Opening a Can of Worms...

[Charean]

Just wondering if anyone knows a compelling reason why the US needs to go to war right now with Iraq.

With all that I have heard, it doesn't sound like an immediate threat.

Sounds to me like Bush is trying to divert us from the fact that Osama is still loose and they haven't found the Anthrax killer yet.

What do ya'll think?

[Attalus]

Why not go now, Charean, since we know that he is actively trying to build a nuke? Do you want to wait until he blows someone up? If we are going to do it anyway, why not now?

[Horatio]

Oil, man, oil!!!

[Jorath Calar]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-01.htm

Because Bush is a maniac who has an special agenda...?

[Attalus]

Oh, pooh, Horatio, we have all that we need and it's dirt cheap right now.

[Sio]

I dont get why he wants to start a war when he hasnt finished the last one he and us (the UK) started.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Sio: I dont get why he wants to start a war when he hasnt finished the last one he and us (the UK) started.

If the "last one" you refer to is the war on terrorism, I'd like to point out the war against Saddam Hussein isn't "another war", it's the war that predates the war on terrorism, it's unfinished as well.

So using your suggestion of finishing the oldest one first, it makes perfect sense to finish what the UN started over a dozen years ago in Iraq first, doesn't it?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Charean: Just wondering if anyone knows a compelling reason why the US needs to go to war right now with Iraq. With all that I have heard, it doesn't sound like an immediate threat.

Maybe a dozen years of UN mandates and resolutions seems like a "rush job" to you, but it doesn't to me. I wonder why the UN hasn't made stronger moves to enforce it's resolutions prior to now.

I'm not sure what you consider an immediate threat, but the fact he HAS chemical and biological weapons is immediate enough for me. The UN had reason to believe he had them, and there were unaccounted for chemical/biological weapons after the Gulf War, but Saddam continually denied access to facilities.

Maybe you don't think the nuclear threat is immediate, I'd disagree, because someone who has used weapons of mass destruction before and is searching for nukes is dangerous. There is no doubt that he has those Chem/Bio weapons he would never surrender after the Gulf War and those weapons alonemake him a threat. If you'll remember, the only reason the UN called off military action initially was because of Iraqi promise to disarm under the supervision of the UN.

Can Saddam launch a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon and hit my neighborhood? Nope.

Is he an immediate threat? Yep!

[ 09-26-2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Horatio]

One of the arguments put forward was that the time Uncle Suddam was most likely to use his weapons was when he was trapped in a war, with nowhere to go.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Horatio: One of the arguments put forward was that the time Uncle Suddam was most likely to use his weapons was when he was trapped in a war, with nowhere to go.

So we should leave him alone to do as he pleases?

A murderer corner by police and facing life in prison is likely to use any weapon at his disposal to avoid his loss of freedom, should the police let him go?

[ 09-26-2002, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]