The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 5, Thread 36.

1. President bombs Bagdad to distract public.
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 8:46 PM/EST
Gahawolf

Well our President has done it again. It seems very odd that on the eve of the Impeachment vote he elects to bomb Iraq. Maybe I have watched too many movies (Wag the Dog) but I doubt his intentions. We must not let this bombing distract us from the task at hand. He has not only lied to his country, but he has betrayed his family and sacrificed many friends along the way. He needs to be Impeached and punished. He will still remain the President but we will have sent him a message that his actions are not acceptable to mainstream America.

4. Bombing of Baghdad
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 9:27 PM/EST
Jb

Good heavens! can't we cut the guy a break. He's being President. He warned Iraq what...a couple of weeks ago now, get with the program or we'll be bombing you without warning. The Iraqi government just won't cooperate. Instead they have to keep upping the ante.

We elected Mr. Clinton to do a job. He made a personal mistake. To claim now everytime he makes a decision as President that he's doing it to detract from the impeachment scandal is beating him up from both ends.

I don't think he needs to detract attention from the impeachment hearing. American public opinion has been and continues to be against impeachment. While we may not be able to halt this farce we can sure remember it when it comes time to re-elect these buffoons. They remind me of the guy who didn't need help making a fool of himself. They are hypocrites and liars.

Why don't we put it aside for a day or two and just let the guy be President?

6. Waste of time...
Wed, Dec 16, 1998 - 11:21 PM/EST
Bruce

I think bombing Iraq is a complete waste of time myself. I really don't see how it's going to make a real difference in Saddam's attitude, except to maybe harden it some more. Wonder why somebody doesn't just go after the guy himself? Maybe like was done to Noriega? Bring him to trial on some sort of charges like crimes against humanity or something?

I can't say for sure, but I think that the American policy(?) is to get the people of Iraq irritated(?) enough to throw the bum out themselves, but there's one little problem. With Saddam being the dictator he is, he has control over too much to allow any effective opposition to rise up against him. What are our leaders expecting, for people to throw rocks at him and his troops?!? Give me a break!

10. war
Thu, Dec 17, 1998 - 12:10 PM/EST
sndy

I personally think war is wrong and hate to have the US involved in any of it, unless our country is attacked. But, this situation is very complicated.

I saw General Schartzcof (sorry for the bad spelling attempt) on tv this morning. He said this attack was warranted and the timing was determined by Saddam Husseins actions. He said we can not simply remove saddam Hussein from office, as he has a whole regime behind him that believes the exact same thing he does. He said this stick is to slow down the build up of Iran. His words made sense to me and helped me understand things a bit more.

The Un weapons inspectors have concluded that Iran has 2-5 times more deadly germ agents than it has admitted making, as well as the warheads to deliver them. Iran has already confessed to making enough deadly microbes to kill all the people on Earth several times over.

11. How much is just enough?
Thu, Dec 17, 1998 - 9:50 PM/EST
Bruce

sndy,

But wouldn't this be akin to trying to catch an elephant with a mouse trap? Seems to me that, if what you're saying is true, then we should just declare all out war on Iraq, go in there and flat conquer them, no matter what anybody says. We're big enough - and bad enough when we want to be.

From what the media's talking heads tell us, after due consultation with their experts(?), the U.S. has the permission of other Mideast countries to try and deal with this thing. In a sense, they've given us a blank check. However, if we cash it in and nothing good comes of it, we're sort of left holding the bag. We can count on only so much support from them.

We also have to realize that these folks *think* differently than we do. First of all, they don't value human life as we do. Ever consider what "jihad" really means? It means killing any and everybody outside of your group or your religion because 1. they are less than human (infidels) and 2. killing these outsiders will gain the killer entrance into paradise. To them, killing, especially in a "jihad," is a religious exercise of the highest order, cleansing the world of filth. Now, how to you propose to deal rationally with thinking like that? It's all based on hate, and these folks consider that to be the norm. Don't make the mistake of thinking these people can be dealt with the same way westerners can be.

