on it or back it up the UN will be a useless power in the world.
post #16 of 62
Well, I'm not going to touch this one but with good reason. I think it's really hard for us who aren't right in the thick of it to know just how it feels. We can sympathise and be angry and stand right alongside our American friends but it's not us who are the target here. In Australia, we feel pretty safe and I can't imagine what it's like for you guys, not knowing what's coming next.

Whatever happens, know that I'm thinking of all of you, praying that peace prevails and especially, holding a place in my heart for you, my Merican mates.
post #17 of 62
"We" named Iraq and several other countries "rogue" nations because they could (and sometimes did) attack their neighbors without provocation and without the support or approval of allies.

Hmmmmm.....that sure does sound like what we are threatening. So far, it appears as if only Tony Blair supports us. (You British folks need to help me understand why he is glued so firmly to Bush's side on this.) So, if we attack, won't we be the true rogue nation?

Also, if you look at a map, there is not another country within Iraq's strike zone that is supporting this war. So, even though Iraq could bomb Italy, Germany, etc these countries are not supporting the war. If the true potential victims of Saddam are not afraid and don't want a war, why do we?

I read an editorial which stated that Bush is going to threaten war up until the election, because Americans love war talk and will vote for all of those candidates who are in support of the war. Then, once elections are over, he will pull back and find a reason to let the war talk die down. And...then when he is up for election in a couple more years, he will actually invade so that people will vote for him.

I sure do wish he would put some of this energy into solving our economic woes and keep our sons and daughters out of a country that is not causing any troubles for us (or anyone else)!
post #18 of 62
take his butt out!!!!befor he wipes us out. he's had it coming for a long time. as i have said befor, this is the bible fulfilling. there will be wars and rumors of wars. but do not be afraid, these things must pass. that's not an exact quote but close. so, that's my opinion.
post #19 of 62
oh and i wonder why we just can't send the mafia in. maybe osama would already be dead for sure. really. they could go in , kill them, and be done with it. nobody would ever know! and no, i don't watch sapranos. never seen it. i'm talking about real life.
post #20 of 62
lotsocats - I totally agree. I just wanted to "debate" the one comment:

...and keep our sons and daughters out of a country that is not causing any troubles for us (or anyone else)
(referring to Iraq).

Technically this isn't true. Iraq IS a sponsor of terrorism. It provides money, training, weapons, etc. There are training camps in Iraq. Iraq unquestionably exports terrorism.

The Israeli Intelligence collected from its raids on Arafat's compound unquestionable evidence that Iran and Iraq sponsor the Hezbolla (spelling?) and Hamas, which, until a week or two ago, were executing bombing raids on Israel daily. There are clear documents where Iran and Iraq have tactically and purposefully turned the eyes of the world onto the "Palestinian Issue" in Israel and the Middle East so that we do not keep our eyes on the real sponsors, Iran and Iraq. Iran directly funds both the Hesbolla and Hamas. Iraq indirectly provides support. (Or at least they did not disclose or have not found evidence of direct financial support).

So I have to disagree that Iraq is not causing any troubles for us, and Iraq is definitively causing problems for Israel.
post #21 of 62
I went too far with that statement! Saddam is definately a threat to Israel and is even more of a threat to his own Kurdish people. Too bad that the last time we went to war with Iraq, we didn't support the anti-Hussein factions once we left the country. We had a real opportunity to oust the man, but completely blew it!
post #22 of 62
Lemme see if I can put these scattered thought to some semblence of order, I've read so many good points about this!!

As a military man (soon to retire), with a son who is soon to be in the gulf (I hate it) let me offer these points.

Yes, Iraq funds, helps, etc support terrorists activities, yes, they do have the capability to not only launch attacks on her neighbors but very probably on other countries as well. For that very reason alone, since noone else seems to want to do anything about it we should go in and kill him.

It could be done by assination, but lets face it, a good war is good for America... happens every time... economy improves, blah blah blah. Besides lets not kid ourselves, war is driven by Money. In this case it's oil, even if we don't need it now.

Is it political? You bet, it always is and the military is the means to an end.... everything else is just gravy

Personally, I think we should/should have made a parking lot out of iraq long ago. At the very least taken out SH when we had the chance, but, as always we never do things when we have the chance.

As far as President Bush not being a military man.... well, i'm thinkin' we ought to be glad he's not. Could be that because of that his decisions may be a little bit more sound. 'Course I could be wrong.
post #23 of 62
Originally posted by Imagyne
As far as President Bush not being a military man.... well, i'm thinkin' we ought to be glad he's not. Could be that because of that his decisions may be a little bit more sound. 'Course I could be wrong.
I find it interesting that the politicians who are pushing this war have never served in the military, whereas those who are trying to slow down and think rationally (e.g. Colin Powell) have long military careers. Hmmmmmm.....I wonder whether any of these men have sons who are of the right age to draft into service.

