Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. The sunn still shines online!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

Re: Iraq War Perspective

5/7/2004 5:38 PM
anonymous Re: Iraq War Perspective
"This topic is hotter then an evolution debate. :D"
In the big scheme of things, this might be an evolution debate. ;)
4/28/2004 2:59 PM
John Fisher

Those are just other excuses for the actions of the powers that be.  
What about all the other countries where dictators are oppressing others. Why doesn't the powers that be defend the Palistinians from the Isralies who are driving them out of their homes. (For example).  
The powers that be will only come to the rescue if it suits their own adgenda or it is benificial for themselves.  
Af far as Iraq is concerned. The invasion was just a big excuse as a means to their own ends. A blatant one at that.  
To put it even more simply: I wouldn't trust them with what they say as far as I can throw them. And that't not very far!  
John Fisher
4/28/2004 4:32 PM
Mark Lavelle
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.[/QUOTE]That falls more than a tad short of saying "let's invade Iraq," in my book...
4/28/2004 5:35 PM
Dave Rich
You're right Mark. The authorization to go to war was passed by congress on Oct. 10 2002. It's pretty long so here's a link;
4/28/2004 3:02 PM
Frank DeSalvo

"Donít vote for a liar."  
They make politicians that don't lie?!?! :D  
4/28/2004 3:48 PM
Dave H

Doh! I deserved that. :)
4/28/2004 6:31 PM
Frank DeSalvo

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;"  
Now, I understand that my country's war against terror hasn't been adopted by everyone, and indeed was conceived/intended to be executed within a (mostly) unilateral setting. But with respect to the invasion of Iraq, does the above excerpt give my country the right to be in Iraq having not fully disclosed all evidence or having no substantiating evidence of Al-Qaida's involvement in Sadaam Hussein's former regime? It seems as though there is proof that he was "aiding and abetting" but what is there beyond that?  
By the way, I don't really like that we are there right now, but I fully support our military and do not beleive that we should pull out until we accomplish all that we have intended within the borders of Iraq. It seems the US gov is about ready to start playing "Hot Potato" with the Iraq situation and is ready to hand it over as quickly as possible. In my mind, the last thing we need to do is to withdraw prematurely and leave the country in worse condition than we entered it in-however difficult to conceive that may be. Also, the last thing we need is half-hearted support by the government and our citizens- at least washington isn't going to micromanage the commanders out there-remember Somalia?  
Yes, even though Sadaam was a brutal leader and a real bad guy, he had the all of the Sunis and other tribes/clans under control. The US was clearly not prepared for the level of insergance that we are seeing as a result of all of these tribes struggling for control in the vacuum left behind by Sadaam. Is this (Sadaam's) style of government the sort that will be needed for order to be reestablished in Iraq, or can democracy really work? I'm really curious yet very concerned at what appears to be unfolding before us.  
Also, can anyone confirm the destruction of a Muslim mosque in Fallujah? I'v heard a few people talking about it, but I cannot find any corroborating evidence of the sort. I understand the rebels have been hiding out there, attacking coalition troops, and amassing weapons there-and it's not against the Geneva convention to attack a holy site in these instances. But is it true? I'd think that this is what the terrorosts would want. This holy city is very important to all muslims-not just Iraqi Sunis. This could solidify resistance against the coalition occupation and reclassify it as a true Holy War where it's "us against them". That's what the bad guys really want.  

<<First Page<PrevPage 2 of 12 Next> Last Page>>