OT: Do we have a choice of whether or not we go to war?

[SevenStar]

My cousin just sent me this:

The Bush White House has an "opinion" line for you to call. So call and give your opinion of the proposed war in Iraq. The line only accepts calls from 9-5 EST., Monday thru Friday. Just call the White House at 202-456-1111. A machine will detain you for only a moment and then a pleasant live operator will thank you for saying "I oppose" or "I approve." It will only take minutes. Note that the weekends are closed for calls. The president has said that he wants to know what the American people are thinking. Let him know. Time is running out.

Ordinarily, I'd dismiss it as a hoax, but he's in the military...

Anyone else heard about or called this number?

[dezhen2001]

nuff said.

dawood

[SevenStar]

nah, the number's real.

White House, Presidential Inquiries Comments Office, (202) 456-1111, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

it's the comment line. I doubt he'll take those comments into any real consideration, but the number is legit.

[dezhen2001]

7*: thats why i gave the thumbs down :p Its strange, most people here dont agree to it, australians certainly dont as well as many other countries... even the UN have not given the go-ahead.

its something i am finding hard to understand, especially thinking about what the persecution of ordinary muslim people will grow to now because of this. now i dont 'look' muslim so am not really affected by it, but many of my friends and especially their mothers (who wear hijab) have been around here and its just not good:mad:

dawood

[joedoe]

It is interesting because a TV channel here ran a phone poll on the issue and the results were that 65% didn't agree with going to war with Iraq. Immediately after showing the results they interviewed our Prime Minister. Every time they asked him if he would send troops in without UN approval he dodged the question. When he was asked whether he would take the opinion polls into account when making a decision to go to war his response was along the lines of "It is my opinion that this is something that we as a nation have to do". In other words, his opinion was more important than that of 65% of the people he is supposed to be representing.

Kinda made me sick watching that.

[red5angel]

dezhen, here in minneapolis we have a large population of somalis, and while some of them have been arrested for supposed links to terrorist organizations, more specifically Al Quaeda, most of them go about their daily lives with no problems.
Don't get me wrong I would be naive to think that muslims haven't caught any heat from all this, however, even back in 92 there was no real increase in violence against muslims here in the US.

My problem with comments like this really, and I am not picking on you specifically Dezhen, is that people don't really have full posession of all the facts. War is bad, we all agree, because people who shouldn't often do get killed in war. However, whether the rest of the world approves or not, we cannot let even the possibility of the threat exist. Everyone wants to jump on the "its all about the oil" bandwagon or the "its GW's attempt to gain popularity, but I don't buy it. Those may be motivating factors but I find it hard to believe those would be the main reaons we would go to war.
It's not an easy decision to risk american lives in a war with Iraq even if we believe it is going to be an easy one.

Joe, take polls with a grain of salt. Just about every poll I have seen has still been more in favor then not. However, it's a popular movement in the media at the moment to reflect the disfavor.

[Laughing Cow]

My feeling is that the war will happen as it is in the "best of USA interest".

Yes, the majority of people on this globe appear to be opposed to the war.

But as they say:
"This is a reason not a handicap".

Russian intel already confirmed that the attack is scheduled for the 2nd half of February.

[red5angel]

you have insiders in Russian intel LC?

[joedoe]

red5 - fair enough. If there is a good reason to go to war, then I guess you go to war. However, I feel that the people of your country, my country, and every other country involved in mobilising troops have a right to know what those reasons are. I understand that sometimes due to the sensitivity of information there is only so much you can give out. However I think that if you are going to send the nation's sons and daughters to war, then the people should be given all the facts. Furthermore, the people should be listened to if they disagree with going to war.

Now Colin Powell is going to present to the UN information that supports the US case for attacking Iraq. What I don't understand is why this information has been witheld from the UN until now.

[dezhen2001]

red5: for sure, but who IS in posession of all the facts?

