An American Retort/Essay

[@PLUGO]

again the consistant flip flop from "this is about terrorism"/"this isn't about terrorism it's about the UN..."

so far the only constant is the determination to bring War to Iraq...
:rolleyes:

[@PLUGO]

"Why, when the most urgent threat arising from illegal weapons of mass destruction is the nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, is the US government ignoring it and concentrating on Iraq? Why, if it believes human rights are so important, is it funding the oppression of the Algerians, the Uzbeks, the Palestinians, the Turkish Kurds and the Colombians? Why has the bombing of Iraq, rather than feeding the hungry, providing clean water or preventing disease, become the world's most urgent humanitarian concern? Why has it become so much more pressing than any other that it should command a budget four times the size of America's entire annual spending on overseas aid?

In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination to go to war. His analysis suggests that it has little to do with Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed.

The underlying problem the US confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive production of any good - be it cars or shoes or bananas - means that unless new markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money. Just as it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses, as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has been developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically viable option is war. "

quoted from this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,897766,00.html)

[red5angel]

"again the consistant flip flop from "this is about terrorism"/"


Who says it isn't about terrorism except those who think it is about oil?! .:rolleyes: I can tell you right now it isn't about wanting to sell things to a larger market! :rolleyes: Keeerist that idiot you quoted wants you to believe we are going to war so we can create jobs, or maybe create a larger market for our products? I would say that has to go as so far the worst idea for why we are going to war. Atleast there is oil in Iraq to support those flimsy claims....

[@PLUGO]

...so then it's not about bringing Democracy to the Iraqi people?:rolleyes: :p

[Laughing Cow]

r5A.

They war might be for different reasons, but I can't see the USA pull out after the war and let everybody else get the good contracts to rebuild/assist IRAQ either. (Many Billion of US $$ worth)
Neither will the USA pass up the chance to grab a voting share of the Oil-market so that it has a say on how much Oil will cost.
They might not want the Iraqi Oil, but I guess they would like a say on WHO will control it in the end.

Regardless of what motives the USA has for the War still a lot of people will die, suffer and lots more hate against the USA will be generated both in the middle-east and the rest of the world.

The Motives given are there to give the war a legit reason and to keep opposition down and support coming in, the REAL reasons are not told to anybody.
Atleast not to the average joe in the street like you and me.

Cheers.

P.S.: If you haven't done so read the recent link I posted.

[red5angel]

LC - of course not, you don't dump millions of dollars into war just to let everyone else have the spoils. Of course at the end of it all we may benefit, we most certainly will have a new ally to deal with but I find it extremely short sighted to say that the US is only going after Iraq to benefit financially. no one is denying taht oil prices may go down and Iraq may give us the oppurtunity we need to find an economical and military ally in the middle east, although it isn't guarenteed by any means, but to believe thats the only motivation is silly at best.
I predict that very little real hate will be generated from a war with Iraq. Outside of Iraq the whole thing will be practically forgotten ina few years as far as politically speaking goes. World wide citizens will go quietly back to whatever it is they believe is important in life and Iraq will settle into it's new way of life. A few rotten people might take the oppurtunity to do bad things in teh name of "justice" or "revenge" but those things will happen either way, it will be just another excuse....

[old jong]

Originally posted by red5angel
A few rotten people might take the oppurtunity to do bad things in teh name of "justice" or "revenge" but those things will happen either way, it will be just another excuse....

I guess you're right,

[Laughing Cow]

How much do you think that the "spoils of war" do affect the decision and timing to attack IRAQ??

IMHO, I think it is a very big deciding factor, maybe more than how much IRAQ is co-operating or not.

Just my opinion naturally.

P.S.: Like my Granddady told me there are only 2 things that mak the world go round:
MONEY & SEX

[Braden]

Design Sifu

Yenhoi and red5angel allready pointed this out; but just to reiterate...

"These seem to contradict in my mind... The Kuwait situation was resolved durring the first Gulf War. Iraq was ousted from Kuwait in accordance with both the U.N. Terms and Congress."

No it wasn't resolved. Iraq negotiated a surrender, but failed to uphold it's side of the agreement. In effect, the Gulf War is not over. The only thing stopping it is the Americans trying to 'encourage' Iraq to obey the agreement without going back to [continue] the full-out war.

"And If the U.S. is determined to hold Iraq accountable to a unanimous UN agreement. Then there should be not debate about the U.S. acting with a colition of the Willing. The decision should rest entirely with the U.N. security councel."

It was unanimous then. A couple of UN members are now retroactively 'bailing' on the agreement.

[Braden]

Here's an interesting article:
------------------------------------

The Western 'Street'
"Antiwar" mobs side with Saddam and against the Iraqi people.

BY AMIR TAHERI
Tuesday, February 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

LONDON--For almost a year the Don't Touch Saddam lobby has been warning that action against the Iraqi tyrant could provoke an explosion in the "Arab street." The promised explosion came on Saturday. But it was on the streets of Western capitals, from Berlin to Washington.

Watching the marchers here one could not help feeling that larger demonstrations could have been organized by the estimated 1.2 million people, mostly Iraqis and Iranians, who have died as a direct result of the tyrant's policy of repression and war in the past 25 years. Others might have joined them: the four million Iraqis driven into exile and the 1.5 million Iraqis and Iranians disabled during eight years of war. If the "Arab street," and the "Muslim street" in general, have refused to "explode" it is because most Arabs and Muslims know what Saddam Hussein has done to his peoples, and to his neighbors.

In this conflict there are only two sides: On the one side stand Saddam and his regime, on the other the peoples of Iraq. When you stand with one you necessarily stand against the other. The "antiwar" label doesn't change that fact. Let us recall that the same label was used, by the same naïve souls misled by the same scoundrels, when the world was debating the use of force to liberate the peoples of Bosnia and Kosovo. And the same trick themes, used then, are used now. "Let's give diplomacy another chance," Francois Mitterrand urged for much of the 1990s. During that time a quarter million Bosnian Muslims were massacred, and a million driven out of their homes. Diplomacy was also given "another chance" while the Rambouillet Treaty was negotiated with Slobodan Milosevic. The price? Up to 10,000 Kosovar Muslims dead.

We were told that military action against Radovan Karadzic and Milosevic would "destabilize the Balkans." That didn't happen. We were warned that Russia might veto a resolution authorizing force to rescue the peoples of the former Yugoslavia. No such thing happened. We were told to allow the U.N. inspection mission in Kosovo to "do its work." It did, indeed, do its work--visiting mass graves where massacred Muslims were buried, and taking video footage.

