GOP has 51 senators, will we go to war?

Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Nov 6, 2002.

  1. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #1
    some pundits on the "far left" have suggested that because the republicans have sewn up 51 senate seats and maybe 52 (after louisina runoff), and a slight lead in the house, the GOP will send us to war with iraq

    the democrats have 47 seats and there is one independent who is a liberal but not a democrat so in a sense, that is only 48 seats...even if the dems win lousiana in december, that will still be 49 seats and not a majority

    i am a moderate democrat, and i realize it takes 67 votes in the senate to ratify such an action and many of the moderate republican senators are not so hot on an instant war with iraq, either

    ...but what do you think of the far left bush bashers who think this automatically means war?

    and for those of you who are republicans, does this mean that bush may be able to help mend the economy in a measureable way in the next 24 months?

    your thoughts...
     
  2. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #2
    I think we would have anywayz, but it seems even more likely now.

    I don't want this to turn into some Republican vs. Democrat thread cuz there's too much bullsh*t and whining on both sides, but I'm concerned when one side takes the majority in times like these.

    I don't know sh*t about politics, but I'm worried that if we go to war it's not going to be a good outcome seeing as a lot of the world is against it.

    I still don't see why we must go to war against Iraq, I've read through a lot of these political threads lately and I'm still not convinced that it's a brilliant plan.
     
  3. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #3
    Imagine this hypothetical situation:

    "A month or so before Christmas, three people, most likely male, walked into a crowded shopping mall in Oklahoma City. Dressed as maintenance workers and carrying plant sprayers, they strolled among the holiday shoppers, tending to the potted plants that decorated the gaily lit corridors. A short time later, their work complete, the three walked to mall exits and vanished into the night. At that moment two other teams were doing the same thing at malls in Atlanta and Philadelphia.

    A 7 p.m. on December 9th, the President of the United States met secretly with his National Security Council - which included the national security advisor, the secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The President stunned them with his opening remarks: "The Center for Disease Control has confirmed that at least one case of smallpox - and maybe as many as 20 - have occurred among civilians in Oklahoma City...Presumably, this disease has been deliberately introduced and [is] the result of a bioterrorist attack on the United States." As the President spoke, a lab in Oklahoma confirmed 20 cases of smallpox and said it suspected 14 more. Nine other cases were reported in Atlanta and seven in Philadelphia.

    Federal and state authorities immediately swung into action, and within 24 hours FBI agents were combing the streets of Oklahoma City. At the White House, the deputy secretary of health and human services confirmed that the only two known sources of smallpox were at the CDC's heavily guarded repository in Atlanta and the Vector lab in Novosikirsk, Russia. Intellegence revealed that a former Vector scientist, an expert in smallpox, had left Russia and was believed to be in Iraq.

    By the next week, ten of thousands of Americans showing symptoms, or imagining them, were overwhelming hospital emergency rooms. Television news repeatedly ran footage of a tearful mother, toddler in arms, pleading for a vaccine as a policeman shoved her back into the crowd.

    Meanwhile, chaos swamped those who were trying to manage the crisis. Congress and state legislatures, the FBI and CIA, fire and police departments, the Defense Department and National Guard, public health services and private physicians - all lost valuable time and energy in the confusion over procedures and turf.

    By December 15th, officials had confirmed 2,000 cases in 15 states, with more in Canada, Mexico, and Britain. The death toll had hit 300.

    A week later there were 16,000 cases in half the states in the country, and a thousand people had died - 200 from reactions to the vaccine. Cities were paralyzed as millions tried to flee the epidemic. Vaccine supplies were now exhausted, and violence was rampant in the streets.

    Health authorities projected that by February there would be over three million cases of smallpox in the United States. One million Americans would be dead, with no end in sight."

    - Taken from the November issue of National Geographic

    Something as virulent as smallpox will spread far quicker than antharax.

    Imagine this situation.

    It is possible.
     
  4. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #4
    Possible?

    Of course.

    Likely?

    That's a question that I have yet to answer.
     
  5. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #5
    If Saddam had no qualms using chemical agents on his own people, I am confident that he, given the opportunity, would use similar weapons against us.

    Why wouldn't it be likely?
     
  6. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #6

    Well for one we are the biggest buyers of his oil, I don't think he would jeporadize that, then again the guy's nuts, so there's no telling what he could do.

    I'm concerned that a lot of the rest of the world (Europe mostly) is against this for reasons that a lot of Americans can't seem to fathom.
     
