Liberals or Conservatives: Who is the bigger threat?

[Orien_Xel]

[color=blue]Sorry for any comments that might have offended anybody earlier. I just get really stressed when people start mentioning patriotism. Sorry! :bluesweat
One thing: Whose idea was it for war? Bush's. why is Bush hell-bent on going to war? Apparently, Saddam is cooperating with the inspectors, but Bush says he is "stalling for time." But I'm off subject....Anyway, both sides can be a threat but I don't see which one is the threat right now...
[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Orien_Xel [/i]
[B][color=blue]Apparently, Saddam is cooperating with the inspectors[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
No he isn't. There's numerous records of Iraq's tricks such as once when inspectors were going in trucks loaded with cargo was going out.

[Transtic Nerve]

I'd rather not quote that whole thing. It's probably better I don't.

I agree, North Korea should be delt with differntly, however I think they should be delt with first and foremost.

I personally think Bush is not in control of this country at this moment. I believe Colin Powell and all of the president's military and foreign policy advisors control what he does. They could tell him one thing and he will react regardless of the truth of it.

Yes, I know France is dealing with arms trade with Iraq as well as Russia and oil. Why then do we not deal with France and Russia? In the same accord as we Iraq? It seems we're picking and choosing, which if we want to be the agressor in this campaign, we cannot do. If Bush wants to stick to his word we need to run out every regime and every government that poses any threat to the US and or the safety of their own country and it's people. Thats what Bush wants, he's just picking and choosing who he does it with and as our leader, he simply cannot do that. If he wants me on his side, he MUST go and do what he did with Afganistan, what he wants to do with Iraq, to EVERY SINGLE country that poses any threat to us and any threat to it's own people and their well being. He is not doing that and until he does, which he probably won't he will not have me on his side, nor will he have the majority of this country on his side.

I saw the quotes you said by Clinton. As I said before, I will not disagree that Saddam poses some threat, I just don't think it's that big a one at this time. Especially with the whole radical muslim comminity in the middle east being the way it is. What Clinton did with bombing obviously didn't do anything. I really didn't agree then when he did it. Sure he's a liberal, but I don't care. I don't like alot of things liberals do, as well as conservatives. I believe periodically bombing Iraq is a much better idea than all out war for no other reason than to overthrow ONE guy.

I do not want war. I'd rather America gets it's head out of it's *** and stop being the police that we are so occupied being. it's ridiculous. As far as I can see, and there no denying this, we brought it on ourselves to be what we are. If we had watched our resources we wouldn't need oil. If we'd been more careful in the past and not be the super nationalistic country we were and still are, we'd not be in this situation. I think war is an excuse for absolute stupidity. We wrote up and signed a pact, as well as 15 other countries, after WWI that said "War shall not be means to settle a dispute"... apparently we are so powerful we don't need to follow our own rules. We got into WWII after that, albeit for revenge, Korea, Vietnam, and then Iraq. Those are the major ones at least.

Again, I want to make this clear, I'm not saying Saddam should just be let go to do as he pleases, I just don't think war is the ocrrect way to deal with the subject. We can detain, watch over him. We did it to Japan. We did it to Germany. Why can't we, and why couldn't we do it to Saddam?

The majority of people I refer to is the people I see protesting, the people I see interviewed on TV. There's been polls, although probably of a much less percentage than anything majority in this country.

I meantion that Iraq cannot directly hurt Americans with his missles because they only go 400 miles. I mean I'm sure they can other ways, but destroying missles that go 400 miles isn't accomplishing much.

I don't want to change your view on anything. Thats not what I'm saying. I'm just giving my point of view along with what I know. You do the same. Thats what it's all about isn't it? it really doesn't both me that you think a different way lol. There's nothing I or you can do, so it's basically just sharing opinion, isn't it? I'm not trying to disway you or put you down, I just have a difference of opinion. I usually do. I dunno what else to say.

[Kent]

Well actually I like your last post just now.

It was not hostile at all and that makes me respect the content far more than any hostile post.

I do understand your point about us having different opinions and that is about all that needs to be said.

But I want to remind you that we looked over japan and germany after they were disarmed and defeated.

We had to disable these coutries ability to fight before they would submit to the will of the international community.

As for picking and choosing...

I believe that the long standing relationships between respectable first world nations should out weigh the temperary alterior motives that drive those countries.

We can have patience with france, but not Iraq.
(although on a personal level, I hate just about everything about france because of the air of ignorance/arogance they emit.)

I also believe the united states should set a new president in isolationism.

I say we with draw from everything and leave the world to deal with its own problems.

However, I know that the world expects U.S. support economically as well as phisically. (in terms of food and medicine)

So the world police issue is almost a non-issue.

The fact is, some one has to do it and although I don't like that burden falling on the U.S.' shoulders, it must fall on someone's.

Unfortunatly, no one else will step up until the time for action has already passed and the actions are all reaction based rather than preventitive.

Preventing tragedy is always better than reacting to tragedy.

Iraq is a threat to us, they are a large factor in the heated middle east situation you reffer to.

When Saddam pays the families of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars after each bombing, everyone must admit that he contributes to the problem.

But as I said before, I dont want saddam out for the problems in palestine... I want him out for the freedom of the iraqi people.

Just find your way to some sort of info from the "free women of iraq orginization" and you will hear from first hand sources the true stories of turtore based around the practice of rape.

Or ask Andy Mcnabb why all the teeth in his head are fake... do I need to even say it.

Just think of those people who Saddam is destroying.

They are the ones I care to save... not just the Americans that MIGHT get hurt.

Although I will admit that I do believe Saddam's Iraq is responsible for the odd anthrax letters.

I may be crazy, but it is fact that in the 80's Saddam was sold 2 biological agents for research at bahgdad university.

Those two agents were bocholism and, you guessed it... anthrax.

Unfortunatly for those who will argue this with me, that specific strain of anthrax was the "aims Iowa strain."

That strain was the exact strain in the letters.

But you guys dont need to flame me about that one... That is just the crazy conspiracy theorist in me which is constantly supressed for the reason of coming across as a "reasonable" person.