Now, too, we are told to give the inspectors time and informed that they are "making progress." It's as if the inspectors had not had enough time during the past 12 years. In any case, the subject of Resolution 1441 is disarmament, not inspection. Inspection was the subject of the 16 previous resolutions, including 1248, which led to the appointment of Hans Blix. The truth is that inspection is working fine. What is not working fine is disarmament. The teams led by Mr. Blix have visited 300 of the 813 sites that Iraq has agreed to let them visit, and have found nothing. Given another six months or so they would visit all the remaining sites and still find nothing, because they are not meant to. The inspectors have interviewed seven of the 3,896 Iraqi scientists listed to have a role in the Iraqi weapons programs. Given another four years, Mr. Blix's men might interview many more of them. And they will find absolutely nothing, because they are not meant to.

Mr. Blix sees his mission as one of inspection, not detection. He inspects what is shown to him, then writes a report. Even if he had 10,000 men under him he would still not find what the Iraqis might wish to hide from him. And each time he is about to appear at the Security Council, Saddam will give them a new "concession." Last time it was the presidential sites; then U2 flights; and, most recently, Saddam's edict to ban weapons of mass destruction. The edict is meaningless, a propaganda declaration. And yet a ban was supposed to have come into effect in April 1991!

If necessary, Saddam will offer to polish Mr. Blix's clogs. But he'll never tell him where Iraq is hiding weapons that it admits it once had. Nor will Saddam let anyone know what his weapons-makers are doing. His cheat-and-retreat strategy has worked for 12 years. Unless something hard hits him, there's no reason why he should stop. In another 12 years he'll be 77, younger than some Arab rulers. After that, he could place a son in command to continue the game.

During the '90s, we were told that war was an excuse for the establishment of an American "empire" in the Balkans. But just ask the Serbs, the Albanians, the Kosovars, the Croats, the Slovenes, the Macedonians and other peoples of the peninsula what they think of that claim. In 1993, Alija Izetbegovich, then the beleaguered president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, explained his feelings to me in the starkest possible manner: "Only the Americans could save us from annihilation. If they do not come, there will soon be no Muslims left in the former Yugoslavia. The Europeans will debate until we are all dead."

American equivocation was as tragic then as it is now in the case of Iraq. France and Germany continued to oppose military intervention in the Balkans until they became convinced that the Americans would intervene. Then they rushed to join the bandwagon. A similar situation exists today. France and Germany will continue to play "peace-lovers" for as long as they know the U.S. has not decided to go to war.

These days the U.S. media are full of attacks on France and Germany. But the truth is that the Bush administration has not confronted them with a clear choice between their alliance with the U.S. and their support for Saddam. Faced with that choice they will choose the U.S., albeit with protesting noises. France will seek a share in the war while Germany will offer troops and materiel to relieve U.S. manpower and weapons in Afghanistan for use in Iraq.

President Bush has kept saying that "you are either with us or against us," but has behaved as if a third position remains possible. He says that Saddam will be disarmed "one way or another," providing France and Germany with a pretext to push for the illusory "other way" short of war. Mr. Bush keeps saying that "this game cannot go on," but continues to play it as if it can go on. The reason may be that U.S. and allied forces aren't yet prepared for war. The media talk about up to a quarter of a million troops ready for action in the Gulf. My own sources, however, indicate that the U.S. and its allies do not have more than 30,000 combat troops there right now.

The current French and German gesticulating is caused by the fact that it costs them nothing and could give them bargaining chips in an eventual turnabout. Unless forced to publicly and unequivocally take sides, neither Monsieur Chirac nor Herr Schröder will have an incentive to abandon what the French call "le beau role" while urging the U.N. to play the role of cuckold.

Mr. Taheri is the author of "The Cauldron: Middle East Behind the Headlines" (Hutchinson, 1988).

[Laughing Cow]

Hmmm.

Just as biased as all the articles that can be posted here by either side.

[Laughing Cow]

And just to show a different side:

Here is a Boston Article of an Interview with ex- Iraqi that I posted earlier on either on this or another threat.

Interview (http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/048/living/_We_know_what_war_means_+.shtml)

We all know what the spin-doctors can make out of ANYTHING once they lay their hands on.
;)

[Braden]

If you have a problem with the article, point out the problem. Don't try to dismiss it with an empty attack, which indeed is no dismissal at all.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Braden
If you have a problem with the article, point out the problem. Don't try to dismiss it with an empty attack, which indeed is no dismissal at all.

Point what out the same points all over again that have been made multiple times and been rejected by you as Anti-war propaganda..

Doing so with you is like arguing with a broken record. and thus a waste of time.

I have seen you arguing way to often with many people here to know that there is NO way that you will see anybody else POV nor accept their arguments.


You are way to defensive & confrontational and think that anything everybody sez is a criticism on you personally and you need to defend/justify your POV.

Thus you see statements as attacks and cannot debate the subject objectively.

Debate can only bring results if ALL the parties are open to listen and hear different arguments and than draw their conclussions from full data provided during the debate.

If YOU had written that article I might be willing to discuss it, but since you quoting a 3rd-party it is futile, as you don't have the same data and background as the author.

Have fun.

[Braden]

"Point what out the same points all over again that have been made multiple times and been rejected by you as Anti-war propaganda"

You're the one who posted that you had a problem with the article. If you don't want to point out your problem, you shouldn't have posted that in the first place.

And I have never rejected something as "anti-war propaganda." Rejecting something just by labelling it isn't condusive to debate. Indeed, it's the very fault I'm noting in your posts right now.

Yenhoi covered the rest. Thanks.

[yenhoi]

How much do you think that the "spoils of war" do affect the decision and timing to attack IRAQ??

Hopefully they play a major role. Oil, markets, jobs, international political clout, military positioning, and domestic and foreign political momentum. Probably more. Not to mention how nervous this is making the governments of North Korea and Iran.

Thus you see statements as attacks and cannot debate the subject objectively.

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us LC?

Debate can only bring results if ALL the parties are open to listen and hear different arguments and than draw their conclussions from full data provided during the debate.

First, both 'sides' have to be debating, you are not.

I would estimate that there is 20 unanswered debate questions aimed at you in this thread alone that went unasnwered or brushed off with a comment such as:

You are just like the rest of the Idiots on here

Thanks for playing! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Laughing Cow]

Braden & Yenhoi.

Obviously I don't read the same thread as you two as in Yenhoi's last post he confirmed what a lot of people been pointing out for some time.

That the war has less to do with the UN resolution & freeing Iraqi people and more with economic/political gains.
because if the wanted to free the IRaqi they could have done so in 1991 or in 1998 when it became clear that Hussein was not complying with the resolution.

I also knew that Yenhoi would be the next Poster right after Braden.

Thanks, for playing you two, you made a pretty good tag-team.

