Viagra online Any comments? Please
email me at contactus411@yahoo.com

Many are calling this war the new vietnam, as I’m sure you’ve all seen. Yet there is so much difference between the threats of communism vs. terrorism, making it hard to argue on either side of the war. Communism we didn’t necessarily have to fight. The dominoe theory was sketchy at best. With terrorism we know there is a great and worldwide threat. How then do we fighht such a threat, and who do we attack first?

Unlike countries that are bound together and ruled wholly or in part by theology, America is a country of ideals. It is based solely on principles of freedom, and the only reason to attack another country would logically be to protect those freedoms. I’m not sure when America’s focus turned to the freedom of other peoples, but indeed this is the case. the president can wage any war he wishes to fight the opressed and liberate others from dictators. As long as it is under the guise of freeing the iraqi people from a corrupt dictator, the war is in some way justified, regardless of ulterior motives, at least in the eyes of the government.

I accept that we have several great threats in our midst, regardless of nuclear capability. I don’t see, however, why we aren’t settling this the way we have in the past…get Iraqi people with CIA support to assassinate/overthrow SH. Whether justified or not, that tactic has worked in the past, and seems to be the way to reduce the threat ofmmore terrorist attacks and blame on the US. plausible deniability, right?

There is no longer a choice of whether or not to attack, obviously. The focus should be on how to minimize US deaths and involvement in the situation before it gets out of hand and we see massive retaliation. If overthrow without big bombs and thousands of troops is possible, then why not?

It was previously stated somewhere in this thread that GW was trying to learn from his father’s mistakes. Looking back at the Bay of Pigs invasion, bush-funded, i believe may be the reason GW wanted to launch an all-out assault rather than risking a CIA-based overthrow.

That’s my 2 cents (maybe more like 50)on the matter. Here’s to the long war ahead of us.

But now I have some reservations, not because Saddam Hussein is “cooperating” with the UN (that is a smoke screen), but because a more immediate threat is forming…North Korea.

It is North Korea that has a mentally unstable dictator; it is North Korea that has the material and machinery to make Nukes; it is North Korea that seems to be hellbent on constructing a missle-warhead system to strike at us, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and even Russia directly; and it is North Korea that is most likely to use their Nukes.

Maybe we should continue the pressure on Iraq but secretly move our most effective troops to the Western Pacific Rim. Maybe we can fake out both of the leaders of the Axis of Evil and secure our country.

I feel that we should go to war. My argument is based upon Albert Einsteinâ??s well-proven belief that the best solution is the simplest solution, but no simpler.

Because we are a democracy and elect our leaders, the terrorists in particular and Muslims in general believe that each and every American citizen is a lawful combatant. This means each and every American is in mortal danger.

Some argue that the war in Afghanistan was won or is being won, but Muslims donâ??t see it that way. We didnâ??t get all of Al Qaeda, so we didnâ??t win. Saddam Hussein is popular among Muslims because he withstood an onslaught from â??the Great Satan.â? Again, we did not achieve a clear victory. Muslims in Somalia humiliated us. Muslim warriors won in the Balkans â?? America just helped. We have yet to show the Muslim world that America can win a clear victory when battling Muslims.

Iraq is our opportunity to show all Muslims, regardless of their degree of fanaticism, that America has the resolve to take on a Muslim country and win. This would deal a blow to popular terroristâ??s image. American destroyed Iraq and Bin Laden didnâ??t do anything about it.

So, I think the question boils down to:

If we sacrifice American lives now by invading Iraq, will we save more lives in the future by landing a physical and psychological blow to the Muslim extremists?

At this point, I would say the answer is yes.

I’m in favor of taking out the Hussein/Baathist regime in Iraq.

1) Of course there are other trouble makers in the world. Are we to be paralyzed until we can unequivocally identify the absoultely most dangerous? I think not. Take out the most obvious one first and re-evalute the rest. Quite possibly decisive action against Iraq will lead to reolution of Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

2) Must we wait for absolute proof? If Hussein were innocent, surely it would be easy enough for him to convince us. Even if he is not actively plotting our imminent destruction, surely he deserves to be removed.

3) Also, John F. Keenedy as the model for presidential action? That lying buffoon? On the one hand, perhaps he did bring us to the very brink of nuclear war (he essentially said he did), but as it turned out, all of his threats weren’t worth a plugged nickel. He told us that first evening that he demanded on-site inspection – we got pictures of crates on ships. And so on.

4) We ARE threatened. Inaction will embolden those who hate us (including a number of Americans, and a great number of French, Russians, and so forth).

5) Finally, do you really expect that ANY president would lay all his cards on the table? Do you really think it would be a good idea for President Bush to say “This is what we’ve got – you examine it, and if you’re covinced, then and only then will I act.” It just can’t be.

