Prominent Democrats in Congress called Sunday for removing Saddam Hussein from power, endorsing a classified Bush administration plan that gives the CIA broader power to take action against the Iraqi leader.

"Daddy" never had the guts to do it.

Just my 2 pennies

Matt

maybe junior does

My "Daddy" would've done that....

Dave (Hey, I just got a promotion!)

Hey, If I had a chance I would have............

Matt

Yeah, you are right, they should have finished the job they started, now it just created much more of a threat as they have had time to re-arm etc.

I think they should go after Saddam ASAP... We need to do some pre-emptive strikes instead of waiting for another 9-11 as justification to do it.
The main problem, I think, is political correctness. It's just not diplomatic to take someone out just because they are a huge threat to society.
I think this topic could get a little hot, so I'll do my part to try and see the issue from all points of view.

YodaMan

We should of done it a long time ago. But you have to be careful,or the next guy in "office" over there could be worse. Just tell me where and when I'll be more than happy to get my hands dirty. OK i'll get off my soap box now. Scott

if we get invovled with iraq .We are will have to stay invoved .Just to make sure that doesnt happen

The key to success in any elimination of a foreign leader is ensuring the mass of the people rise up to support the overthrow and defend themselves. It ultimately is the people's responsibility to determine their nation's course. Occupation by foreign powers, no matter the intent, ultimately leads to resentment.

I agree with Bob--without popular support simply whacking the guy buys us very little. I don't mind seeing it happen, but I fear that our policymakers expect that by kneecapping this guy Iraq will suddenly become a happier place. They are dead wrong and incredibly naive if that is so. I might suggest keeping him bottled up as we do, bombing places on occasion to keep our pilots in practice (the whole country really is nothing more than an incredibly realistic bombing range, with potentially lethal AA nuisances.) Saddam and his cronies from Tikrit are certainly reviled in Iraq, but are too strongly entrenched for an opposition to currently be viable. But once he dies or is whacked, the Tikrit clans will be hard pressed to stave off the wrath of a vengeful populace. The result will be internal civil war, messy and incredibly violent. We don't have a policy to deal with that, nor is there somebody of stature whom we can back when Saddam is removed from power, however that happens. As they say, be careful what you wish for...
Greg

My 2 pennies????...........

Iraq and Afganistan should be smoking craters right now. But that is just me.

THAT'S COOL, HOPEFULLY ONE DAY IT WILL HAPPEN AND WE HERE IN THE US OF A WILL GET TO WATCH THE MUSHROOM CLOUDS RISE !!!! After all death and destruction is all that region knows, So why not oblige them. And Oh yeah, While were at it, Get rid of our need for Middle Eastern Oil imports, So they will get the point. I mean they expect us to fight ther little wars. BUT THEY WONT Let us eliminate the real problem in that region. Oh Excuse me they are the " PROBLEM". Oh H---, Just Nuke the whole bunch and get it over with.........Yeah I know that won't solve the problem either, But DONT YOU JUST WISHED IT WOULD ??!!

DAGGER-1

Ditto! I second that. Nuke them, by all means twice!

Hmm....Is this sort of a Nuke them before they can nuke us reaction?? Some may agree with that. Personally I think we may need the "Bush Doctrine", which would be something like this.

"Governments of countries that actively support terrorism either covertly or openly must share in the responsibility for acts carried out by same terrorists. Therefore if in the future a terrorist group successfully detonates an atomic weapon on a major city of the US or one of her allies, than those countries found to be supporting either terrorism directly or indirectly will immediately have a major population center destroyed by the US."

But here is the kicker. We don't "have" to use nuclear weapons. What would 10-20 fuel-air bombs do to Bagdad???

Sort of a Mutually Assured Destruction for the 21st century.

Jim

"Sounds Good To Me" What ever it takes to Get The Job Done, And makes our point
NICE.. AND... LOUD... AND... CLEAR, To all those concerned!!!

DAGGER-1 " To The Victor, Go The Spoils"

the coalition had its chance when it asked the Marsh Arabs to rise up against Saddam,they
blew it,chickened out,and the Arabs were slaughtered.And some think the answer is to
Nuke them all friend and foe,all i can say i would not like you for Allies,just my humble
opinion.
Arthur

Arthur,
Not that I disagree. In a perfect world I would always want my allies to have only the best intentions and moral fortitude. But worse things have been done in the name of war. Was Nazi Germany really much different? A few madmen took hold of an entire region of Europe and through propaganda, hate, and lies brought the world to the brink. Was an eight year old living in Dresden somehow guilty by association and thus deserved his home (and thus his life) being wiped out by fire bombing?

Jim

Ok...I have to say this.

I agree with you, Jim, to some extent, BUT, whether it is justified or not, the terrorist fervently believed that they were at war with us. Hence, they attacked NYC. Now the people who died at the WTC were non-combatants, but nevertheless, they died.

"You attack us, we level your country"

Now, if you are following me so far....

We now level their country, the innocents, (i.e. children, women, non-combatants) die. Well, that is just collateral damage. The same as the people who died on 9-11. It's war, it sucks, but that is just how it is. In war people die.