P.S.: Obivously you two never read any of the links I posted.

[Braden]

"Yenhoi's last post he confirmed what a lot of people been pointing out for some time. That the war has less to do with the UN resolution & freeing Iraqi people and more with economic/political gains."

Maybe you should read it more carefully. That's not what he said.

"because if the wanted to free the IRaqi they could have done so in 1991 or in 1998 when it became clear that Hussein was not complying with the resolution."

What, exactly, do you expect them to have done differently?

"Obivously you two never read any of the links I posted."

I read them, thanks.

[yenhoi]

That the war has less to do with the UN resolution & freeing Iraqi people and more with economic/political gains

WAR is all about economic/political gains - everything all nations do, has to do completly with economic/political gains. Nearly all of my statements on this thread and others falls in line completly with what you named economic/political gains. The word I like better is power.

P.S.: Obivously you two never read any of the links I posted.

Because my attitude and position havent changed doesnt mean I havent read some of your links. You have a thread full of links to a bunch of random places. How many hours of required reading is there to get you to answer my questions?

[Merryprankster]

Actually, Laughing Cow, the problem I have with most of your links is that they are all opinion or editorial columns. At BEST, those columns provide one persons perspective based on research they have done. It's their research I want to see, not their opinions.

I'm not going to change my mind because so and so said I should--not on this issue or any other. I want to see some evidence--and evidence in an opinion/editorial column is suspect unless I can find it in regular reporting somewhere. Most of the time, I find it's taken out of context or the whole picture isn't accurately reported.

[red5angel]

"How much do you think that the "spoils of war" do affect the decision and timing to attack IRAQ??"


hmmm ,well let me think about this for a minute... if the spoils of war are what drive this conflict then, why didn't we just keep going in 1991? Come to think of it, we could have benfitted from it then as well, I mean, someone had to pay for all that military action anyway and we had them on the run. In the state Iraqs troops were in at that point they estimate it would have taken less then two weeks to depose Saddam and destroy military suuport for his regime.
I guess all those spoils can't be too much of a temptation...

[@PLUGO]

According to Barden...In effect, the Gulf War is not over. The only thing stopping it is the Americans trying to 'encourage' Iraq to obey the agreement without going back to [continue] the full-out war.

This could also be coroborated by stats indicating how many Iraqi children are dying every month as a result of sanctions... 5-6,000 according to some liberal hippies called The World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/en/) :rolleyes:

So this still begs the question... IF the U.S. "waited" 12 years why the sudden need to go to War during March's New Moon?
To date alot of the "proof" offered has been discredited, and as reflected here the "logic" leans much more towards what the U.S. has to gain from this invasion...er I mean war. :p

Will this protect us from Terrorists? Doubtful...

[red5angel]

DS - Is it sanctions killing the children in Iraq, much less its people? Do you think the UN would allow sanctions to be applied that are responsible for those sorts of deaths? Yes, those sanctions are UN sanctions, and I very highly doubt that those sanctions are directly responsible for the deaths of these people. Sure Saddam may be hoarding or allow the hoarding of those things these children could need, but Iraq is also a big country on the edge of the Third World and children are going to be dying there in larger amounts then would in more civilized regions, although it would be interesting if you took a look at the numbers of children dying everyday even in our country...
I hate that bleeding heart crap because of all the propoganda that is the worse. They want you on their side, to see things their way but they will twist heart wrenching stats like that to make you "see" the truth.


I am getting sick of these pro-saddam types. Really it sickens me that these people want Saddam to go unmolested even knowing what he is capable of. Don't give me diplomacy and political maneuvering crap either. He has had planet y of chances to redeem himself and prove to be a responsible world leader. Lik ethis crap you posted DS, sorry man but if you think that UN sanctions are the cause of these deaths and not the oppressive regime in charge of the country, you are seriously deluding yourself.



"So this still begs the question... IF the U.S. "waited" 12 years why the sudden need to go to War during March's New Moon?
To date alot of the "proof" offered has been discredited, and as reflected here the "logic" leans much more towards what the U.S. has to gain from this invasion...er I mean war.

Will this protect us from Terrorists? Doubtful"

Are you paying attention DS? Even to what you are saying? why now? Can I recall a small incident a little over a year ago in NYC involving two of the worlds tallest buildings?
Proof discredited? Where and When? There has been no discredited proof, only a lack of concrete evidence, for example pictures of chemical warheads, or biological laboratories.
But of course I see your heading in the same direction LC is, it's all about what the US has to gain, or should I dare say the O word again?
However I agree with you, because it's all about the safety of american citizens. Until extremist like Saddam are removed from seats of power we have to fear that another 9/11 is just waiting to happen.
I suppose that recent history isn't good enough however, the US must be driven by its own greed to go to war or to commit military aid, like the Serbia, because we got tons out of that conflict....

[GLW]

Sorry...but we are NOT seeing the entire picture and you really have to dig a lot to get more than a glimpse.

The truth is that there are children in Iraq dying because of what we in the US did. Many of these deaths do NOT have anything to do with the UN sanctions.

What DO they have to do with...

Radiation poisoning...and this IS a danger to anyone that the US would send over to any conflict there. It HAS already been a problem with US military personnel.

Where does this come from?

Well...the US has the armor piercing shells for its tanks and cannons and such.

The thing that makes these thngs armor piercing is that they go very fast and they are made out of VERY dense material.

What is this very dense material?

Depleted uranium. It is used on the shell casing.

By depleted it is meant that the uranium is not radioactive enough or has enough material to make plutonium or weapons/power plan grade radioactive material.

It IS still radioactive and has a very long half life.

What happens when one of these shells is used?

Well, first off, they are SUPPOSED to be handled in a certain way by the military personnel firing them. Studies have shown that this is not always the case. This is case #1 of hazard of exposure for US personnel.

Second, when they hit their target - say a tank - the shell goes through the target pretty much like butter. As it does this, a portion of the shell is sloughed off in the form of particles - radioactive dust or depleted uranium.

It goes through thing because it is so much denser than the material that the target is made of. The sloughing off happens because friction is a reality.

The dust then goes into the air. It goes anywhere the wind takes it.

This means that the groundwater in Iraq is being contaminated as well as the ground, the air, and so on.

This is a danger to US personnel going over there....it is one that is NOT being presented to the US people and MAY NOT be told to the troops.... After all, this is the same military that did LSD testing on US soldiers in the 1950's and 1960's...without said troops consent or knowledge.

The danger to the population of Iraq - you contaminate the soil and groundwater and you have created a wasteland. Do this contamination with radioactive material and you have made a wasteland that lasts 10,000 years.

This contamination has led to an amazing increase in cancers and birth defects in Iraq already.

