Okay so I changed my mind about the war

Bush #1 should have had him and his sons killed in '91.

mike, im with you.

if you look back on my post history, im not typically pro war. im still not pro war, but every set of circumstances should be measured individually. i dont think even someone like spliffdaddy wants to see people go to war.

by how i see it, if we leave this guy in power, worse things will happen and more importantly CONTINUE to happen than if we went in and cleaned house. i think this is the path of least misery.

this image, which ive posted in a couple different threads now, really helped me to feel this way. we arent over there to kill innocents and rape the children. hell, we're treating their soldiers with respect and care.



i just hope it all comes to an efficient, safe and successful end as soon as humanly possible.

agreed


now the time to protest is long gone. get saddam outta there for everybody's sake

I' glad that you have seen the light. It takes a thinking person to be on the side of the war. Likerals can't think ex debate, they only feel.

Bush '41 didn't have a mandate from the UN to invade Iraq. The coalition that he commanded was only to liberate Kwait. His mission was successful!

I will never support a war.

You are indeed lucky, Iceland has never been atacked. You might feel differently if you were invaded or had a terrorist attack. Without that experience there is no way of understanding.

I will never support war either.

OK, brief history lesson.

Germans attacked in WWII, dropped a few bombs. Many Icelanders were in the convoys in WWII and many lost their lives. We were invaded in the WWII and have had a terrorist attack. The terrorist attack didn't cost any lives but it was an terrorist attack. Then we have the "cod wars" against the brits.

So you still think we do not understand?

Yes, I am lucky in that regard. But don't get me wrong. I'd fight a war if I had to (what is war?). But I could never take any delight out of it. That is key.

But like almost *any* other nation on the face of the Earth, Iceland has been attacked in the past.

Okay I'm stumped.

For months now I've been trying to figure out if you are a Republican Forum Bot or just severely medicated.

Which is it?

giimme a break dude


iceland is one of the safest places on earth because it's so distant from any major human hubs


what the hell is the US supposed to do - keep a "orange alert" in NYC for 15 years?

we need to eliminate the threat now and make our cities safe again



nobody enjoys war but we need to get this finished otherwise we'll be on high security forever. when has the last time Iceland went on "orange alert"

Bush #1 gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would straighten up. By the time we saw he wasn't, Clinton was in office, and well you know how the rest of the story goes.

We don't have color coded general alerts. But the security here is very high. Probably better than in the US. Iceland is now a target for idiot terrorists just because our idiot prime minister supports the US/UK war.

You didn't just blame the current Iraqi crisis on Clinton.

That would have been so unlike Zimph /sarcasm

I personally feel Bush has misjudged the amount of anti-american animosity this war will create with the Middle East. I have a feeling that the threat of terrorism from Saddam was far lower than the threat of terrorism that will exist as a result of this war. Terrorism does not require high-tech nor chemical weapons. Terrorists have all the time they need and nearly limitless "volunteers" who can more than likely find a weakness sooner or later in a free society like ours. They don't need nukes or anything, we have enough dangerous infrastructure that exists on its own and they already know it. Heck, they don't even need to think up any ideas for terrorism, just buy a few Clancy novels and think outside the box. Scary.. I think possibly the short term consequences might be better (no Saddam, no chemical weapons given to terrorists-- unless he's already given them away..) but the long term consequences are likely to haunt us. Was war the ONLY possible way to rid Saddam? I thought the beginning of the war was interesting with the targetted strike. Why could they not just wait until the intelligence panned out for that initial attack, wait until intelligence figured where he was next, then hit that, wait, and repeat, and repeat. They'd get him eventually without all the collateral damage. If the point is to kill him and the top brass, they could most certainly do it entirely without the shock and awe. I'm sure Bush has a better view of all this than I do but it just doesn't make sense to me. I guess I just don't get the war thing-- it just seems like cracking an egg by dropping a piano on it (there are much better ways).

terrorists attack the US and so we should just have better security?


dude - terrorism affects the entire world. saddam and iraq is all about giving weapons to osama and osama loves killing americans!


nah - neutralize the threat instead

this is a ridiculous post. "i agree with you, we are smart". hahahaha

Glad you wisened up. It's difficult to put certain views aside and look at a situation objectively, but no matter what the rest of the world thinks, we are doing the right thing.

Just out of curiosity, what made you change your mind?

Yes.

Edit: If terrorists had slammed a loaded jet into Iceland, I'm sure that public opinion in Iceland would be different. If millions of people chanted "Death to Iceland" in the streets, you would feel differently.

Please elaborate.

We knew back in '91 that Soddom was a scumbagg, but he was the lesser of evils, or so we thought. The overriding fear of the time was that if we eliminated him and his Bath party lost power the new rulers would be Muslim fundamentalist like in Iran. It was a case of "the devil you know vs. the devil you don't." We should have an easier time dealing with one man than with a collection of ruling Mullahs.

I recall a lecture at Yale about middle east politics back in late '91. One of the fears many folks had, including this lecturer was of a united Iran/Iraq under the flag of Fundamentalist Islam. This possibility was a worst case scenario and probably contributed to our inaction against SH. So now we have to deal with this sh!tbag today instead of 12 years ago. In retrospect it would have been better to whack him then. Schwarzkopf and Powell wanted to buy they were reined in and told "mission accomplished."

Iran and Iraq loath each other, they fought an 8 year war and a million people on each side died. An alliance between them would be the last thing to ever happen. Powell was not reinged in, rather he and others determined that there was no point in continuing to fight because Kuwait was the objective.

Yeah, I remember that all the top scholars and think tanks spent years coming up with this scenario, mainly based on historical and religious ties going back even before the ascension of Islam. Then there were the shortsighted morons who thought that it couldn't happen just because the two countries had been at war with one another.

.

Iceland attacked!

That explains a lot. I was trying to find any sense in his post as well - but failed miserably.

Making your cities safe again?

When has Hussein ever theatened the safety of a US city? Feel free to elaborate.

.