Poll: Invade Iraq? Y/N

[MTAtech]

President Bush obviously wants to invade Iraq, based upon his statements. The Congress and Senate are leaning that way many because they don't want to oppose a popular prez.

They way I see it:

The President says that he believes Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped before it does so.

The oppositions says that there is no more evidence that Iraq is developing these weapons or are close to doing so. Also, if the Pres. has proof he should make it public.

What does the public think?

Vote yes if you think the U.S. should soon invade Iraq with or without U.N. approval. Vote No if you think there should not be an invasion or not in the near future.

[caddmannq]

I'm starting to think that Bush is pressing all this just to take the public focus off the lousy economy. IMHO, he only half intends a war, knowing that he can let the UN talk him out of it and still save face with the hawks. When he backs out, his standing with the doves will improve too.

In the meantime, all this war talk is distracting the country from the mega-bux corporate scandals that the administration never prevented, and the flailing stock market that they can't fix.

As for the invasion: yes...we should have done it years ago.

[ClubMed]

chicken

I vote an unconditional Yes.

It would be better with UN approval so the global community could help in the efforts but if not then this is the price the US will have to pay to get rid of this Mad Evil Dictator.

Incidentally, if you look at history, war has been good to this country economically and stock markets always go up in a war situation.

[MTAtech]

shahani,

Aren't there a lot of other dictators in the world? Many of them we support. I think the operative question is he a threat now?

Also, the U.S. is making a big point about weapons of mass dest. However, isn't it somewhat hypocritical for the U.S., the #1 owner of nuclear weapons to dictate to other countries that they can't have them? I'm trying to look at it from the view of a small country that sees the U.S. easily defeat Iraq in 1991 and beat Afgahnistan last year and say to itself "the only way we can protect ourselves from a U.S. president that wants a jump in the public opinion polls is to develop nuclear weapons."

Are you saying we should kill people because it will make our 401K plans richer?

We have discussed these things many times in the past on this forum.

Most countries would agree on the hypocritical attitude issue. The US has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined. This is my opinion. Yet, the US is the most strident voice against any Third World country acquiring nukes. My response is :"Its not a fair world".

What else can you say?

So, if the US takes it upon itself to preempt Saddam Hussain alone without the endorsement of the global community, well thats that. I'm sure the President has considered all eventualities including huge financial and human losses and the fact that the war may continue for a long time and may not be a walkover.

But in their infinite wisdom, if the Administration wants to go ahead, who are we to argue? Haven't you heard Ari Fleischer's briefings?

The US is involved in many conflicts all over the world, most with loss of US life. This'll be another one, hopefully with minimal casualties on both sides and eventual removal of Saddam Hussain and his goons.

But, this is a sacrifice the US will have to make now. In my opinion, GWB has taken an irreversible stand and left no back door open. He's in a corner and war is the only way out.

EDIT: About the dictators/bad guys the US supports/has supported inthe past (including Osama Bin Ladin), well, politics and big business are similiar in one way: No one's your friend or your enemy.

Permanently.

When it suits the US it sides with those forces which eventually become turncoats (for want of a better expression).

[osprey4]

Quote:

Originally posted by ClubMed
Is Iraq (Saddam) a problem?: Yes.
Does it need to be solved?: Yes.
Is war the answer?: No.

So how else do you solve the problem? I'm not saying it has to be full-scale war, but Saddam has been draining his country's resources to murder people for years. Do we think UN Negotiators can change this guy?

[Epidemic]

The only way to improve the economy through war is to be involved in a multi year tremendeous war. Little piss ant conflicts just drain the economy.


MTATech,

Lets go hypothetical. Would you think it a good idea for papa doc from Haiti to have nukes. Maybe if Osama ever took power in afghanastan we should allow him to develope nukes.

Perhaps to even out the world we should give every country including pakistan the ability to create nuclear fushion and biological weapons.


IMO some countries are more stable then others. To give nukes to tyranical dictatorships is not a good idea. It is the determination of one man with absolute power who controls the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

At least with the us there are some checks and balances.

If you have a religious country in control of nukes, you will see them used.

Yeah, I agree on the ant piss concept.

[nomaxim]

Quote:

Originally posted by Epidemic

If you have a religious country in control of nukes, you will see them used.

Does that inclued the Pope????

And I leave you with that, It's my bedtime.

EDIT: I voted yes. Take that Saddam!