  7. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #7
    I realize it's a threat, but I disagree that it's a threat coming from Iraq, or any country in particular. Iraq would not do this to us, for the simple reason that within months, their country would become a radioactive parking lot, and Saddam Hussein's blood plasma would be used to paint the yellow stripes. He may be a vile person, but he's not stupid, or even insane, as is the popular accusation. More than anything, he wants to remain in power. He can't remain in power if he does something that leads us to overthrow him.

    A biological attack on the US would only be likely by a loosely-knit al-Qaida-style organization. The problem is some Americans' rudimentary sense of justice: If we're being attacked by mysterious terrorists, who do we bomb? We have to bomb SOMEBODY, otherwise jusice is not being served!! We have to search for a scapegoat, and I believe Iraq is that scapegoat.
     
  8. job macrumors 68040

    job

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    in transit
    #8
    Ehm...I'm confused..

    Against what? A war, the oil, smallpox?? :confused:
     
  9. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #9
    Exactly :)
     
  10. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #10
    Never mind. this is the reason I usually stay out of these.[​IMG]
     
  11. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #11
    I'll put my faith in President Bush, he has knowledgeable advisors, & in the end he will do the correct thing. This is not a political decision. The intelligence gathered will backup the decision made!
     
  12. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #12
    this is totally possible and that is the scary thing about iraq

    i agree that we need to take out saddam, but no too hastily or without planning

    some republicans have called for using delta force or the rangers to take him out or to assasinate him instead of using a large military force to oust him and kill a lot of innocent iraqi citizens

    it will cost us twice as much to rebuild iraq according to cnn if we flatten them...and with today's weapons at our disposal, we can readily flatten them so that's not the issue here

    you won't find a web link to delta force on the us army sight, but be sure of this, they do exist and can take out saddam immediately

    in the local paper where i live, i saw this picture of dark skinned men with beards and turbins on, with camels and donkeys holding ak-47s and i initially thought, "so what?, more taliban...no, delta force" a very secret and elite organization that can infiltrate and disappear without a trace and still carry out their mission

    this army ranger special forces unit, with ties to cilvilian cia control, traces their roots partially to the unit my dad served in during world war II...a us army unit of japanese americans who infiltrated and decoded the japanese army in world war II...interesting stuff

    in monterey, there is a little known language school called defense language institute who trains many linguists who later go to texas for further spy training...it is warfare fought with information instead of howitzers and B-52s
     
  13. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #13
    Look at how inane your post is:

    I hope you're not putting your faith in President Bush because he has knowledgeable advisors, because to do so would be to admit that he himself has no clue.

    Correct for who and what?

    I wonder if the push for war would be so strong were it not for the energy corporations' thirst for oil - the same energy corporations who donate copiously to Bush?
    There are a couple different ways to interpret this, but unfortunately I fear the decision has already been made, and the Republican Party is in the process of supporting that decision with various evidence while discarding any/all evidence which does not serve their purposes. Forgive me for being cynical, but with a party whose members are bought and paid for, I really have no choice.
     
  14. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #14
    i consider the democrats the lesser of two evils since there are plenty of democrats bought and paid for

    enron had ties to clinton as much as the GOP and when clinton pardoned rich, the billionaire on the run, it was really sad

    but it still does not take the cake like ford pardoning nixon:p :D
     
  15. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #15
    Definitely, they're both very corrupt parties. I guess which one is the lesser of two evils is debatable. It doesn't really matter to me though, because it's like choosing between having electrodes hooked up to my genitals, or being smashed in the face repeatedly with a hot frying pan: I'll take neither, thanks. :)
     
  16. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #16
    Please put the congress, current or just elected, along with the President on a nice plane for a holiday in Europe. When they arrive over Iraq, put parachutes on them and drop them. They're welcome to have guns except that they voted to keep guns off planes.

    Next time, we'll get more interesting, honest people for the federal government. ;)
     
  17. GigaWire macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
  18. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #18
    What I'm really hoping is that the whole war on Iraq thing was just a Republican smoke screen to rally votes to support the Comander in Thief, I mean Chief, no I was definitely right the first time. Anyway, with any luck now that Bush has both the Senate and the Congress, he and his rich buddies will be too busy giving themselves tax cuts and cutting services that they'll forget all about the war.
     
  19. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #19
    "_ _ _But it’s not true that Bush is a man of his word. He has shimmied and shifted in lots of areas, including Iraq, manipulating language the way Clinton did and exaggerating in the same way that he once pilloried Gore for doing. Bush says “regime change” doesn’t have to mean deposing Saddam Hussein—that the regime would be changed if Saddam disarmed. This is rhetoric worthy of Clinton, and it doesn’t mean that Bush has altered fundamentally his commitment to displace Saddam through military force."
    -Eleanor Clift
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/826341.asp?cp1=1


    THE AXIS OF EVIL STRIKES BACK
    by Eric Margolis
    24 October 2002

    NEW YORK - Never trust an axis of evil. When President George W. Bush threatened to invade Iraq if it didn't readmit UN arms inspectors, that tricky Saddam immediately agreed. 'Welcome back to beautiful Baghdad,' he told UN inspectors, leaving the Bush Administration gnashing its teeth in frustration.