Not the millions of uk, us, aussie and muslim people wondering what the he|| is gonna happen thats for sh|t sure!

Of course the Gulf didnt cause that heat - that wasnt an "axis of evil" tour! Saddam was just a dictator who took over kuwait, not some person following 'gods' orders and having so many misconstrued quotes from the Quran and Hadith flying about all over the place with no clear and direct explanation.

now i dunno if u heard about this but the police raided a mosque in London a week or so ago and made arrests... not only did they come in to a holy place, it was right at prayer time when there were many people there. Actually some of my friends know people who go to that mosque.

now... they seemingly have some 'evidence' relating to terrorism, yet its been handled very badly. I have noticed the change here myself, especially when its prayer time and many muslims are going to the mosque. people give us ALL a dirty look, like we are ALL hiding something and conducting secret meetings in our places of worship. How do u think that makes ANY community feel? Let alone one who was born and brought up in the same country as those looking down on them, pay their taxes the same and everything?

i know what it feels like as i have seen it and been part of it as well.

dawood

[Braden]

"Now Colin Powell is going to present to the UN information that supports the US case for attacking Iraq. What I don't understand is why this information has been witheld from the UN until now."

Hans Blix's report (re: UN weapons inspectors) was only a few days ago. Give poor Colin a few nights to think about it, eh?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by red5angel
you have insiders in Russian intel LC?

No, but it was a rather big headline in the Newspapers.

Like I said read the International Newspapers, not everything is told to you Guys in the states.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
Now Colin Powell is going to present to the UN information that supports the US case for attacking Iraq. What I don't understand is why this information has been witheld from the UN until now.

Agreed, the USA been boasting about that info for the last 2 months.

But than so far they have also shown a reluctance to share Info about Al-Qaeda, 9-11 and Afghanistan.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Braden
"Now Colin Powell is going to present to the UN information that supports the US case for attacking Iraq. What I don't understand is why this information has been witheld from the UN until now."

Hans Blix's report (re: UN weapons inspectors) was only a few days ago. Give poor Colin a few nights to think about it, eh?

Isn't the information that Powell is presenting intel that the US had gathered prior to the report by Blix? If it is based on intel from the Blix report, then why does Powell need to present it? Wasn't the report already presented to the UN?

I am not trying to be confrontational. As I have said before, we don't have all the facts so I am trying to work things out. :)

[Souljah]

I do hope this evidence materialises before they bulldoze iraq.

Such a waste of life...and for what? POWER...thats all it is.


greg

[Braden]

Don't you think the contents of Blix's report is pertinent to what the content of Powell's presentation will be?

[joedoe]

So you are saying that the intel they are presenting will simply support or reinforce the report by Blix? So it isn't some sort of intel presenting irrefutable proof that Iraq has been developing WoMD?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Braden
Don't you think the contents of Blix's report is pertinent to what the content of Powell's presentation will be?

It shouldn't be as the USA stated that they have exact numbers, locations and other info about Iraq's WMD program.

The feeling I get is because Blix's report didn't show a clear vioaltion they now try to bolster their statement with this data.

In short if Blix's report had shown a clear violation that data would never have been released.

That is why the USA was against the weapons ispection from the day go, as they already had all the info.
Atleast so they say.

[Braden]

"It shouldn't be as the USA stated that they have exact numbers, locations and other info about Iraq's WMD program"

It depends what you mean. If I'm guessing right at what you mean by this, I don't believe they've actually stated this.

Without even worrying about whether or not there's conspiracy theories or withheld intel or supporting or refuting... skipping that entire boat completely...

don't you nonetheless think that, if you were Powell, you would want Blix's report before you presented yours?

[red5angel]

joe and dezhen, I agree with most of your points, but none of us CAN be in posession of all the facts, some of those things are highly sensitive. As a soldier, you know that you may not understand all the reasons why you are doing what you do in wartime but you have to trust that those who do know, know what they are doing, regardless of popular opinion poles etc..
A good example is, let's say that the US finds out Iraq does have a nuclear weapon, but not only that, they don't know where it is. Do you tell everyone? Do you tell anyone, letting Iraq know you know and are actively looking for it?

