The news about the attack on Iraq is probably not news to many of us here in the club.

However, I wanted to open up a topic about this just to talk and share opinions. Keep checking back and share links with each other as this event unfolds.

As of right now, the US remains poised for an attack as the 8pm ET (today) deadline approaches.

It appears that the US has support from many countries. But, it still appears that the UN is still not supporting this action.

Last night I caught part of the presentation given by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. While I sat and watched his strong presentation, a lot of the reasoning behind the attack began to make sense.

There are various opinions about the subject and I would like to open a discussion about it.

I realize that many people will have different opinions on this matter. Please understand that your opinion is welcome and I will do what I can to minimize flame wars. And, if you are strong about a certain position on this matter, please don't flame those who might disagree.

Let's share with each other (links, ideas, etc) and keep talking about it as the event unfolds. All members are encouraged to participate and especially those from outside the US.

We are a global group with many different cultures and races. Keep this in mind when posting your comments. Thanks everyone. Let's talk!!

This "war" is not just about oil. It's about a military (?) dictator that has raped and pillaged an entire country for his personal profit while at the same time using biological weapons and the "time honored tradition" of putting people in front of a firing squad simply because they disagree with his ideals.

Yes, the whole world will benefit with a more democratic political system in place in Iraq. Not only will it help to diffuse a lot of tension in the region as a whole, but it will bring about many changes in policies regarding trade in and out of the country. Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world, yet to look at the people, you would think they are living in poverty as many possibly are. Hussein has plundered the entire countries economy to build how many palaces, 12, 15? He built up a large military that was almost as well equipped as many of our allies. The US has seized assets of Iraq, where or how they were hidden is yet to be determined in the amount of 1.4 billion dollars, yet he claims his people are starving because of the sanctions the UN put in place after his refusal to honor the UN resolutions after the Gulf war. He and his military seem to be eating quite well, even if it is "chicken"....

I saw on TV people in Iraq tearing his posters off the sides of buildings alongside the US military, so how can anyone really justify saying it is only in the US's interest to get his regime out of Iraq. Seems to me he has as many enemies inside Iraq as he does around the world. The people of Iraq should be living pretty well, like the people of Kuwait, if they were allowed to trade with the rest of the world, instead of all the profits from the oil sales of their country going into Hussein's pockets. If he and his cronies were so concerned about his people, why did he invade Kuwait and try to set all their oil wells on fire? Could it be he wants to be the only one in the region with money to buy up anything and everything he wants?

Oil is one of the evils of the region, they have it, and the whole world needs it. Not just the US, but every country in the world will benefit with stable oil prices if the government of Iraq is someone that will see the benefits of using their countries assets for something other than building palaces and starving their people.

BTW, has anyone noticed, that as of last nights news boradcast, that since the "war" started, the price of a barrel of oil has now dropped 14 dollars from what it was last month? Has anyone noticed that gas prices are still at the same level as last month or higher in some cases? OPEC has increased production, yet our own gas companies are still shafting us on prices.

When I think about it, Hussein and his regime have only one thing that sets them apart from Enron, Enron executives never pulled the trigger...But they sure ruined a lot of people lives with their raping a company of millions, while Hussein has raped a country of billions........

Originally posted by livenbad

Bambikiller 240: since you think I am "insane" there is no point in trying to reason with you...however...you made my point...They ARE watching CNN..as was reported after last Gulf War. I should have said "may get people killed" rather than "is getting...". Sorry, but I don't think it's a good thing to boo the home team.:stupid:

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said it is insane to say that. Meaning it is an insane statement. I have no doubt that you are well-meaning in your criticism of the protesters. I just feel that you are wrong. AND that you are forgetting that our form of government gives people the right to express opposing views. Those rights do end when the destruction and civil disobedience begin, but the right to speak out is PROTECTED.

