-
Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!
Poll: When will U.S. Invade Iraq?
- Thread starter OTIS
- Start date
Subsonic Chronic
TRIBE Member
According to an article released a couple of days ago, Bush has put off an invasion of Iraq at least until next year.
And you know that until then they'll just be reaching for any excuse possible, just like they've been doing since Sept 11th. At first they tried to prove links between the Al-Queda terrorists and Iraq, and they couldn't do that.
Then when Anthrax was turning up everywhere, the finger of blame was squarely pointed at Saddam. Too bad it ended up being U.S. made anthrax.
They keep throwing around baseless accusations withnothing to back them up.
Saddam isn't exactly a model citizen, but the U.S. has no place just going in and killing people for oil and revenge.
Pete
And you know that until then they'll just be reaching for any excuse possible, just like they've been doing since Sept 11th. At first they tried to prove links between the Al-Queda terrorists and Iraq, and they couldn't do that.
Then when Anthrax was turning up everywhere, the finger of blame was squarely pointed at Saddam. Too bad it ended up being U.S. made anthrax.
They keep throwing around baseless accusations withnothing to back them up.
Saddam isn't exactly a model citizen, but the U.S. has no place just going in and killing people for oil and revenge.
Pete
One thing I'm glad of tho,
Canada has it's head on it's shoulders in this issue..
Quoted from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1821000/1821505.stm
Mr Powell met with Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham who struck a note of caution:
"Nobody is supporting Saddam Hussein, but everyone recognises in international politics you have to have a process where, before you invade a sovereign country, there has to be a reason for it, or we are going to lead to international chaos," Mr Graham said.
Mr Graham said Canada did not yet believe there was a "clear and present danger" from Iraq.
Canada has it's head on it's shoulders in this issue..
Quoted from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1821000/1821505.stm
Mr Powell met with Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham who struck a note of caution:
"Nobody is supporting Saddam Hussein, but everyone recognises in international politics you have to have a process where, before you invade a sovereign country, there has to be a reason for it, or we are going to lead to international chaos," Mr Graham said.
Mr Graham said Canada did not yet believe there was a "clear and present danger" from Iraq.
Bush is up for re-election in two years, his only real support has been because of the whole 9/11 issue... he waits a year to attack iraq and try to get his public approval rating back thru the roof just in time for the elections. thats what i'm guessing he'll try and do, unfortunately......
Good point...
Here is an interesting Poll asking:
Is military action against Iraq justified? Does it have international support? What should the world do about Iraq?
I can't wait until someone strikes back at the US
Yes ... you read that right
I want to see an other attack on the US like the one on 9/11
Why you ask ...
Because I'd love to see who the US government/media plays it out
Once again they will probablly refer to it as an attack against democracy
And say it there was no pre-cursor for it
If I hear that again ... I will laugh
Saying this is probalablly going to make me very unpopular ... one sec I'm a Piston's fan in TO so I'm already there
But the US government deserves to have all their buildings blown to shit ... for the years of oppression which it was caused around the world ... and for being such a blatant hypocrit
I just wish I could relay a message to whoever is going to strike back that they shoud start in Texas and Florida
stu
Yes ... you read that right
I want to see an other attack on the US like the one on 9/11
Why you ask ...
Because I'd love to see who the US government/media plays it out
Once again they will probablly refer to it as an attack against democracy
And say it there was no pre-cursor for it
If I hear that again ... I will laugh
Saying this is probalablly going to make me very unpopular ... one sec I'm a Piston's fan in TO so I'm already there
But the US government deserves to have all their buildings blown to shit ... for the years of oppression which it was caused around the world ... and for being such a blatant hypocrit
I just wish I could relay a message to whoever is going to strike back that they shoud start in Texas and Florida
stu
My god, the bloddy arrogance:
Jay Farrar, a former senior Defense Department official who is now director of special projects at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a centrist Washington think tank, said that most observers believe that the current Bush administration would hold off attacking Iraq for at least several months. He cited as reasons the sporadic fighting in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian battles.
But he said late last week that this thinking no longer may be true. ''I think it's very much a possibility sooner rather than later,'' Farrar said. ''There are a number of reasons, some of which are rooted in what I would say is hard fact: Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and he and his people are building bad things. A lot of this is rooted as well in wanting to go in and clean up a mess that wasn't cleaned up 11 years ago in the Gulf War.''
The thinking among senior Defense Department officials, Farrar said, was that if the United States ''was firm, tough, acted with resolve, especially in that area of the world, the rest of the world will come along and respect us for our toughness and won't mess with us.''
..and this regarding Saudi Arabia's support of the U.S. in an invasion of Iraq:
''They are not supportive at all'' of action against Iraq ''because of what's going on between the Israelis and Palestinians,'' the Defense Department official said. ''But when push comes to shove, they will not dare to refuse us what we need.