Ever wonder why the other Mideastern countries didn't rush to Kuwait's aid when Hussein invaded them? They figured it wasn't their problem! Even during the Iran-Iraq war, there were no outsiders from other parts of the Mideast allying themselves with either side.

And if Iraq has enough chemical warfare material to give sober thinking people pause, the threat remains very real that he'll seriously consider using it somewhere. So, something must be done,yes, in spite of what other countries might think or say.

But pussyfooting around by bombing them from a distance isn't going to change their minds, not one bit. And to do it at a time when a critically important vote is scheduled to take place indicates a very bad sense of timing, to say nothing of also having to deal with the ire of foreign powers.

19. terrible overtones
Sat, Dec 19, 1998 - 2:49 AM/EST
Les Ismore

Bruce, please reassure me that I misunderstood the racist overtones of your last post.

hoping I'm wrong,
Les

21. really terrible overtones
Sat, Dec 19, 1998 - 8:05 PM/EST
incogNITA

I'm with you Les.

I am always disturbed when someone suggests wiping and entire Country/Race off the map.

Wars are started by the few and suffered by the many.

In a perfect world, leaders would fight EACH OTHER and leave the innocents alone.

22. Racist?!?
Sat, Dec 19, 1998 - 10:03 PM/EST
Bruce

Les,

Hardly that! I'd be the last person to even think I am. But isn't this the very sort of thing we'd have to believe to justify our bombing of Iraq? It's nothing but cheap propaganda, and that's what we're essentially being asked to swallow, hook, line and sinker. Personally, I have an entirely different view of the Iraqi people. Generally, I believe that, among all the groups in that region, they are generally the quietest, most moderate and most sensible people from that area.

Personally, because I *don't* believe the propaganda, I think the bombing is doing far more harm than good. If course, trying to exert pressure on Hussein in this manner is a complete waste of time. He might be "contained" by force, but he certainly won't be changed.

I would submit that they way to effectively deal with Hussein is not through direct means; he has shown that he has no regard for our diplomacy. Rather, I would believe that the way to change his thinking is to find a way to get the other nations in the vicinity to bring pressure on him. They are a group of nations, bound together by certain similarities, and it is they who should be forcing or persuading him to cooperate with the UN sanctions. The way to do it would be to grant favors and seek to bring improvements to his neighbors to such a degree that he would want them for himself. But, until he agrees to comply with the sanctions, he can't have them. A plan along those lines would help to change even the most stubborn of people, and one thing Hussein has proven is that he is stubborn. If his neighbors start receiving benefits from the U.S. he has only two options. One is to try to accuse them of selling out to Western/world values, or to acquiesce to them himself. With the former, he has no real option but to try and go to war with the entire Mideast, thus revealing the depth and truth of his ultimate intentions, and with the second he ceases to be a threat in order to benefit his country.

I fully agree that many suffer because of the actions of a few, but what I wrote is the result those people will suffer if we continue to try to deal with Hussein directly. In other words, I don't believe this is our problem and that we shouldn't take on the role of "World Police."

I had a man come through our facility here recently who summed up his perception of this whole affair this way. He said that this whole situation was nothing more than a squabble between a lounge lizard and a thug. Not very flattering, elegant or tactful, but I suspect it doesn't fall that far from the truth.

Hussein has distorted the truth before his people, and worked his hardest to get them to agree with his viewpoint, but in the process he has in effect tried to turn them into a distortion of what they really are. I wonder, if what I wrote is the truth, why so many Iraqi people still want to come to this country to live, learn and work? Are *either* of us that bad? I say no.

Hate and prejudice are terrible things, and I deliberately wrote what I did to make just that point, and to get us to think of *why* we are bombing Iraq. If we cannot accept those statements, then we cannot support our government's policy of bombing Iraq.