Right about now, the majority of Iraqi soldiers who haven't surrendered are a little too busy ducking bombs, and tending to wounded to watch TV. If they were able to view the events here, it would be small consolation to them as they experience the full force of the events unfolding around them.

Oh yeah, one other thing, about protesters. If you want people to see your point of view on any subject, the worst thing you can do is to wizz the people off you are trying to convince to see your side of the issue.

note Palistenian conflict.

BambiKiller, you being so much for the free speech of the protesters should have no problem with what I said in regards to you. Oh yeah, I plan on still reading the book.

I believe that the war protesters are expressing their opinion, just like the rest of us (excluding the ones that are doing damage to property). To say that they are "getting people killed". is completely insane. Tell me how anyone is "being killed" by those protests, and don't say that they are "encouraging the Iraqi army". The Iraqi army isn't even aware of what is going on in their own country let alone the rest of the world at this time.

The fact that US troops may think that the country is not behind them, due to these people, can lowwer their moral. A soldier with low moral will not fight as effectivly. This lack of proformence can result in the death of the soldier or some of his comrades.

2ManyZs:

Unless we insist on a democracy, what makes you think the people of Iraq will want one? Don't they have the right to choose their form of government?

How would dropping a democracy into the middle of the Iraq "stabilize the region. I don't see that as even a remote possibility. A democracy will be seen as a "puppet" of the USA and will only survive as long as we continue to wizz billions of dollars into the country, and that will only happen if we are getting something in return. Guess what that will be??? Can you say OIL!!!!

I certainly don't dispute that Saddam has been bad for the country of Iraq, but it is the businees of their citizens to choose their form of government AND to do what is necessary to establish it. Why in God's name should American blood be spilled for this purpose? Can you say OIL!!! Bush, and Rumsfeld sure as heck can, they are already gloating about how the oil terminals are secure and that only a few wells have been set ablaze. They are telling us all in no uncertain terms what is important to them.

Though I think your statement about Saddam, and Enron is a *bit* over the top, I do agree that they are both motivated by the same desires.....Greed. Do you know whose cronies ran Enron, and who's pals run the oil companies in the US??? Yep, it's Bush's.

It really shouldn't be any of our business what Saddam does or did with the money. That is the business of his subjects, or former subjects.

LBJ's old statement that "Inside every Viet Nam'ese is an American trying to get out." Was B.S. and WRONG. That idea doesn't hold water in these modern time either.

Originally posted by Stryder

note Palistenian conflict.

BambiKiller, you being so much for the free speech of the protesters should have no problem with what I said in regards to you. Oh yeah, I plan on still reading the book.

The fact that US troops may think that the country is not behind them, due to these people, can lowwer their moral. A soldier with low moral will not fight as effectivly. This lack of proformence can result in the death of the soldier or some of his comrades.

Stryder:

I certainly have no problem with anything you or anyone says about me. I'm completely secure in my beliefs, otherwise I would not be putting them out here for the world to see.

Just to set the record straight, I am for the free speach right of EVERYONE in the USA!

As for your other statement about the fact that the protesters are causing lack of morale to an extent that it endangers the soldiers, well if that is all it takes, THEY ARE NOT TRAINED WELL ENOUGH. Having been in the military, I can assure you that things like this do not even enter into the mind of soldiers when the are doing their job. They are fully and competently trained to focus their minds on the job at hand and to execute their orders to the best of their ability. Hopefully, someday you will be able to talk to your father about that one, I'm sure he can give you some insight on the mindset of a soldier.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's, people critcized the anti-war protesters too. They said, Don't wizz people off if you are trying to influence them to see your side. In a few short years (not so short for the soldiers doing the fighting) they influenced enough people throughout the country and the government to cause the US to end it's involvment in a war that had become extremely unpopular. The will of the government and the country CAN be changed.

In case you haven't noticed, the Palestinians have effected great changes over the past few years in the way Isreal operates internally.

