Hey I got an idea, lets switch sides. In a good debate, it you have an opinion, you should also understand why someone would have a differing opinion.

Is there anyone who is on one side of thise willing to speak for the other side as to why the war or the US is good or bad?


Maybe this will help with the understanding of what is going on.

_______________________________
World politics is not easy. There are and will be interests other than what appears. I don't agree with Bush or with his tactics. Nevertheless, I have yet to here anything that says that Saddam has disarmed.

"Give him 30 more days." That's fine with me, but what happens when those 30 days are up? Maybe after those 30 days, we will give him 30 - 30 more days, but what happends after that?

"America is only interested in oil."
Just oil? Not just from Iraq I hope because it is not worth it. We would spend more than the oil they have just fighting the war. I guess Iraq could become a launch pad for 'conquering' other oil rich places. The cost for doing so? More money than most of the oil in the region. Good investment? .


Why is the USA friends with China? They do the same thing as Iraq... Iraq has oil to fund its weapons production, China has a struggleing economy. The chinese soldier is more loyal as well as the population. I doubt they would sell weapons to those who would later use them against themselves.


It is not just about this country does the same thing or hey you have them too... it is about location, location, location, economy, additudes, stability, population comfort level (food, shelter, education, jobs)

When you include all of those factors who is more dangerous? Iraq or Argentina? Iran or Canada? North Korea or China? Serbia or Seria? Libia or France?


Is Saddam in breach of the agreement???

Does he have loads of money???

How loyal is his army???

Population comfort level???

How many resolutions for disarmerment????

How many years under said resolutions???????

Is Saddam or is Saddam trust worthy when it comes to disarmermant?

Has the inspectors in any way saySaddam has disarmed or is co-operating fully with them?

Is Iraq a place to live?
Would you want your daughter or son to live there? Why?

_____________________________

Yes I lnow... I posted this before....

Right. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Which means "I think they should go to jail" is not an option.

BTW, about the poll: it's not "the coalition", it's the US and Britain, and a little Australia. The other countries barely count so much they are small, poor and depend on the US for financial help.

I'm puzzle by this need for Bush to have a "coalition". Because he couldn't get the UN approval he thinks he can form his own private little UN?

DavidK - 621 was pithy, i agree with Jafo. unfortunately, it contains a litany of accusations with zero proof. and if you posted a link for every one of them, investigation would show that many lack hard proof and have dubious sources in some cases. write a book about it, include documentary proof that would suffice in a legal court, and i'll buy the first copy of the book. there are many others around who would also buy a copy.

Next Topic: Abortion.

ohhhhh Lawd!!! did he say abortion?????

don't get me started!!!

joetheblow is ready to go if called.

Hehehe! Who do you want to abort?
How about a retoactive abortion on Saddam's mother?

BTW, just for information purposes, here are the known countries that Bush considers part of the "coalition", and how they will participate. Notice that how a lot of those countries are either: very small and poor and rely on American financial support or are trying to get into NATO and need US support for that.

Afghanistan - may allow coalition forces to use its airspace.
Albania - offered 70 soldiers for non-combat roles.
Australia - committed 2,000 troops, planes and ships.
Britain - committed 45,000 troops, planes, tanks and ships.
Czech Republic and Slovakia - offered 360 soldiers to help in case of chemical or biological attack.
Denmark - offered to send military personnel.
Hungary - hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are training for possible postwar administrative roles.
Italy - offered use of military bases.
Japan - offered assistance with postwar reconstruction and peacekeeping.
Latvia - waiting for parliamentary approval to deploy a few troops.
Poland - offered troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - offered use of its airspace and committed more than 200 non-combat experts.
Spain - allowed Washington to use two of its military bases and offered various combat jets.
Turkey - prepared to open its airspace for U.S. warplanes but will not allow them to access to air bases.

Other supporting countries (the nature of their help isn't specified - none is my guess)
Azerbaijan
Colombia
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Iceland
Korea
Lithuania
Macedonia
the Netherlands
Nicaragua
the Philippines
Uzbekistan

"Behind-the-scenes" countries
Bahrain - sent a frigate and troops on Gulf Co-operation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.
Belgium - allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.
Bulgaria - approved U.S. use of military airport and airspace, dispatching 150-member Bulgarian non-combat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops.
Croatia - allowing refuelling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
Egypt - keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to Gulf.
France - allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations, but no direct participation.
Germany - ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany.

Dave: be serious, you sound like you are wearing an aluminum foil hat.


I would have loved to hear your opinion on attacking Al Queda *before* 9/11.

"Hey Dave! Whataya think about the US riding into Afghanistan and enacting regime change? Heck, they might attack us someday!"

Can you imagine the statistics I would have had thrown at me? How small and outdated their military is, how far away they are, how we pumped them full of money... Who'd a thunk that 20 guys and a few box-cutters would do the trick? Saddam, on the other hand is no big woop. He is halfway across the world from the US and has an really old military and... oh, wait...


Would doing nothing then have been more effective than doing nothing now? How far back would the inaction have to go to be really effective?

People always have to die to make people pissy enough to act. Sadly, it seems that it has to be more and more people closer and closer to home. The Iraqi people don't seem to be close enough to any major Judeo-Christian nation to warrant action.


****

As for colonization, you're cracked. If we decided to farm Iraq for oil, the rest of the middle eastern oil producers would flood the market with it, drop it to 10 bucks a barrel ruin everyone but themselves. france's petty aspirations in oil and arms sales are a flea circus, and Iraq has just enough to keep a flea circus fat and happy. Unfortunately, the french business model relies on an evil dictator starving his people and threatening the world...

Bakerstreet: "Unfortunately, the french business model relies on an evil dictator starving his people and threatening the world... "

You're joking, right? Cause that's pretty much the model for all the western civilisation, starting with the US.

I'm back people!!!

>Yeah, scud missiles which he's not supposed to have...so much for weapons inspections

Nop, everybody knew they have it, justbecause the are short-medium range missiles and the have the right to have them.

>FB: Alo, shouldn't you be protesting
>YOUR government. Spain is allied
>with the US in this matter. At least
>our government is carrying out the
>popular will of its people.

I protest my goverment because it is not doing what i voted it to do!. I'm not the only one who thinks it,like more than 10 million people over here (and we are 40 million).

>Hum, didn't you read the news? The
>Spain government had to back out.
>Although it supported the US prior
>to the war, they decided against
>helping the US militarely.

we give US support, not military help.Our goverment never said it was deploying troops there.

>Alo is spending all this energy
>worrying about the US. Apparently
>their democracy over there in Spain
>has some serious problems.

You have taken the words right out of my mouth.

>We are stopping Adof Hitler now, not
>after he starts WW3.

Do you really think that???, was irak invading any other country right now?, was irak growing it military forces? NO. so dont thing that, its silly.

>Spain - allowed Washington to use
>two of its military bases and
>offered various combat jets.

Spain has NEVER offered 6 comat jets to US, we "need to protect our allies as we signed NATO staff" and france, germany, Britain, Italy and all other NATO allies will send forces to protect out allies in case of military action against one of it. The allie in question: Turkey.

joetheblow -> We have read your staff more than 5 times, please don't repeat what yau have already posted. It's repetitive.

I never agreed with Bush about the cololition of the willing being multilateral (in dictionary definition it is). As far as I see it is nothing like the Gulf War and the countries involved seem to need something from the US in one way or another.

I think that is why so many debate this action as unilateral. Also many say its is unilateral because if the US did not say anything or do anything then there would be nothing happening.


Then all my previous questions would have to be answered in one way or another.

joetheblow still waits for someone to come up with some kind os solution to this issue and the questions posed.