An Honorable Republican

Our last hit (but not the first) brings down two scyscrapers and a few other associated buildings, a few planeloads of people, and the rath of an angry people upon whoever did it.

Irrationality is believing it will go away without being destroyed, irrationality is acting in such a manner when the mindset of your enemy is that such behavior is cowardly and invites more attacks.

Irrationality is thinking that the "Bush Crime Family" put McCain in a bamboo box as the Bush's don't have that much power as a family, and to think that is the extent of the reason for the Vietnam scene.
Bush 41's job in Vietnam, as a CIA agent, was to insure the conflict did not interfere with the heroin pipeline. Dear ol' Pappa Bush was (and is) only a cog in a much larger piece of machinery.

It'd be nice if Hussein would allow inspectors to go to the schools and hospitals where labs are hidden, and would take them to the desert hideaways where one would find the weapons and the delivery systems. He won't though. Howl loudly about that, howl about the fact that he has interfered with everything the "United Nations" has tried to do in disarming him, and howl about the fact that while his people suffer, he and his military are doing just fine.
We cannot afford to go to war; it costs alot of $$$, but inthe long run, we can't afford the price of sticking our heads in the sand.

Originally posted by Bout Time
- Arizona Senator John McCain, hopefully, not the last honorable Republican to break ranks from Bush the Usurper.

He's been breking ranks with Bush for two years. But he is also a strong supporter of dealing with people like Saddam with action. Comming from a man who knows the price of war, the call to fight Saddam is even more complelling.

I meant two seperate things: the Bush Crime Family screwed McCain politically, and the VC screwed him physically...I wasn't connecting the two.
I never said I wasn't for his removal; I am of the mindset that proof of pending agression toward the US or our allies should be established first, not the style from the outset of this war drum dance, which was " we'll fight Saddam 'cause Georgie said so".
And truth be told, the war has already started. We've got 40% of the country locked down for some time now. Everyone I know in the military is on call or in transit to someplace over there. You and I both know that all it will take to make it 'official' is some guard to be on a toilet break, not be there to unlock the door in time, and certain US planted 'inspectors' will be shouting "Fettered Access! Fettered Access!"

Sorry, Bout Time, I just took a loose opportunity to reiterate Bush 41's duty in Vietnam so that folks don't forget that this grandfatherly figure really is.
While I do not like McCain's left-leaning positions on several things, I do think he is a more honorable man than Bush 41.

McCain didn't have that chance you think; it was a media-driven deal. They liked him and gave him plenty of air time and always made it sound like his chance was bigger than it ever truly was. If the Bush's had that kind of power, '41 would have made another four. While the economy would be in a little better shape than it is now, he would have done the same executive order/U.N. agreement signings that Bubba did as they both worship at the same alter.

Hussein, by the way, has not agreed to unfettered access, he has agreed to unconditional access to the areas he says we can look. In other words, smoke and mirrirs and a reason for France and Russia to not have to agree to waxing his murderous butt. The Evening Standard of London covered the information yesterday. As usual, U.S. media is behind on information.
Remember, it is not at all advantageous for us to have to go to war. Darn, I'd like to see my tax dollars spent on these stinking roads (pardon the voice raising, I have issues!) instead of some other bull crap brought on by some madman in the desert with nasty germs in a jar and a desire to use them.

TC, where is the evidence that Saddam wants to use WMD on the US? now, as a deterant, yes i agree if he has these weapons he can use them as leverage, but i'm not sure i agree that he wants to war with the US with or without WMD...please explain.

The intelligence community (other nations, our capability to gather intel was destroyed by the previous administration) has been saying this for a while. Speaking of not listening to the warnings, but I'm not going to blame you for the next attack.
Hussein has been calling for a war against us for many years now, this is not news. He has been sponsoring terror while his own citizenry suffer. I couldn't even begin to remember where to dig it up.
What would be his motive for wanting to inflict pain and suffering on us? Especially while a Bush is in the oval? Gee, I dunno. Could it be that he was set up for a butt-kicking 12 years or so ago? Could it be that Bush '41 led him to believe we couldn't care less if he attacked his neighbor, and then we hit the desert in record time when he did attack? Come on, Saphie, I'm a peace-loving guy, but even I would hold a grudge over that one, and I'm not even a deranged, psychotic madman despot!

Thats all very gung-ho this "blood of the patriots" rhetoric Thomas but don't you think that maybe, if americas saying "we should get Saddam" and practically every other country in the world is saying "NO! its wrong and its stupid" then maybe, just maybe, the collective minds and conciences of all those countrys slightly outways Bush's desire to finish daddy's little war?

I think you've got it wrong this time, the whole of the UN thinks you've got it wrong, so does china, russia, the middle east, even britain your strongest ally is saying "hang on, lets think about this"

maybe its time the U.S. stopped shouting "blood blood blood" and listened to us.

we have intelligence too, in fact given our collective resources then combined we're probably far more up to date with whats going on in Iraq than the U.S.

Swallow your pride and just admit you have probably got it wrong this time.

that way no ones blood gets spilt, U.S. U.K. or Iraqi.

Look at the U.N. How many countries represented by the U.N. are run by dictators? Most have a dislike for America, all they want is to siphon off U.S. wealth.
Why would America take seriously Russian dissent? Russia does business with Iraq; they want to get money owed them from Iraq.
China opposes any act by America, China is afraid of any U.S. hegemony because it wants to assert its own and weaken us. Any thorn we suffer is good to them.
You seem to be missing a point, Lupe. The blood has already been drawn. It has been drawn numerous times and in numerous places. A cowardly desire for non-aggression is not a desire for peace.
I don't think the prez is to awfully concerned about the opinions of others since the others didn't recently have the damage inflicted, and the others aren't the ones who'll be expected to lead the way with the assets and personnel that we will when Hussein is not only threatening the region again but armed with extremely deadly weapons.

No pride involved with this, just an understanding of the enemy and a desire to killthe rattler on the porch before it gets in the house.

[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

I see time and time again mention of 9/11 in threads about Saddam.

There is no connection

There is no proof.I doubt there will be.
It is easy for the lines between these two different issues to be blurred.
The US and UK govs are quite happy for there to be blurring they can then harness the outrage that people felt to prosecute this new war against Iraq.