Now, if this does NOT affect you...let me bring it closer to home..

The contamination is there. We - the US - would send personnel in to Iraq. They are now exposed to this contamination. Effects of radiation is NOT immediate at this level....it takes a while and shows up in the form of cancer and such.

Now, the real question...

Given the LSD testing and things like the use of Agent Orange and issues such as Gulf War syndrome from the US Military's past:

How should we feel about the honesty of the US military?

Should we be concerned about the follow up and safety of any person serving in the military due to such things?

How would we feel if the US govt. pulled the same approach as in Viet Nam and the Gulf War in regards to sickness (Agent Orange, Gulf War syndrome) and the disabilities they cause.

Would YOU want to be in this situation serving your country and then get messed over - for life?

How do we feel about turning a part of this planet into a contaminated area when it is not necessary?

Do we have a moral accountability for OUR actions regardless of what a dictator in another country is doing? (Do two wrongs EVER make a right?)

Many questions and very few official answers.

There is a lot more information out there that is NOT being talked about and being denied.

Why is that?

[yenhoi]

UN Sanctions have been beaten to death on this thread (i think, if not, refer to other political thread..)

Why mid march? Here are a few of the factors:

The first real horrific bombing and storming and killing and maiming isent going to happen during any major Muslim holy days.

Weather. In Iraq you fight during spring, or winter, or you dont really fight at all (too hot.)

You mentioned the moon - United States likes to conduct conventional ground type stuff at night time. Making a good use of our better technology.

The troops will be there and be ready - there was not 100,000+ combat personel in the persian gulf in 1998. This is the largest troop concerntration in that part of the world since............ the gulf war.

Airplanes and navy - along with the troops, take time to get in position. You must also get permission to go into peoples territorial waters or fly over their country, this also takes time.

Supplies. Actual material and food and ammunition has to be there along with the troops, planes, and ships. Also, you need more non-combat peoples around then you have combat peoples around.

All of this takes time, effort, and political clout. The first Bush administration existed in an entirely different international and domestic climate then this Bush Administration does. The Clinton Administration had very different goals, values, etc compared to the first Bush. The current Administration heads a unified government, has a mandate from the people, and is pursueing (agressively at times) a coherent international and domestic agenda. The government of the United States of America is not the same government from 12 years, 8 years, 6 years, or even 4 years ago.

The world has gotten accustomed to a passive United States in post-Cold War times. I hope the rest of the world took alot of pictures during that vacation, because times have again changed.

:eek:

[yenhoi]

Sorry...but we are NOT seeing the entire picture and you really have to dig a lot to get more than a glimpse.

so true.

Radiation poisoning...

this is an odd, but new angle on this forum. Neat. I think you are hugely exaggerating the amount of residue damage these weapons cause on both sides of the rifle, but okay.

So what? The US used exploding bullets in the Philipines... maybe Iraq can get some pointers on how to clean up radiation from the Japenese? Or, they could just use the very same techniques and technology these use to clean up their own little messes so that anyone who might be snooping around Iraq looking for those types of messes, wont find them.

How should we feel about the honesty of the US military?

Honesty? Military is for fighting wars and killing people, whats more honest then destroying your enemies?

Should we be concerned about the follow up and safety of any person serving in the military due to such things?

Of course, they are our boys -but first, Id be more worried about the man with a gun over there................. bullets kill now, radiation kills later. In wars, safety = killing the other guy.

The danger to the population of Iraq

My first concern about population is my own. Iraq's popluation is very low on my personal list of concerns.

Would YOU want to be in this situation serving your country and then get messed over - for life?

The Men and Women of the United States armed forces are very aware that they might die in the service of their country. Thats what makes them soldiers and warriors. They deserve the utmost respect for willingly putting their lives on the line for other people who will not. I doubt the other armed forces of the world have a different opinion.

How do we feel about turning a part of this planet into a contaminated area when it is not necessary?

Im sure that you have some weighted statistics some where, but I would just guess that the reason most children in Iraq die today and have died for the last 12 years is hunger and poverty - like most nations with the same level of development as Iraq. The majority of adult deaths are probably related to their political, ethnic, or religious orientation.

Depleted Uranium bullets are not going to push the middle east into a nuclear winter. It wasent necessary to fire-bomb Berlin either. It wasent necessary to bomb the bridges in Kosovo, or shoot cruise missles at milk factories. Alot of things during war are not necessary. Winning is.

Do we have a moral accountability for OUR actions regardless of what a dictator in another country is doing? (Do two wrongs EVER make a right?)

Morals are relative. They change from year to year, culture to culture, nation to nation, house to house, person to person. The Winner decides what morals are 'correct,' then they happily gp about writing history.

:eek:

[red5angel]

GLW, nice try but you too are fooling yourself if you think that the country of Iraq is slowly dying due to radiation posining from depleted ammunition. While the stuff needs special handling, we didn't douse Iraq in depleted uranium. The stuff is expensive and so used selectively. Taking that into consideration you also must know that Iraq Armored equipoment during the gulf war was way under par and did not in gereal recquire large expenditures of depleted uranium be used.
Of course let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of land mines and subpar ammunition lying around the desert from the Iraqis. We aren;t the only country to use things that kill when we go to war...

[@PLUGO]

Red5:
Where are these pro-Saddam types? here? I haven't seen any... but then again, it's clear we all have very diverse views on many things... applause to our willingness to air such differences...

9/11... yeah, I'm well aware of it's occurance,:rolleyes: was born in manhattan and still have many roots there. Now, point me to a piece of evidence connecting Saddam to 9/11... I've looked, haven't found any. I've also noticed "officials" are devided on that topic as well....

I posted earlier on "proof" being discredited...
UK intelligence sources consist of plagerizing a 12 year old thesis by some California Grad student who was probably a hippy as well.

Also posted on Santions as well, curious that 2 directors of the Oil for Food program would resign in protest. I'll bet they know something about the subject you and I both don't. unless they where both pro-saddam...:p

"although it would be interesting if you took a look at the numbers of children dying everyday even in our country..."
Yeah, it would... more so I'd like to hear that said to someone in the whitehouse as well.
aside:I've spent some time in 3rd world nations in Africa... While in Gambia, their national yearly income was $200!!!! think about that, the whole country makes $200 a year!!! Time spent there put our nation's ambient wealth in serious perspective.

However, I must agree with you that Extremists like Saddam should not be in power, along with a plethoria of other extremists around the world. But for the U.S. to go around determining what extremists should stay or go is a slippery slope we,as a nation, have stumbled down before. With better "proof" even.

GLW: cheers for bringing up Depleted Uranium....
talk about support for our troops...
but... on the brighter side... I understand Daper Donald's not ruling out a preemptive nuclear strike.

yenhoi:
I'm done with U.N. sanctions, sorry if I got loud...can someone pass the organic cookies and Soy milk please...