Winston churchill once had to decide whether to allow a german bombing sorte through with no warning to the populace of the city. IF they warned the people, then the germans would have known we broke their code, or would have had an idea and we would no longer have had that edge. He chose not to warn them and many people died in that attack, but the germans never figured out we knew their code and we won.

[joedoe]

If I had evidence to support my position, I would rpesent it regardless of the report that Blix made. But that is just me. Can you explain your reasoning a little further so that I can understand where you are coming from?

[Laughing Cow]

Braden.

I get the feeling that the US is using the U.N. for their own purpose and to pacify the other countries.

They stated that they had very clear information about Iraq's WMD, this was in the international news and the U.N. asked them to show that inforamtion as it would help the weapons Inspectors Again in the news.

This are the facts, known by anybody that reads a newspaper worldwide, and Saddam will also know it.

To be honest I am shocked about how much the Bush goverment talks about their plans and so on in the international news, it would be in their best interest to say less not more.

Just my view.

[Braden]

Ok, well if I was Powell, I'd DEFINITELY want to read Blix's report before I presented to the UN. If you disagree, I can respect that.

Blix's report is the UN position on weapon's inspection in Iraq. Powell is making a report on USA's recommendations to the UN regarding how to make conclusions and act based on weapons inspection in Iraq. That the latter would critically benefit from knowledge of the former seems clear to me.

It seems to me like the error you're making is you're concieving of the UN and USA as equal playing partners. Like they're playing poker and they each have a hand to show, and it's like: ok, you show your hand, then I'll show mine.

But this isn't the case. The UN is an international body. The USA is a substituent participant of the international body. USA's "poker hand" in the UN is utterly dependant upon the UN's "poker hand" because of this unequal relationship. It's like the USA doesn't know what's wild or how many drops it gets until the UN shows it's hand. I dunno if that makes any sense; I recognize it's a goofy and senseless analogy. I'm making a stirfry; it's the best I can do now. ;p And of course, you might not be making this error, you might just disagree, or not believe this is an error... etc...

The UN's position _sets the scene_ for dealing with the UN.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by red5angel
joe and dezhen, I agree with most of your points, but none of us CAN be in posession of all the facts, some of those things are highly sensitive. As a soldier, you know that you may not understand all the reasons why you are doing what you do in wartime but you have to trust that those who do know, know what they are doing, regardless of popular opinion poles etc..
A good example is, let's say that the US finds out Iraq does have a nuclear weapon, but not only that, they don't know where it is. Do you tell everyone? Do you tell anyone, letting Iraq know you know and are actively looking for it?

Winston churchill once had to decide whether to allow a german bombing sorte through with no warning to the populace of the city. IF they warned the people, then the germans would have known we broke their code, or would have had an idea and we would no longer have had that edge. He chose not to warn them and many people died in that attack, but the germans never figured out we knew their code and we won.

I accept that there are some secrets that must be kept. I also understand that soldiers have to just do what they are told and trust to the leadership.

I guess my problem is that I don't trust either Australia's leaders, nor the leaders of the USA. Maybe I am just too cynical :).

[@PLUGO]

I thought Powel's report was supposed to offer irrefutable evidence that Iraq had WoMD?
If this is the case why wait???

What difference would waiting for BLIX's report make to this "evidence"?

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Braden
Ok, well if I was Powell, I'd DEFINITELY want to read Blix's report before I presented to the UN. If you disagree, I can respect that.

Blix's report is the UN position on weapon's inspection in Iraq. Powell is making a report on USA's recommendations to the UN regarding how to make conclusions and act based on weapons inspection in Iraq. That the latter would critically benefit from knowledge of the former seems clear to me.