Jay Farrar, a former senior Defense Department official who is now director of special projects at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a centrist Washington think tank, said that most observers believe that the current Bush administration would hold off attacking Iraq for at least several months. He cited as reasons the sporadic fighting in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian battles.
But he said late last week that this thinking no longer may be true. ''I think it's very much a possibility sooner rather than later,'' Farrar said. ''There are a number of reasons, some of which are rooted in what I would say is hard fact: Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and he and his people are building bad things. A lot of this is rooted as well in wanting to go in and clean up a mess that wasn't cleaned up 11 years ago in the Gulf War.''
The thinking among senior Defense Department officials, Farrar said, was that if the United States ''was firm, tough, acted with resolve, especially in that area of the world, the rest of the world will come along and respect us for our toughness and won't mess with us.''
..and this regarding Saudi Arabia's support of the U.S. in an invasion of Iraq:
''They are not supportive at all'' of action against Iraq ''because of what's going on between the Israelis and Palestinians,'' the Defense Department official said. ''But when push comes to shove, they will not dare to refuse us what we need.
Subsonic Chronic
TRIBE Member
If the U.S. can justify invading Iraq because Saddam is a bad guy, then almost any other nation could justify an attack on the U.S. with the same excuse.
Let's not forget that the U.S. has on several occasions ousted democratically elected leaders of countries in exchange for dictators that tow the American line. They killed some 5,000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan and refuse to accept responsibility for it. They are breaking their own constitution in their own country in the ways that they have restricted "freedom" since Sept 11th, and the list goes on.
It's too hypocritical for the U.S. to attack another nation based on its track record when there's is far from spotless, and when it's plainly evident that this is more about controlling the world's dwindling oil supply to feed America's thirst than anything else.
If he wanted to decrease U.S. dependancy on foreign oil like he says he does so often, a good place to start would be reducing the amount consumed through tougher fuel emission standards and such.
But then what would his friends in the oil industry think...
Pete
Let's not forget that the U.S. has on several occasions ousted democratically elected leaders of countries in exchange for dictators that tow the American line. They killed some 5,000 innocent civilians in Afghanistan and refuse to accept responsibility for it. They are breaking their own constitution in their own country in the ways that they have restricted "freedom" since Sept 11th, and the list goes on.
It's too hypocritical for the U.S. to attack another nation based on its track record when there's is far from spotless, and when it's plainly evident that this is more about controlling the world's dwindling oil supply to feed America's thirst than anything else.
If he wanted to decrease U.S. dependancy on foreign oil like he says he does so often, a good place to start would be reducing the amount consumed through tougher fuel emission standards and such.
But then what would his friends in the oil industry think...
Pete
Subsonic Chronic
TRIBE Member
Yikes!!!
As much as I'd really like to see people like Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft put in their place, the death of innocent people is never acceptable.
And the fallout from another attack would far outweigh any benefits that would come with it (if any?).
Think about it. Bush's popularity would skyrocket again. Civil liberties would be forfeited in the name of "freedom" much as they have been since Sept 11th. Even more money would be put into America's imperialist war machine and more innocent people in foreign nations would feel the brunt of it. Not to mention the hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives ruined from the initial attack.
Pete
At times?Originally posted by bucky
ouch... thats just completely wrong. yes, the US government sucks at times, well most of the time, but to wish death upon thousands of innocent civilians again...
thanks for wishing my death because my government sucks at times.....
Read into some US history and you'll see exactly where I'm coming from
Start with the Phillipines War in1901 ... and then read about every war or "conflict" that the US have been involved in
Then you might start to see why I feel the way I feel
The US government have "sucked" for a long time
And it's about time someone wakes them up and makes them realize that they don't own the world
stu
I love the fact that the US government has been killing innocent people in forgein countries since they became a nation ... and it's always been in the name of freedom and democracy
But as soon as another country does the same ... oh my god!
It's terrorism
I seriously hope that Canadians don't buy into the US propoganda bullshit
stu
But as soon as another country does the same ... oh my god!
It's terrorism
I seriously hope that Canadians don't buy into the US propoganda bullshit
stu
Right on! Like that time back in the mid-1940s when the United States stuck its nose into a conflict half way around the world, and started killing innocent Germans. They had NO RIGHT to remove a democratically elected leader, Adolf Hitler, just to further their own selfish goals.
Your attempt at sarcasm just shows how ignorant you really areOriginally posted by AdRiaN
Right on! Like that time back in the mid-1940s when the United States stuck its nose into a conflict half way around the world, and started killing innocent Germans. They had NO RIGHT to remove a democratically elected leader, Adolf Hitler, just to further their own selfish goals.
stu
Oh, I'm sorry. I'll try to make more "educated" comments in the future, like advocating the death of thousands of innocent American civilians through another terrorist attack.
Besides, I wasn't being entirely sarcastic. If you want to talk about history, then you should realize that American military action during the 1940s helped secure and maintain the very rights of free speech you're enjoying right now by posting on a public message board.