And NO, I do not want to discuss whether that is a good thing or a bad thing! That would be a separate thread, that Mike probably wouldn't want to open. ( I do support Isreal, mostly)

Well said Carl, the people of any country should have the right to choose their form of government. Imagine, again, if another country invaded the U.S. and tried to shove it's form of government down our throats, would'nt fly to well eh?

Uh, if you read my post I said a more democratic system, I never said a democracy...anything is better than a dictator that uses chemical and biological weapons against his own people....

Originally posted by 2ManyZs

Uh, if you read my post I said a more democratic system, I never said a democracy...anything is better than a dictator that uses chemical and biological weapons against his own people....

Keith:

I agree that for the people of Iraq, a more democratic form of gvernment might be better from OUR standpoint, I'm not convinced that they feel the same way. Are we going to force them to accept what we feel they sould have for a governemnt?? I hope not.

Anyway it still isn't any of OUR business what they do with their country. They should decide, not us.

That is pretty much the whole reason we are there isn't it? To oust Sadam and his inner circle so the people of Iraq can run their own country without the influence of the current regime that has oppressed their freedom of choice. True it might end up backfiring on us like it did in Iran, but at least the people will then have the freedom to choose their own destiny, which they haven't had since Sadam came to power.

I was watching the local news and they had a Kurd who fled the country after the Gulf war and settled in DC. Her parents and family were still in Iraq, and were afraid to drink the water as they were expecting Sadam's cohorts to poison the water supply.... Her brothers were forced to join his army in 91, and the first thing they did was to surrender to the Allied forces because all they want is for Sadam to get out...

I believe you'll see the UN step in as soon as Sadam is out, and they will not let anyone influence the Iraqi's right to choose for themselves, after all, that is what the UN has been trying to do since the Gulf War....they just mistakenly thought they could do it diplomatically, which with a dictator is never going to work...

Originally posted by 2ManyZs

That is pretty much the whole reason we are there isn't it? To oust Sadam and his inner circle so the people of Iraq can run their own country without the influence of the current regime that has oppressed their freedom of choice. True it might end up backfiring on us like it did in Iran, but at least the people will then have the freedom to choose their own destiny, which they haven't had since Sadam came to power.

The citizens of any country will not value the government that rules them if they do not have a stake in establishing it. Harsh at it may sound, that often means shedding ones OWN blood to rise from oppression and better the country.

Once again, It is NOT our business to be doing this for them. In the long run we are not doing them a service. Viet Nam should have taught us this lesson, but the leaders of our country have had their vision blurred by a thin film of OIL!!!!!!!

Yes, violent peace protests is kind of incongruous, but most of the protests in the US have been peaceful as far as I have seen. Whoever vandalises property should be prosecuted and given some time in jail. What is the point of supposedly going to war for our freedom(one of the many reasons put forward for justifying the war) if you don't want these people to have the freedom to express their opinions? As for using them as human shields, I think it would be much nicer to have all of the politicians(and anyone else) who were and are so gung ho about this war sent to Baghdad as infantry to root out the Republican Guard. It's only fair that the people who are most righteous about this war should be the first to die in it. This of course would include Bush and all his advisors. Maybe they should take their family members with them so they can watch them die first hand like the Iraqi civilians will get to see their non combatant family members die. Would have been much more efficient and "humane" to develop asassin squads to take care of these dictators as the US has done before in Latin and South America. If you are determined to kill people, at least kill the specific people that are your true enemies, not the majority of the population that wants to live their lives and watch their kids grow up, just like the rest of us. It will be great to have this freak Sadaam and his vicious sons gone, both for the Iraqis and the rest of the world, but was war the best way to be rid of them? I agree that equating peace protests with increased casualties is absurd and does little to further this debate(like my wanting the politicians to go fight). Keep it semi friendly here.

Let's just put Saddam and George W into a boxing (or wrestling) ring, let them fight, and MAKE MONEY via pay-per-view.

Somehow we need to figure out how to keep Saddam from biting off George's ear. :tapemouth