It seems to me like the error you're making is you're concieving of the UN and USA as equal playing partners. Like they're playing poker and they each have a hand to show, and it's like: ok, you show your hand, then I'll show mine.

But this isn't the case. The UN is an international body. The USA is a substituent participant of the international body. USA's "poker hand" in the UN is utterly dependant upon the UN's "poker hand" because of this unequal relationship. I dunno if that makes any sense. And of course, you might not be making this error, you might just disagree, or not believe this is an error... etc...

OK, I can accept you point of view wrt the presentation by Powell. I can also accept that the UN and the USA are not equal playing partners.

However, if I wanted to convince the UN that there was a good reason to attack Iraq and I had good evidence to support my position, then I would present that evidence regardless of what Blix had to say.

I guess I would make a suckful statesman.

[Braden]

design sifu

I don't know what you guys are taking to be 'irrefutable evidence.' I don't even know what concievable finding could even be theoretically taken to be 'irrefutable evidence.' US certainly has alot of data to present. If you listened to Bush's SotU speech, you heard examples of this.

joedoe

"However, if I wanted to convince the UN that there was a good reason to attack Iraq and I had good evidence to support my position, then I would present that evidence regardless of what Blix had to say."

Did they say they wouldn't make the presentation depending upon Blix's report? The only person I've heard say this was Laughing Cow. I agree; I too would find this a point of ethical contention.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Braden
...
joedoe

"However, if I wanted to convince the UN that there was a good reason to attack Iraq and I had good evidence to support my position, then I would present that evidence regardless of what Blix had to say."

Did they say they wouldn't make the presentation depending upon Blix's report? The only person I've heard say this was Laughing Cow. I agree; I too would find this a point of ethical contention. [/B]

So if they had this intel previously, then why did they wait for Blix's report before presenting it? Or are you saying that they did not have this intel previous to the report?

[Braden]

The intel in Bush's speech?

I have no idea which intel is from UN reports and which is from USA reports and when which bits of intel arrived.

My only position is that USA making an argument based on intel (regardless of whether you take it to be entirely theirs, entirely the UNs, or a mixture of both; and regardless of when how old you decide the intel is) is dependant upon the UN first making it's own position known with respect to the situation.

The specifics, I'm simply not qualified to comment on.

[Laughing Cow]

Braden.

We are talking about statements made by the US goverment 2 months ago, not the current "state of the union" address or so.

There was a big huuhah after the US announced that they had intel that nobody else had and it prooved the WMD program,
Both the U.N. and IRAQ asked for this to be made public, which it never was.

This same Intel is now supposed to be used by Powell in his report.

This is not something new out of the blue, but it was widely reported in the news worldwide.

Can't understand how you never heard this apart form me, It was MAJOR headlines worldwide.

[joedoe]

Braden, my understanding was that what Powell is presenting to the UN on Feb 5 is US-gathered intel that proves that Iraq is actively developing WMD.

[Braden]

laughing cow

"We are talking about statements made by the US goverment 2 months ago, not the current 'state of the union' address or so."

I realize that. I brought up the SotU address only as an example of the kind of intel one might have, as he did address this issue.

"Can't understand how you never heard this apart form me, It was MAJOR headlines worldwide."

I said you're the only one I've heard say this intel would never be presented.

I've certainly heard of the situation itself before.

joedoe

I'm not sure what else to add. Seems like we're going in circles.

Well, maybe I can add this.

If you think Powell is going to "just present facts", eg: "So we found 5 barrels of compound X here. Don't really know what that means... do whatever ya want here guys, seeya."... well, I can't believe you actually believe that, if you take a moment to consider it.

Someone like Powell doesn't go to something like the UN with a presentation like that. He has to go with a very specific position he is presenting. He has to go with a reason, and he has to argue his reason. There's "just presenting facts" and there's "just presenting facts."

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Braden

I realize that. I brought up the SotU address only as an example of the kind of intel one might have, as he did address this issue.