Question; how do you figure BUSH has a mandate from the "people?" Just over 50% of the "vote" from a citizenship where less then half the population votes?

[Black Jack]

"Where are the Pro-Saddam types? Here? I haven't seen any..."

Funny.....I have seen a whole slew of them in a frentic whine since this whole thread started. Are you in front of a mirror?

Red,

Man you have some fortitude, I commend you on still not backing down, I made my peace with the first post, knowing that NO MATTER what information has been showcased in these liberal anti-usa/anti-war/pro-terrorism threads on the reasons why Saddam is a threat, why there is no need for a relationship to Osama to go to war, even though all throughout these thread topics different posters have put down connections to terrorist organizations, it does not matter.

Fanatical liberals use raw emotion to fight there battles not logic.

In this regard I support Bush, I think he is a couragous president, he will make the stand and stay the course.

[yenhoi]

Question; how do you figure BUSH has a mandate from the "people?" Just over 50% of the "vote" from a citizenship where less then half the population votes?

My mandate of the people comment is based 90% on the republicans victory in the November '02 elections. I didnt say Bush has a mandate, the government does.

The other 10% has to do with the 'bill' passed by congress giving war powers to the President concerning Iraq before said election, and the general campaign that was run accross the country by the Democratic party, which for the most part failed miserably.

Interesting that you say less the half of Americas population votes. Very true, and very sad. For those that were eligible to vote and didnt, that is their bad, not mine, or the government's. Im not sure those people's opinion matters - if they werent responsible enough to vote IMO.

I voted. I punched the slot with Ralph Naders name, but I was voting for 3rd party. Not 3rd party to win, but 3rd party to officially exist. The Green Party did not get 5% of the total votes, and consequently, will not be allowed to participate in certain political and media venues until it does. If I lived in a state that I wasent sure would goto Bush, then I would have voted differently.

:eek:

[red5angel]

DS- anyone who doesn't believe we need to do something, even war with Saddam is pr-saddam in my book because you are not supporting those trying to do something.
As for the connection, it is well known and was highly publicized before Desert Storm, that Iraq has always supported terrorist muslim organizations by providing money, equipment and land to set up training camps. The camps HAVE been and STILL are there and it is beyond me why the US is downplaying this aspect of it.
Plagerizing a thesis does not discredit any "proof". The UN and a larger part of the ignorant masses are asking for proof that the US cannot and will not provide until it becomes less sensitive.

"curious that 2 directors of the Oil for Food program would resign in protest"

:rolleyes: rigt, both probably posess top secret clearance and are privy to the dark and mysterious reasons the US wants to go to war with Iraq.

"But for the U.S. to go around determining what extremists should stay or go is a slippery slope we,as a nation, have stumbled down before. With better "proof" even."

You have fallen into the most common of media traps for this campaign so far. For some reason, and again, it is beyond me why it hasn't even come up, The US government has chose to placate the UN with information not important to why we want to go. We KNOW Saddam has lent and will lend support to terrorist why WOULDN"T he?! We know that as long as he is in power the middle east is alot more shaky then anyone needs. EVERYONE except him knows he is a bad guy who needs to go except no one is willing to admit that a war is the only way it is going to happen. Sanctions have been set, to no effect, except maybe killing some Iraqi children :rolleyes: Bombing raids have been used over the last 10 years to deplete his military power and still he resists. What in the world do you think someone is going to say to make him step down? This whole thing isn't about weapons inspections, and it isn't about the gulf war, it is isn't even about oil, it is about Saddam Hussein. He controls Iraqs oil, He has enacted genocide on atleast one occasion and heads up an extremely oppressive regime. He is providing terrorist with the means or partial means to enact their attacks. What in anyones right mind could drive someone to say he DOES not need to be removed from power, and following that how the hell does anyone expect to remove him except by force?!
I just don't get it, you guys want some sort of peaceful settlement, but the guy will not leave. He has not in 12 years since the time of the gulf war even though his country suffers, and his people are angry. That is what it is to be a dictator!
You want to deal rationally with someone who is not rational, look at his track record and tell me, Just tell me that he will eventually come over to the side of good and make the 'right' decision and step down!
So what do you have? Force a coup? How does that differ from war except that it most likely last longer between two powers of equal strength, and at the end you still can't guarentee the winner is the right person.
Assassination? It's illegal for those of you bleeding hearts who need to know, AND on top of that it has been tried no less then 3 times, all attempts failed because the man is a tyrant and he knows it. This keeps him paranoid and ready for just about anything.

All I know is that at the end of the day the guy HAS to go, and for 12 years we have tried everything else. What you guys are mistaking is the fact that the US is trying to co-operate by gaining UN support through the use of the UN articles of disarmement, trying to go the acceptabel route, but there is currently no other way to do this, and it will be done.

[Rockwood]

Red Angel,

Heres something to think on.

http://truthout.org/docs_02/021403A.htm

[yenhoi]

Senator Byrd's comments have already been debated on this thread.

[Laughing Cow]

Last Post on here.

I can already see the Pro-War crowd acting during an Iraq War.

Standing in their backyard, having a BBQ, flipping burgers, belly overhanging their shorts and nursing a six-pack while they watch the War on CNN and make funy jokes with their Buddies about Saddam finally getting it.

Maybe we should broadcast those pictures to the Arab nations to see how they will react.

Maybe that's the way you like it, I will be sitting in front of the TV with my head bowed and pray for all the lives on both sides that will be lost and forced to suffer.

Cheers.

[Braden]

Design Sifu

"So this still begs the question... IF the U.S. 'waited' 12 years why the sudden need to go to War during March's New Moon?"

One particularly obvious reason for the change in policy would be: a new president was elected.

"To date alot of the 'proof' offered has been discredited..."

Um... not on this board it hasn't.

[Braden]

GLW

DU concerns are an entirely different issue, and shouldn't dictate foreign policy in Iraq.

That said, you're being misled regarding several issues in DU.

"It IS still radioactive and has a very long half life."

So is limestone.

"This means that the groundwater in Iraq is being contaminated as well as the ground, the air, and so on."

Incorrect. Even fully oxidated DU cannot penetrate more than 4 cm into the ground, far too shallow to contaminate groundwater. The total amount of inhaleable DU dust in Iraq could fit in a square box 4' in diamater. Well this is enough to cause point contamination if people are playing among the refuse of DU shells, it most certainly is not enough to do what you are describing.

"This contamination has led to an amazing increase in cancers and birth defects in Iraq already."

