:: The Real Poll :: What to do with Iraq?

i just wanted to get a feeler for our little microcosm here at CPF. i know this is a heated issue with strong feelings on both sides. it's always amazing to me in situations like this how the similar people can look at the same information and come up with completely different opinions.

simple yes or no, invade or not, aggressive or passive. which are you?

i get a 401 error when i hit 'submit' but it seems to 'stick' alright.

Look at that. We're all tied up at the moment.

Be interesting to see what countries the votes come from.

Not tied anymore!

surprisingly close call, accordin to the news polls i see i thought the aggressive stance would be the stronger one. but there's only 20 votes there, we need some more votes =).

34 votes...seems like a small number. i guess people are just fed up with this subject. can't say i blame them, i wish it would just go away as well.

I think everyone WANTS choice #2. (Disarm Peacefully. Find a non-aggressive way to solve our disputes.) The problem is many feel that after 12 years it's a pipe dream.

DieselDave said: I think everyone WANTS choice #2. (Disarm Peacefully. Find a non-aggressive way to solve our disputes.) The problem is many feel that after 12 years it's a pipe dream.

Actually, I think DieselDave has hit on something here. I have no doubt that mere diplomacy will never get Saddam out of power. He has too much of an iron grip on the country. No one took out Stalin even after all of the terrible things he did and millions he had killed and inprisoned.

It is hard to know what the right thing is to do. We never attacked the Soviet Union and finally it collapsed under its own weight. We didn't do WWIII. Now we greet Russians as friends and allies. Were we wrong to let Stalin rule so long? I don't know.

If we kill thousands in Iraq to overthrow Saddam...will we have done the right thing? I'm afraid I don't know if there is a perfectly correct answer. I know that I don't want children tortured to force their parents to comply. If we must go to war, let us at least resolve to do it for the people of Iraq; for freedom and hope. Let us be vigilant to not allow those who'd seek to profit from such a war to succeed.

I will pray to ask that we do what is best for the everyday human being in Iraq; the mothers, fathers and children.

Dave and Ikendu, well said!!!

Stalin is a good comparison. We fought with them economically, mostly, and won. Perhaps we're attempting to do the same thing with Iraq? Building lots of jets and submarines was, I believe, good for our economy. It sparked industry, and even more so technology.

A couple of big differences, though, are that Iraq's economy is probably sustainable for the long term, because of oil, and we currently have the capability to defeat Iraq without serious risk to our country. The later certainly wasn't true of the USSR.

I looked at some of the recon photos in one of the air and space magazines. After seeing those, I'm convinced that this doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. I believe what the US is worried about is Iraq continuing to be a serious military threat to the region.

We've been flying patrols over them for years now, and I think they're getting stronger, not weaker, and that someone has decided that "now's the time", before we lose any more military capability due to budget cuts, and before they develop any more capabilities. My feeling is that the terrorism angle is just a plausible excuse.

This also fits into the scheme of the US maintaining itself as *the* world power. Germany and France - remember they used to have colonies? - are naturally less than thrilled with this.

Ok, I'm rambling, but I'll add one more thing. I think the surprise supporter of the US is going to end up being an Arab nation. Why? Because eventually the oil is going to run out, because some of those leaders probably do care greatly about the long term future of their countries, and because we don't have a history of building colonial empires. I think we'd be good friends to have. I know I'd sure trust us more than the Germans! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

wow--that was a very thoughtful response, Tom!

Bob

Stalin...some would call him a brutal leader, but some would say he did what needed to be done. my neighbors are russian, almost fresh off the boat (been here for a couple years) and they look up to stalin as we would lincoln. both were the cause of many, many deaths but one side happened to come out on top. on a little side note, the kids tell me that there was one major difference between school in russia and school here: in russia they weren't taught that american's were bad or evil. perhaps they didn't survive because their leaders didn't teach them a little healthy fear.

yes, there are many schemes to this war, not many of which i believe in. now, if our elected leaders would just admit to it then we would be getting somewhere.

Eeeeeew! Look up to Lincoln?! As much as I look up to Stalin! I think you are correct that Stalin and Lincoln are valid comparisons as they both were dictators and murdered thousands of people during their rule.

About the only President I look up to is Jefferson, and even then I admire him for what he did for the country before he was president. He really had the chance to undo the damage the Constitution had done to the country, and he sort of wimped out. At least he owned up to the fact that he blew it. Its not very often you see that now-a-days!

Back then, the Soviet Union was another Super Power. Today, the US is the only super power.

[ QUOTE ]
Albany Tom said:
Ok, I'm rambling, but I'll add one more thing. I think the surprise supporter of the US is going to end up being an Arab nation. Why? Because eventually the oil is going to run out, because some of those leaders probably do care greatly about the long term future of their countries, and because we don't have a history of building colonial empires. I think we'd be good friends to have. I know I'd sure trust us more than the Germans! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Aint Turkey a supporter?...and wants to fight Iraq too? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

turkey refused to allow US troops to cross their nation to get into Iraq. not only are they not supporting the attack (via troops and hardware) they don't want anything to do with it. unfortunatly they will probably change their decision because their stock market took a 10% dip the next day.

Turkey refused to let US troops cross their country because THEY wanted $30 Billion dollars for the privelege, and SoS Powell wouldn't offer any more than $25 Billion.

It was a close vote- Their Parlaiment is split about 52%-48% between secular leaders and militant islamists. The secular leaders thought they had enough votes to let us through, but 19 abstained, not wanting to commit either way, and although the pro-US votes were in the majority, there wasn't enough to actually pass it according to their laws. (Sound like something familiar? Maybe like the "Super-majority" that dems are demanding for the confirmation of Estrada to the appeals court???)

Honestly though, I can't really blame Turkey too much. They are balanced on a knifes edge internally between the secularists and the islamists, and they have been screwed over by the US in the past. Bush 41 screwed them, and Clinton screwed them. Nato continuously screws them over.

Nonetheless, I support a FREE KURDISTAN on Turkey's border. That will teach them to try to blackmail us.

yes, it was a close vote, which is why i think it will change. and the way i heard it, that 30 million was an aide package that was in the works before our business in iraq, the reason turkey's econamy dropped 10% was fear of not gettign the aide for denying the US the use of their country.

speaking of voting war, does our congress need a 2/3rds vote to pass a declaration of war or only a simple majority?

Good thread. Perhaps we could adjorn the discussion to the local IHOP or Denny's for pancakes?!

:
HI I only wonder what Iran will do