It is a logcial conclusion that if the Weapons Inspectors prooved the WMD program than there is NO need to de-classify the Information.

Cheers.

[Braden]

laughing cow

I don't agree.

If you could outline your logic, I could probably explain why.

[joedoe]

My apologies, I misread your reply.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Braden
laughing cow

I don't agree.

If you could outline your logic, I could probably explain why.

If B prooves a case than A, C, etc is not needed to proof it.
And the world looks more favorable on proof by the U.N. than the U.S.

Intelligence agency worldwide are reluctant to make their findings public.
Many times de-calssiyfing information too early can hurt them and their operatives in the locations.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by dezhen2001
7*: thats why i gave the thumbs down :p Its strange, most people here dont agree to it, australians certainly dont as well as many other countries... even the UN have not given the go-ahead.

its something i am finding hard to understand, especially thinking about what the persecution of ordinary muslim people will grow to now because of this. now i dont 'look' muslim so am not really affected by it, but many of my friends and especially their mothers (who wear hijab) have been around here and its just not good:mad:

dawood

There is a large population of muslims and hindus here - ever since 9/11, both arabs and indians have gotten killed, threatened, vandalized, etc. because of how they look. It's a shame. It's nowhere near as bad now, but if we go to war, it will get bad again.

[joedoe]

Unfortunately you get idiots everywhere. Here, both after Sept. 11 and the Bali bombings we had people threatening Muslims and defacing Mosques. Very sad state of affairs.

[Braden]

laughing cow

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

[dnc101]

1. The US and the world knows Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had them 12 years ago. He agreed then to destroy them and dismantle his programs in order to save his sorry butt. However, he's never proved they were destroyed (which he agreed to do), has never accounted for them, and has vascilated between obstructing inspectors and throwing them out of the country (also in violation of his agreement). The recent inspections did turn up evidence that he has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons AND conventional delivery systems. He also has ties to and has supported terrorists. We should also take note that Saddam has used those weapons against his neighbors as well as on dissident factions in Iraq. We need no further proof.

2. I would be extremely angry if Bush gave us any 'evidence' that woul compromise security sources or tip Saddam as to exactly what we know. Our troops will probably have to face these weapons soon. If Saddam knows which caches we know about, those caches would be emptied before we had a chance to destroy them. That a bunch of silly, spoiled overgrown children are continually crying 'I have a right to know' is not a good enough reason to risk our servicemen's lives unnecesarily.

3. Is stoping the curent Iraqui regime a good reason to risk our servicemen? Consider that the world appeased a similar megalomaniac in the '30s and then lost a generation getting rid of him in the '40s. If we don't get rid of him now, the cost of removing Saddam later will likely be horrendus. Appease him, fall for his delaying tactics, and thus allow him to build more and better weapons and we'll face a far stronger enemy.

4. I don't buy all these polls done by biased press or their hirelings saying the world is against us. But even if they aren't lieing, it is irrelevant. Since when does the US need any one elses approval to defend our security or interests? And that includes the UN. When the potatoe is too hot (like the N. Korea situation) the courageos UN hides behind the US and says 'you deal with this one'. And when a mad Middle Eastern despot violates his treaties with the UN, they give him one more chance after one more chance while he arms. Why do we then put up with them? Maybe on the outside chance that he'll finally see the light and comply to avoid war. Meanwhile, it gives us time to position our forces and work out details with our allies.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Braden
laughing cow

I don't agree.

If you could outline your logic, I could probably explain why.

Braden: I think what LC is trying to say is that it is a situation analogous to the Winston Churchill situation mentioned earlier in the thread.

If we were to give the specific information we have regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Iraq might be able to divine from that how we obtained that information, putting our sources/intelligence operatives at risk.

So, if the UN weapon inspectors turned up sufficient information to convince the UN that war with Iraq was justified, the US wouldn't present it's information to the UN publically, since the UN would already be convinced of the conclusion that information would help draw.