At least according to the claims of a single interviews Iraqi doctor, from which all this data comes. Claims which are called into question by the fact that DU poisoning causes lung cancers and kidney damage, and not the things he is reporting.

[yenhoi]

Standing in their backyard, having a BBQ, flipping burgers, belly overhanging their shorts and nursing a six-pack while they watch the War on CNN and make funy jokes with their Buddies about Saddam finally getting it.

I will probably have to write a papers about it. Then Ill smoke a bowl, have a beer, find a chick and.. watch CNN..

;)

Maybe we should broadcast those pictures to the Arab nations to see how they will react.

Much like they always do, Id expect. Probably burn a couple US and UK flags too.

Maybe that's the way you like it,

Yep. My country for me. Your country for you.

[GLW]

The depleted uranium IS there. The name of the ex-govt. official - one of the foreign secretaries or Press secretaries...memory fails...was the one reporting the results of the radiation poisoning around the areas where the battles were fought.

The higher incidence of cancer and birth defects IS documented in those areas.

Asbestos is not anywhere near as dangerous as this stuff yet if you deal with it even in very minute trace levels you are to be monitored. This radioactive material requires such minute levels it is not even funny.

The bad thing is that once it is in the air, it can go anywhere. Once it is in the groundwater, it seeps into everything...including the livestock, crops, etc...

Doubt this...well, there are a number of knowledgeable people that have noted that the actors that were in John Wayne's movie on Genghis Kahn (The Conqueror - probably his WORST movie), developed cancer...including Wayne. A couple a hundred miles away, they did some nuclear testing that had a very low level radiation fallout. The wind made the dust travel...and it was detected as far awaf from Almagordo as Oregon.

It is also cumulative and NOT a one shot thing.

While this IS a humanitarian concern...it is ALSO a big concern for anyone sent in the US military to serve there.

Rules on handling things are ignored. Mistakes happen.

Our government has a very good record of NOT supporting the men and women that go to fight for it. Doubt it...

Well, I have talked to vets from WWII, the Korean War, and Viet Nam that were given a raw deal on problems that came from their service time. I have read about Gulf War syndrome...

In each one of these instances, our government has been less than honorable in supporting those that served.

Regardless of what you feel about those living in Iraq, is it really fair to mess over our own soldiers in this way?

Recent news story on the hazmat suits that were for use in the event of chemical or biological weapons...and how they were defective...but the military did not know where all of the defective ones were and if there might not be some issued to GIs.

With this, it sounds like there will be people we owe a great deal to ...and a likelihood that the US govt. will renege on their debt to them.

The lack of integrity from a group that is asking for people to put their lives on the line troubles me. To die for a cause ...OK...to die for a cause and then be ignored...say what?

[Braden]

Design Sifu

"Question; how do you figure BUSH has a mandate from the 'people?' Just over 50% of the 'vote' from a citizenship where less then half the population votes?"

Yes, actually. You think otherwise?

[@PLUGO]

Yes, actually. You think otherwise?

Certainly... a political victory, sure...
a mandate? by "the People?"
not remotely.


On the topic of Proof . . .?
It's mostly opinion on this board and ultimatley no opinion seems to have been changed on either "side."



Infomation's been shared and hopefully someone else is a bit more informed than when they showed up here, but the same contradictions appear rythmicly. :rolleyes:

[Braden]

"a mandate? by 'the People?' not remotely."

What does he have if not a mandate by the people? If he doesn't have this, who does? What alternative are you suggesting?

"It's mostly opinion on this board and ultimatley no opinion seems to have been changed on either 'side.'"

Not wanting to agree with someone doesn't make them wrong.

"but the same contradictions appear rythmicly"

Quite right.

As I've noted previously (I think four times now on this thread), your idea of 'proof' is, at face, absurd. Iraq has been given a 'mandate' to disarm. They haven't. Period.

No one here has even voiced a disagreement with this position, let alone made a critique reasonable enough for rejecting it. In fact, you so much as agreed with it previously in order to springboard your own ideas as to the effects of UN sanctions.

People may want to bring up all sorts of related topics, but it doesn't change this basic grounding. Specifically, if you choose to bring up a related topic (ie. terrorism), and then no one can adequately defend the war from this standpoint, it doesn't invalidate the philosophy of the war, because this never was the philosophy of the war to begin with.

Although, it's worth noting that arbitrarily re-defining a problem in your own terms and then proving it wrong from that standpoint, is an absolute classic of propaganda and misinformation.

Again as I've allready said, it's a shame that the Bush administration (et al.) have openly fallen for it; but it would be even more of a shame had they adopted a policy of not responding to critics.

[yenhoi]

The depleted uranium IS there.

No doubt. What isent there, is all the extra randomness you are tacking on.

Our government has a very good record of NOT supporting the men and women that go to fight for it. Doubt it...

I strongly disagree.

Well, I have talked to vets from WWII, the Korean War, and Viet Nam that were given a raw deal on problems that came from their service time.

I have talked to vetrans also, and none of them share your discontent.

While this IS a humanitarian concern...it is ALSO a big concern for anyone sent in the US military to serve there.

A soldiers concern during battle and warfare is to not get shot, and to do what hes told. Not always in that order.

I have read about Gulf War syndrome...

So have I. :confused:

In each one of these instances, our government has been less than honorable in supporting those that served.

To a much lesser degree then you are describing, I agree, and thats terrible. The government is not the only people who have treated our boys disrespecfully in the past, however. This has nothing to do with the current state of international affairs.

Regardless of what you feel about those living in Iraq, is it really fair to mess over our own soldiers in this way?

Recent news story on the hazmat suits that were for use in the event of chemical or biological weapons...and how they were defective...but the military did not know where all of the defective ones were and if there might not be some issued to GIs.

Are you still talking about depleted uranium? Silly talk! Soldiers get sent to dangerous places to do dangerous things. They might die.

With this, it sounds like there will be people we owe a great deal to ...and a likelihood that the US govt. will renege on their debt to them.

The lack of integrity from a group that is asking for people to put their lives on the line troubles me. To die for a cause ...OK...to die for a cause and then be ignored...say what?

History says otherwise. But you have an intresting and admirable standpoint.

[GLW]

Soldiers that sign up for duty do so with the idea that those that lead them are in some way honorable.

When they sign up, the agree to follow orders. However, they also generally have the assumption that since they are agreeing to follow orders, they will also be told of and prepared for the risks involved with those orders.

They also tend to go into service with the idea that should they suffer an injury or death, they will be taken care of in some way.

This has not been the case to too great a level. We have leaders that withhold information or out and out lie about things. We havepersonnel that are sent into something ill equipped or ill informed. They are sent to do some job but not allowed to do it.