1. The evidence situation. It could be argued that the “new” strategy of pre-emption isn’t really all that new. That’s worth a discussion, but let’s assume it is a new position, in real terms. Because it certainly is new as far as our own concept of ourselves as a nation is concerned. What this means, I think, is that gov’t secrecy is less justifiable now than it was under the previous attack-when-attacked position. Clearly, concerns about compromising intelligence sources and methods remain. Clearly, the world is complex and many threats are non-conventional, requiring mult-layered defenses. But gov’t secrecy for security purposes has always been a massive compromise of libertarian values … in other words, a lesser evil. The more information people possess, the freer they are — socially as well as in markets. That doesn’t change because the threats facing the US have changed. And now that this administration is saying we no longer need a smoking gun, a la Pearl Harbor, to go to war, the danger of fooling an uninformed citizenry about the justification for war is greater than it used to be. Which is why Rumsfeld’s talk about (paraphrase, I can’t remember the full quote) the truth being so precious, it needs a bodyguard of lies to protect it, is really, really troubling. And I’m not talking about specific military plans, where secrecy must be conceded, but rather the feints, dodges and (admitted) misinformation campaigns that seem to pervade this administration’s planning. I mean, why the fuck is Tony Blair “making the case” … to AMERICANS? At the very least, this fundamental compromise of democratic values should not be reveled in, as Rumsfeld and Cheney in particular do.

Most importantly, Saddam doesn’t need to actually use his nukes to be a threat, there’s nuclear blackmail. He could easily try and call our bluff. If we back down, it will show the world that the US is vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, and if we don’t it will be war with a nuclear power. Saddam could easily think the second option isn’t likely, given the point I mentioned above, plus we’re already woried about his WMDs.

You need to take this argument up with the Administration. They’ve been on a very public campaign to convince Hussein’s subordinates, the ones in the chain of command controlling such Weapons of Some Destruction as he currently possesses, to ignore any order they get to fire them in the coming war. Or else bad things will happen to those commanders personally.

So apparently the Administration believes that

1) Mr. Mustache does not have the firing switches in his bedroom. He needs help to make any of his doomday devices go.

2) We can convince the help to ignore his orders.

3) Apparently Saddam isn’t Dr. Doom after all.

Saddam is a great monster to frighten the children with. So the question becomes, who’s a child?

It is a well-established rule of military planning that you plan not for
what you believe the enemy will do but for what he can do.

Hundreds of examples from history suggest that anything else is suicidal.

And you can apply this rule to Saddam, too. He, as much as Radley, seems
to be operating on the principle that he can predict what the U.S. will do,
not what it can do. This is likely to be suicidal for him.

1. Iraq with nuclear weapons is not invincible and it does not mean that they will use them either. We managed to balance against the USSR, who not only had nuclear weapons (and lots of other WMD for that matter) but the means to deliver them for decades. If Iraq gets a nuke or two there are two things they must consider. First, they don’t have the means to get them to the US (I’m more worried about the poorly maintained Russian stockpile than Iraq giving terrorists nukes). Second, the only other nuclear power in the region is Israel and they have at least a few hundred nuclear weapons. Saddam may be crazy, but he likes his power. Using nuclear weapons against either the US or Israel will only ensure that he is destroyed – maybe with retaliation in kind.

2. If we invade, WMD attacks will be directed against our base camps as well as our operational soldiers. This means that there will be more than just the “company of special forces” affected by the attack. Also, it’s not well known, but the training and maintenance of our military’s chem/bio defense tools (protective masks, detectors, etc…) are not very effective in a real chem/bio attack (we can’t even detect biological weapons until well after the fact!)

3. Even with fighting between the various Muslim sects, they all dislike the United States far more than they dislike each other. Consider the Saudi fund-raisers for the families of murder-bombers. There is little reason to think that we can suddenly win everyone to our side by overthrowing a Muslim leader.

4. Libertarian thought does not call for isolationism. Rather, it’s just about totally opposite. While we do believe in our government not being entangled in foreign affairs, by opening our borders to trade and travel, we are being about as un-isolationist as possible.

5. Finally, Libertarians do not think that all war is bad – only the initiation of force. I recommend you dust off your copy of Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” or “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal” and re-read the essay “The Nature of Government.” Also, the “winning the hearts and minds of the people” by riding in on our tanks and overthrowing the oppressive government has never worked. It didn’t work for us in Vietnam; it didn’t work for the English in our Revolutionary War. Why would it work in Iraq?

I’m surprised that so many people are willing to throw their nations sons and daughters into a war over a bunch of ifs and maybes!