    If the UN didn't give him a green light to re-bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age, Bush thundered - with stunning illogic - he would ignore the UN Security Council and take action unilaterally. The very same Bush who had a few days earlier vowed to invade Iraq because it was ignoring the Security Council.
    http://www.foreigncorrespondent.com/archive/axis_strikes_back.html
     
  20. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #20
    If you've been online for more than a year you will remember all the chain emails that were so popular a few years ago. Remmber the HIV needles in theater seats? They all had certain elements in common, a very personal scenario with names and locations specifically mentioned to add credibility, statistics of how this will affect YOU.
    They all had the same intent to SCARE PEOPLE. All of these scenarios are possible. Any one of us can buy a couple hundred bucks worth of gasoline and start a firestorm that could raze a whole forest, suburb, or even city. Most of us could buy all sorts of hunting rifles and start sniping away too, but the reality is it highly unlikely, nearly a nonexistant chance of happening.
    How many kids showed up to your door last week for Halloween? How many used to show up say twenty years ago? Afraid of razorblades in the apples? There have been no cases reported of razor blades in apples, ever. Not one. Poison candy? Two in the last decade and both cases were comitted by family members against other family members. So why would everyone keep their kids home and deprive them of some good old timey wholesome fun? fear...Fear...FEAR!!!!

    http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/fear/index.php

    Sadam was just hanging out opressing his own people and watching them starve under the UN sanctions, and has pretty much been kept in check by our weekly bombing runs. If he was really the insane dictator in the dessert that everyone claims, he would have done something against Israel already, but he hasn't unless you count mailing checks to the families of people killed in the Intifadah, (including suicide bombers).
    For the most part Sadam is at idealogical odds with the Islamic extremeists, and doesn't support them since eventually Sadam himself would end up on their hit list as he is a secular leader. Even the CIA reports stated that Iraq doesn't have a nuclear weapon capability at this time and won't for many years.
    Guess who does? North Korea, and they're nuts enough to use it against South Korea, or Japan, but Bush won't mess with them since they've got a million troops and that would be a real war.
    Who else has nukes? Pakistan and India do, and they've been engaged in a low level real shooting war over Kashmir for years. They've come to the brink quite a few times lately.
    And to really piss everyone off I'll play devil's advocate for a moment before I go to bed, and ask a few questions... which country has a leader not elected by it's people, is a nuclear power that has used nuclear weapons against civilian targets in a war, and has been involved in combat in a half dozen countries in the past decade? Oh yeah, and this country has also used chemical weapons in war too!
    I'm sure you've guessed that it's the good ole USA, head up by Bush Jr appointed by the supreme court, the same country that nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima (although that was a different war altogether, but it still counts), has fought in Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq (weekly), Afghanistan,Haiti, Panama, etc, and the chemical weapons were widely used in World War I.
    I am not saying that if I were President I would have done a lot of this differently, but the point is that everything can look pretty bad with the wrong spin on it. Take the time to dig a little deeper and apply more than a superficial soundbite as analysis or hyperbole and scary fictional stories to justify policy that will affect real people in horrible ways.

    End rant. Good night.
     
  21. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #21
    This thread is getting to be quite fantastic. I am rubbing my hands together with glee. :)
     
  22. diorio macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    #22
    We are more likely to pass Bush's proposals now that the GOP has a majority in the senate. War is more likely, but in the end I think we would have seen the U.S. going to war with Iraq sooner or later even without the GOP majority.
     
  23. jefhatfield thread starter Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #23
    it's like that guy who always shows up on pop ads two years ago who has the eighteen inch member:p ;) :D :eek:

    something designed to make some of us males buy the new enlarging pills now on the market:rolleyes:
     
  24. bonehead macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    #24
    Of course we're going to war. Bush has made clear his intentions long ago. There aren't enough Democrats in Congress willing to vote against it. This assumes that Bush will ask Congress for a formal declaration in the first place. Now that we've violated our own explicitly stated national policy against assassination I can't imagine the administration worrying about Congressional approval.
     
  25. ninjachild macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    #25
    i think that we will definitly go to war with iraq,

    its just a matter of if it will be a war or a police action like in vietnam,

    the last big conflict america saw changed it forever,

    imagine how a true war would be in the media today...

    if they even told you about it,

    it seems that we are fastly approaching a police state

    scary.
     

Share This Page