For example, I am personally not in favor of the upcoming war. We can't remove every dictator that is in power and to be honest, there are dictators in 'friendly' countries that are just as bad and potentially just as dangerous. There is a major level of hypocrisy going on here that I can't subscribe to.

But, I am NOT a total pacifist. I believe that we should be very slow to commit troops. However, once committed, they do the job one time to conclusion. If you fight a fight halfway, you tend to lose all of the way. People also have to be committed to the goal and ideas of a conflict. The US people are NOT. Typically, the US population does not have the perseverance or attention span to do such a war. They don't even have the attention span to remember from one election to another....much less to stick to the unpleasant and messy business of war.

They are also quite forgetful and unappreciative to those who risk much...while lavishing much on those who talk about risk but do little of it.

Given this and the high probability of making things even worse, I would say that patience is warranted. People cite 10 years...well that may be true...but why does a resolution to a 10 year problem have to happen quickly...? Do we doubt the US ability to actually do the job in removing Hussein...not me...

If you truly KNOW you can take a person out, usually you feel no need to do it until necessary. that is one of the good things about strength - you can afford to be patient.

What I see is a situation where we alienate ourselves from countries that have traditionally been our friends, fuel our enemies, raise our deficit and debt, hurt our own economy and growth, and end up with another set of Vets that are getting messed over in the VA hospitals and the government's shell game with 'weird' injuries and ailments...(including 'friendly' fire).

When it is said and done, I will not feel that my child is any safer and that the world is any better off for all it cost us...

Now I could be wrong...but having lived through a couple of these things, this is what I see down the road.

AND...I hope I am wrong....

[joedoe]

Originally posted by GLW
<snip>
For example, I am personally not in favor of the upcoming war. We can't remove every dictator that is in power and to be honest, there are dictators in 'friendly' countries that are just as bad and potentially just as dangerous. There is a major level of hypocrisy going on here that I can't subscribe to.

<snip>


Yup to that. For example, Pakistan's military dictator who is OK since he allowed the US to stage out of Pakistan when it launched its offensive against Afghanistan.

What about the fact that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy?

[Braden]

None of them, however, have been systematically violating a UN agreement they themselves signed, for the past 12 years...

I know I'm sounding like a broken record. All the more reason people's continual ignorance of this distinction is confusing.

[joedoe]

OK fair enough. Next question - why is it such a big deal now, after 12 years? Why not sooner?

[Braden]

A principle and important reason is the change from Clinton to Bush.

[yenhoi]

Soldiers that sign up for duty do so with the idea that those that lead them are in some way honorable.

Not so sure about this one bud, but okay, Im sure most do.

This has not been the case to too great a level.

What level of glory is appropriate?

We have leaders that withhold information or out and out lie about things. We havepersonnel that are sent into something ill equipped or ill informed. They are sent to do some job but not allowed to do it.

True. Our troops also occasionally killed entire villages in vietnam. What does this have to do with Iraq?

We can't remove every dictator that is in power and to be honest, there are dictators in 'friendly' countries that are just as bad and potentially just as dangerous. There is a major level of hypocrisy going on here that I can't subscribe to.

"just as bad", "just as dangerous" - I can think of only 2 others that are even remotly related in their scale of danger to the United States: Iran and North Korea. Neither country claims to be a dictatorship, Im sure N. Korea calls itself a democracy. Kicking ass in Iraq has much more to do then just planting the flag of democracy in a neighborhood near you. Russia was not a democracy, yet we sided with them in WWII. The 'hypocrisy' here is inaction.

I challenge you to name another country that is "just as bad" as Iraq. Just one.

The US people are NOT. [unified]

Where on earth have you come up with this? At least officially, the United States is...... united.

US population does not have the perseverance or attention span to do such a war... ...much less to stick to the unpleasant and messy business of war.

History proves you wrong.

but why does a resolution to a 10 year problem have to happen quickly...?

Because the problem is older then 10 years. The world has been entertained by a 'resolution' process for the last 10 years. Thats 10 years of trying to solve this problem. There is nothing quick going on here at all. Except, Saddam Hussien's reign in Iraq.

that is one of the good things about strength - you can afford to be patient.

I think the United States et all have been pretty patient. 10 years of the United Nations saying 'disarm or else' to the Iraqi government, and 10 years of 'huh, which way did he go jorge?' in response. Sometimes they shoot missles at our planes for fun, too.

... we alienate ourselves from countries that have traditionally been our friends...

Name one. South Africa doesnt count.

... fuel our enemies...

Well..... how do enemies usually react when you wage war on them?

... raise our deficit and debt...

Explain. Yes wars cost money. So does cleaning up after a Nuclear bomb or treating and searching, and reacting to a small release of anthrax in our capital. or anywhere.

... hurt our own economy and growth,

Doubtful. I know the iraqis talk pretty tuff, but they are way more bark then bite mister. The United States will gain much more in what you call 'the big picture' by the time the dust settles, and probably before.

[Mokujin]

Hot d@mn - I can't believe I just read all this!

I want to say kudos to Braden and YenHoi for a spirited debate. Both have been patient and quite articulate in expressing their viewpoints. On another note, I think the moderator Kung Lek succedded in expressing his point, but failed miserably in backing it up. Sorry, Kung, Braden took you on quote-per-quote and you failed. Keep up the debate, GLW.

Bottom line- Saddam is violating the UN sanctions he agreeded to 12 years ago. This situation can be resolved WITHOUT war if Saddam simply comes clean. However, I didn't see any anti-war protestors pointing this out. They are driven by emotion, not logic (ie: People will die if we go to war, while ignoring the greater number who will suffer and die [all over the world] if we do nothing."

For the UN to make a resolution 12 years ago and not have the balls to enforce it shows it is nothing more than a bunch of toothless bureacrats.

Why now? Why not? Or we should wait another 12 years and see what happens?

Good night, all.

www.defenddemocracy.org

[Braden]

Thanks, Mokujin.

Now... if you or someone else would consider hiring me to do writing and research, that would be great! Just drop me an email at little_spotted_dog@hotmail.com :D :D :D

[red5angel]

"Standing in their backyard, having a BBQ, flipping burgers, belly overhanging their shorts and nursing a six-pack while they watch the War on CNN and make funy jokes with their Buddies about Saddam finally getting it."