We can continue to stand by, go looking through caves and what not, beg these 3rd world countries to share information and help us hunt down these terrorist, or we can do what is our God given right and blow them to hell. I mean if we did, it would only be an improvement, to the landscape (that is me being cynical )

But then again, that's my opinion, I could be wrong!

Chris,
You probably mis-read my meaning above. In some sense I am agreeing with your basic assumption that we CERTAINLY aren't going to just sit by and do nothing. My point about the nukes is this. If (God help us) they ever do smuggle-in and detonate a nuke in say Washington DC, I think our counter-strike should already be out there for all to know. The Soviets knew exactly what would happen if they had tried to use nuclear weapons against us, and that knowledge saved (hopefully) the world. I think it's time that the Saudi's and other governments that are allowing this spread of hatred to go on need to understand ther WILL BE CONSEQUENCES for that lack of action (and in many cases outright support of terrorists).





Let's hope we aren't all wrong.

Cheers,
Jim

PS: And what's with the 3 mad smilies in your signature line??

I thought I would quickly enlarge on the point of using the Saudi's as an example country. I think they (and the other fundimentalist religious monarchy **whatever!** countries) are part and parcel to the whole problem. We need democracy to win out in the Middle East. And that is never going to happen when countries that are suppose to be our allies (Saudi Arabia) are not even promoting the same freedoms that the free world is based on. Geeeze no wonder the Arab world barely understands what the US and West are really about. They only hear the bad, and not the good. I could go on for 9 pages on this but I think you probably get my meaning. As the end of WWII and the Cold War so keenly showed. You need to know who your enemy is yes, but you also have to recognize when an ally is really your enemy with a good smile on his face.

Jim

Jim: I think what you just said pretty much sums it up in a nutshell, Thanks for clarifying it. I dont like the idea of bombing innocent civilians with either a nuke or what ever it may be. Just as much with the loss of any civilians here in our own country. But if anyone here thinks that their are innocent cicies in Iraq, Then they are very much sadly mistaken !! You can pretty much bet that with the current regime in place, Any one of the Men, Women, or Children in that country would give thier right arm to either KILL or CAPTURE an American Soldier or Civilian. i.e perfect propaganda value or Target practice. So with that said. I still think the only way to deal with Iraq and any other country in that region that wants to Butt in, Friendly or Not Suppossedly Friends, Is to Destroy them in any way nessacary. We need to stop Fooling around over there and finish what we started!!
But then that's just My Opinion !!

DAGGER-1 " To The Victor, Go The Spoils"

I am not an American citizen, but if there is ever a war against scum nation such as Iraq ever occured, I would like to join up as a foreign volunteer or something perferably in the infantry, so I can get them up close and personal. I do a lot of business travelling because of my work, I am sick and tired that everytime I am on a plane, that a hijack or a bomb by those dirt bag is a very real threat to my life or the people I like very much.

I think we are all carried away somehow with this war talk, this is not war, this is communication. For those people, violence and destruction is the only means of communication that they understand, so we will be nice enough to communicate to them with the sort of language they understand, so in this case, a nuke or two, or maybe some air-fuel bombs (a lot of them). We have to let them know that for every action there will be a reaction and a consequence. For every American or her allied they killed or messed around with, we will pay back to them in 100s. Once they got that maths worked out, they would quit or died out.

Just my thought, I am sorry that I might offend anyone, but this is my thought I have to get it out of my system. And if anyone think this is not politically correct, tough luck. I am so fed up with this politically correct thing too, so don't get me start on it! ]

Go America! God with Us!

Hmmmm............the question arises, is this a quagmire to step into........?

.........................a thought.
Most of the 'opinions' posted above are obviously heartfelt frustration at the inability of the U.S. to 'deal' with the Arab world. Certainly a 'brick-wall' challenge to say the least.
Look, I'm not opposed to a little 'triple-tap' . It's not hard work if your commitment is there. The concept that has to be swallowed here is this; Americans have historically always assumed that everyone else thinks like US! Unfortunately, IMHO, that is not the case. Take Somalia for a quick recent example. Or the 'Nam, for a less recent example.
I, fortunately in my opinion, have the advantage of European birth, but American upbringing. To expand, my early education in England was global. My early teen education in the U.S. was purely American. The inherent problem here is that Americans need to understand that the Arabs have NO problem dying. In fact this is their most direct path to Allah. They (in general) believe that the life they are leading NOW is simply the treadmill leading to the afterlife with their ancestors. WE, on the other hand, believe in THIS life.
Without going into a breathless diatribe here, I believe we need to come to grips with the fact that other nations have an entirely different perpective than we do. So, we either have to learn to deal with it, or take the steps necessary to ignore it entirely.
And if the latter is the choice, then maybe we are not the 'leader of the Free World' after all. We're just the most recent Bully.

Tread.

BTW.....for the record, I am a Combat Veteran, have shed my blood for my country, and would do it proudly again if asked.......but those ribbons are on my chest, not across my eyes.

Oh, that....my fiancee` has had me in a very bad mood lately. When she gets off my case it will change.

OK JUST FOR YOU , JIM