Since the UN weapon inspectors have not turned up sufficient information, now the US information will be presented, out of necessity.

Does this seem reasonable?

[Braden]

Ah, yeah, that makes sense.

I got confused when he said 'weapons inspectors' and didn't realize he meant explicitly the non-US UN effort. Probably a stupid mistake for me to make. Thanks.

[Ford Prefect]

The "people" in general are undereducated retards that swallow any rumor as fact. That is why we live in a republic where people are voted into public office to make the important decisions for the brain-dead masses. Even though I don't agree with all my elected officials' decisions, I am happy that somebody with some semblance of concious thought is making the decisions rather than voting on important issues beside the career-unemployed idiot who saw a commercial about the issue and knows its bad.

[rogue]

Sept 1938...
The British and French allow Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, a 16,000-square-mile area of Czechoslovakia with a largely German-speaking population. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain says this will satisfy Germany and bring "peace for our time ... peace with honor."


Sept 1939 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ...

I do not propose to say many word to-night. The time has come when action rather than speech is required. Eighteen months ago in this House I prayed that the responsibility might not fall upon me to ask this country to accept the awful arbitrament of war. I fear that I may not be able to avoid that responsibility. But, at any rate, I cannot wish for conditions in which such a burden should fall upon me in which I should feel clearer than I do to-day as to where my duty lies. No man can say that the Government could have done more to try to keep open the way for an honorable and equitable settlement of the dispute between Germany and Poland. Nor have we neglected any means of making it crystal clear to the German Government that if they insisted on using force again in the manner in which they had used it in the past we were resolved to oppose them by force. Now that all the relevant documents are being made public we shall stand at the bar of history knowing that the responsibility for this terrible catastrophe lies on the shoulders of one man - the German Chancellor, who has not hesitated to plunge the world into misery in order to serve his own senseless ambitions.
:
:
:
It now only remains for us to set our teeth and to enter upon this struggle, which we ourselves earnestly endeavored to avoid, with determination to see it through to the end. We shall enter it with a clear conscience, with the support of the Dominions and the British Empire, and the moral approval of the greater part of the world. We have no quarrel with the German people, except that they allow themselves to be governed by a Nazi Government. As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe. We shall merely pass from one crisis to another, and see one country after another attacked by methods which have now become familiar to us in their sickening technique. We are resolved that these methods must come to an end. If out of the struggle we again re-establish in the world the rules of good faith and the renunciation of force, why, then even the sacrifices that will be entailed upon us will find their fullest justification.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gb1.htm

Those that don't learn the lessons of history....

[dnc101]

... are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Here, here!

Good post, excellent point, rogue.

[diego]

gonna rant real quik so excuse grammer and all that.

bin watching the war updates, and everyone opposses usa bombings...recently nelson mandela called bush a rascist stating bush only doesnt care about un's no-go orders as the attorney general for the un is a blackman...mandela remarked bush is a cowboy looking for another holocaust.


Heres what im thinking...bush and the un planned this to show extremist muslims that usa isnt just a white gang looking to impart christianity on nations while in the meantime pilferring thier goods such as oil, etc.


like air on cnn that australia is backing us, then air france and canada etc dont back them...wich shows extremists they are not fighting one gang but a free people.


Now this only makes sence if places like iraq are getting this type of press from the free world!...does anyone know if they are hearing this, or is thier news strictly the white christians are back agian and just like they did to the africans the the native indians they coming for our status...Yall make sence of what i wrote, and have any opinions?.

im saying maybe mandela and bush planned this debate to show saddams peeps bush isnt just another king trying to up saddams crown "up is rap slang for steal ones hat!."

[Braden]

You need to lay off that BC weed, man.

[diego]

UTTERLY SPEACHLESS

[dezhen2001]

ROFLMAO! :D

dawood

[dnc101]

Originally posted by diego
:confused: