Why must we invade Iraq? (no spam)

[BaronTx]

You know what? I give up. I won't argue with someone that thinks the media is a conservative outlet.
I just hope my son can grow up in a free country like I did, but reading this forum, I doubt it.

[Tybaltus]

Originally posted by HighLordDave

I also think that by attacking Iraq without clear provocation we are surrendering any sort of moral high ground we may hold as the world's leader. It is our responsibility as the most powerful nation on Earth to be a positive example, not a bully. It's put up or shut up time for the hawks in the administration; no one outside Dubya's inner circle and his apologists think that going after Saddam Hussein is a good idea and only the most foolish among us think that by eliminating Iraq's petty despot we are making the world a safer place for all Americans. In fact, there is a very real possibility that by going to war with Iraq at this time, we will stir up even more anti-American sentiment and more civilians will find themselves in the crosshairs of terrorists and other nogoodniks.

Hmmmm....Unfortunetly this is also the feeling I get. Its also whats motivated me to flee to Toronto, though I havent yet. I would feel much safer up there and the surroundings would be comfortable. I want little to deal with a country that chooses to "bully" other "threats". I also dont want to be associated to a country that is heavily disliked because of this. USA is acting like a bully, and I agree with HLD that we should set an example for future super powers and prove that we are worthy of such power. Super Powers like Rome, Macedonia, and Persia/Babylonia couldnt secure the power they once commanded. Is this going to be true for the USA? Only if we do stupid things like attacking every possible threat. And thats just stupid. Just my 2 cents.

[fable]

Then think about the 3000 CIVILIANS that died on 9-11. Do you want to take any more chances?

The problem is that I honestly fail to see how this points to the need to invade Iraq, given that shortly after 9/11, the White House stated publically that they had no evidence linking the horror with Hussein or his government. On the other hand, they said they had proof that bin Ladan was involved, and there have been no sources, government or otherwise, since that time stating that bin Ladan was in any way affiliated with Iraq. Even with all the raving anti-Hussein rhetoric coming from the unilateralist camp (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc), not a one is saying that Hussein or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

If we're really anxious to avoid "taking chances,: why not go for a more visibly unhinged and dangerous international foe? North Korea has far more troops than Iraq. It remains in a state of armed belligerence, having never signed a peace treaty after the Korean War. It does have nuclear weapons: the US has already made public spy satellite pictures showing installations far too large to house the supposed "nuclear energy project" that they claimed to possess. Chemical weapons? Documented. Biological? Documented. Ever been inspected? No. Ever been dismantled? No.

From all this, it would seem that Bush is being highly selective when he speaks about international threats. And I can't help thinking that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which the administration could have offered over the last several months, the US president is simply looking for a political windfall in midterm. And, potentially, looking to cover his butt for the fact that he's toppled a government and spent enormous sums of money, but still hasn't caught the person he fingered as responsible for 9/11.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by BaronTx
You know what? I give up. I won't argue with someone that thinks the media is a conservative outlet.
I just hope my son can grow up in a free country like I did, but reading this forum, I doubt it.

Ironically enough the same debate over whether the media is liberal or conservative exists here in Australia. The conservatives feel that the media is liberal, and the liberals think that it's conservative. I am inclined to doubt that any outlet of information owned by corporate enterprise is liberal, but then journalism seems to have garnered a reputation as a by and large liberal field.
To my mind the diversity of backgrounds and beliefs in forums like this are one of the more essential ingredients of a free country. Being disagreed with is not an indication that freedom is lacking, rather it shows a diversity of opinion.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Ironically enough the same debate over whether the media is liberal or conservative exists here in Australia.

We have a skewed perspective on the liberal/conservative thing which is based on our two-party system. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are truly one or the other; rather, when an issue comes up, the two sides reflexively square off and each declares a stand.

Anything associated with the Republicans is automatically associated with being "conservative" and anything associated with the Democrats is called "liberal". So if you don't like what Dubya et al are up to, you're automatically a "liberal" or if you don't like Tom Daschle, you're a conservative.

So what's the difference? Not much really. The Republicans claim that welfare is bad and want to cut AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), yet they don't have any qualms about passing bills with huge farm subsidies and tax cuts for corporations (corporate welfare). The Democrats generally don't like to spend a lot of money on military projects, but it was a Democratic administration that built the atomic bomb and you won't find a Democrat in either house who is actively trying to close military bases or demobilise divisions.