I can see it now... "Well, son, I know you are getting ready to die a horrific death in battle, but it was really important to me that Mitch McConnell from Kentucky was re-elected and he wouldn't have been without all of the war rhetoric. So, know that you will die for a good cause. I hope you don't suffer too much. Love ya' son."

I know that the economy will improve if we go to war, but I'd rather eat beans every day and live in a homeless shelter than have my nephew die in Iraq!
post #24 of 62
Saddam is definitely a threat, but the cost of an all-out war against him is in the billions. I agree with Hissy, I think special forces could take him out at a lesser financial and human cost. He does support terrorism and that is a problem.

But what about Saudi Arabia? How can it escape everyone's notice that so many Al-Quaeda members are Saudis, including bin Ladin himself? The Saudis have a terrible record as far as human rights, but we don't punish them like we do Cuba and China.

Regarding random searches of cars, the protection against search and seizure only applies to your house. The police are justified in pulling over and searching cars, from what I remember of Constitutional Law class. Not saying it's acceptable to those among us who are law-abiding, but it is allowed.
post #25 of 62
Brenda - I never studied law, so thanks for that info. You've piqued my curiousity and I'm going to have to dig now!

But Ken (Imagyne), should this war come at the cost of alienating our allies and operating outside of the U.N.? (Lotsocats point about "Rogue" nation status).

It could be done by assination, but lets face it, a good war is good for America... happens every time... economy improves, blah blah blah.
I do not agree. Was World War I a "good" war? If you invested in the stock market just prior to war in 1913, with market ups and downs, it would have taken until 1921 to earn your money back (based on the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, as are all references to stock market performance after this).

The stock market fell apart during the first three years of World War II. True, if you invested in the market when the U.S. entered the war in 1942 you would have almost doubled your money by 1945, but I don't know how to separate out the benefits of Roosevelt's "New Deal." On the other hand, if you invested in the market in 1944, it would have taken you until 1948 to earn your money back.

Was Vietnam a "good" war? If you invested in the stock market 1965 after troops landed, it took until 1967 to make your money back. And while the market generally rose through 1972, if you didn't pull your money out in 1972, it wasn't until 1975 that you were "whole" again on your 1965 investment.

I think that "war is good for the economy" is a misnomer. The market didn't like the prospect of war when we last went to Iraq. It was down in 1990 as we moved troops to Saudi Arabia. The market rose in 1991 and after because it was a short, quick war and we were in front of a massive global technology build out that lasted just over a decade.
post #26 of 62
Fact: Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac, in control of weapons of mass destruction, who has not and will not hesitate to use them.

Fact: He has scoffed and thumbed his nose at UN sanctions and weapons inspectors, for years.

Fact: The UN is a toothless, gutless bunch of hand-wringers. They want American money, technology and lifestyles but don't want to pay the price.

Fact: This is the richest, most powerful nation on Earth. It is time to say, "Enough!" and take out these terrorists once and for all. So what, if it p!&&*& off the UN. What are they going to do? Pass another toothless resolution?
post #27 of 62
This is not an easy matter to comment ... . However , in my opinion , a war is NEVER a solution ! Too many innoscent people get involved here .. . I think negotion is the only way to put an end to this ... ! I also think that it was a huge mistake the armies didn't get those nasty guys during the previous war ; they were so close !!
Now they have to start all over again . I am so horrified of all those countries getting involved in this ... !
PLEASE , NO WAR ..............
post #28 of 62
I am not for war, but at times it is the lesser of the two evils.
Peace at all costs, only works when all parties have the same view.
When you are faced with a threat like Suddam who is a known supporter of terror, I am afraid there is only one way out.
I really do not want to wait for the big Mushroom before we do something.
I guess it comes down to choices,remove the threat , yes there will be innocent deaths, or wait for him to remove us.
As a mother of three I hate the idea of asking other mothers to sacrifice their children to keep us safe, My son will be going as well if war breaks out.
But freedom is not free.
Tish +
post #29 of 62
Another thing that really scares me is when this happens, and I am so afraid it is so close to occurring-what happens in our country with all the terrorists "sleeper cells" we keep hearing about? What is to stop them from activating all at once and slaughtering thousands of innocent americans, who probably don't want a war in the first place? Until 9/11 I never even gave this a second thought- but now? Again, it is a decision none of us can stop because it is political in nature.
post #30 of 62
Personally, I don't think anyone here wants war in any way, shape or form. Even the most adamant, I'm sure, would prefer a peaceful solution.

Did anyone else catch Pres. Bush's speech last night? I thought it was a good speech, he said everything he was supposed to say. It seems he is at least going to let the UN try their thing one more time.

One thing I thought was interesting that he said in a different statement to the UN: "Are you going to be a League of Nations or the United Nations?" Ouch. (History refresher: The League of Nations was formed after WWI, but basically turned a blind eye toward Hitler even when he was building his army against the treaties and started invading "minor" (in their eyes) European countries.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Anyone up for a good debate??