LC - **** you and your lazy wanna be activist attitude. Your internet activism is garbage and you attempt to point fingers and tell people what they are all about sickens me. I served in Desert Storm, voluntarily and with no regrets. If my wife would let me I would serve again because unlike fukkers like you I stand up for what I believe in and act in a way I see fit to support those actions. You can sit behind your computer terminal and take your holier then thou attitude and stick it straight up your a$$ because I have met more then enough people like you to know your worthless. While you whine you stick expensive food in your mouths and drive your nice cars, or cars at all, and fill them with the gas from the oil you claim has started this whole conflict. You cry about the destitute and the down trodden in these countries yet you sit in your first world home doing your first world job pulling in your big money and you have room to mock others ofr there laziness? You make me sick you fukker. Take a look in the mirror the next time you want to talk down to someone and aks yourslef what you have and are willing to do for your beliefs not including mouthing off on some forum somewhere on the internet. Your pathetic and you can take your research on the whole jewish plight in WW2 and stick it straight up your a$$ as well because you are on Saddams side, a hitleresque personality more then capable of doing what hitler did in his time.
Until you have spent enough time on your kness helping these people out or fighting for what you believe in in a very real way (that excludes opening your trap everytime you type in your password and sign on to your internet provider) then you come back and you start pointing fingers you fukking *******.
Whats funny to those in Iraq are people like you, people who live in your comfy little world and argue about things you have little or no undertsaing about but what to feel better about yourself and your cushy lifestyle so you "speak out" for the little man. Let me tell you something LC, you are the little man. The big men are those in Iraq right now working towards a free country. The US service men and women who are over there willing to risk their lives regardless of what the worthless piles of flesh like yourself want to claim. Those are the big people, the ones who take responsiblity for the world around them and take part in its creation and its destruction.


GLW - "Soldiers that sign up for duty do so with the idea that those that lead them are in some way honorable. "

Are you or have you ever been a soldier?

"However, they also generally have the assumption that since they are agreeing to follow orders, they will also be told of and prepared for the risks involved with those orders."


All soldiers understand that their supperiors will provide them with all teh information that is pertinent and recquired to do their duty. When you sign up for service in the military you agree ot give up your life in the service of this country. The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. No service person wants to give up their life, but you do what you have to do and you hope it hasn't been in vain.

"Given this and the high probability of making things even worse, I would say that patience is warranted. People cite 10 years...well that may be true...but why does a resolution to a 10 year problem have to happen quickly...?"

I am not sure where you have been but that 10 years has been trying to resolve these issues. It has failed, no one is heading hastily into anything, this has been on the US plate since Desert Storm.

"When it is said and done, I will not feel that my child is any safer and that the world is any better off for all it cost us.."


So what price before you feel its worth it? Another few hundrred thousand deaths in Iraq? A few thousand more here at home through terrorist attacks? A huge biological attack that devestates one of the US major cities?
Your not going to feel any safer because you already feel as safe as anyone can be, because your govenrment is doing everything it can to keep it that way and the men and women in green or putting up their lives as a wall for danger to break upon like water.
Feel any safer, that insulting you even say that. You can't be any more safe then you are now. Are you stock piling food? Do you seriously worry about government officials taking you away for expressing your differing views? Do you sleep less at night worryinga plane may crash into your place of work tomorrow? I bet not, and while your thinking about it, ask yourself why that is...

[ewallace]

That was a great post R5A.

[red5angel]

thanks ew. I apologize to those of you who care, I don't mean to rant but I am getting sick and tired of seeing this sort of thing perpetuated not only on this one forum but all over the world. Its time people really start to open their eyes.

[yenhoi]

Wow red5, that made me want to cry.

little heavy handed, but thats the moon baby!

*slaps red5 on forehead*

:eek:

[GLW]

My goal was NOT to keep up with any debate.

I am NOT going to change anyone's mind on this and I am NOT going to try.

I am pointing out that :

I do NOT trust or believe the information being fed to me from the US sources. I have looked into a number of other sources and they do not fit.

I am NOT saying that a confrontation with someone like Saddam Hussein may not be necessary. I am saying that the powers that be have not completely made their case and to go in without that backing is probably more detrimental to the US than patience.

There are a number of issues here and the media and government representatives have done a very good job of steering the discussion. Information that does NOT lead one to the debate they want is simply not presented.

Does anyone doubt the US' ability to win a war with Iraq?

As for emotions and the anti-war folks...that is a poor card to play.

The concerns being raised by those against going in are ones of caution and moral conviction. Hardly emotion.

A number of those for war are referring to 9/11/2001 and other things that are NOT connected....read that is definitely emotional. In reality, Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq.

My point -

It doesn't matter what MY opinion or desire is. This administration has already shown that it will do what it wants regardless of opinion (it feels it can craft the opnion when it needs to)

Remembering the Viet Nam years, I recall coffins coming back, body bags, obituaries of sons of people I knew, images of carnage, an extreme division between the hawks and doves to the point of riots and fights. The anger from BOTH sides is still there 25-30 years later. That war combined with Nixon and Watergate set the tone for the 1970's and early 1980's and wrecked the American spirit and the sense of nation. It left everyone with a sense of alienation and mistrust.

I see the same thing coming.

When you go to war - people die, innocence is lost, and obligations are created. We tend to ignore the realities of war before we do it. then we do NOT commit to the job 100%, and then afterward, we have people who do not want to keep the committments and promises they made.

We do a poor job of healing and coming together afterward...and No One is talking about what this will mean to us in the long run.

Sorry...I don't feel less safe now than before 9/11. I was 100% aware of a vulnerability to terrorism prior to that date. Everyone in the world became unsafe in 1972 when the terrorists took out the Israeli Olympic people. We in the US just got the idea for real in 2001.

We have had 30 years to deal with this and we have made the wrong choices along the way. This war is a result of dumb choices for years. You supply a snake with venom....don't be surprised when they show their nature.

Will this war happen - probably. Will it be changed by anything you or I say - probably not. Will it have negative consequences on all of our personal freedoms - already has. On our lives after and during - count on it.

Are we walking into it with full understanding....Not from what I see.

And THAT is my point. Not a debate to be won...but a situation to be lamented.

[red5angel]

"I do NOT trust or believe the information being fed to me from the US sources. I have looked into a number of other sources and they do not fit"

I wouldn't either if I were you. You are the common man and there is no need for the US to risk security and the lives of its troops just so it can 100% justify what it needs to do.

"A number of those for war are referring to 9/11/2001 and other things that are NOT connected....read that is definitely emotional. In reality, Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq."

Direct evidence to Saddam hussein for the 9/11 attacks is not needed. There is proof that in the past he has supported terrorist including the Al Quaeda network. Before you think otherwise stop to think about Saddam Husseins position, he hates the US and defies it at any oppurtunity, do you not think he is going to help out anyone who can do some real damage but might not be able to be traced directly back to him?


"Remembering the Viet Nam years, I recall coffins coming back, body bags, obituaries of sons of people I knew, images of carnage, an extreme division between the hawks and doves to the point of riots and fights"


Pure emotional content.

"When you go to war - people die, innocence is lost, and obligations are created. We tend to ignore the realities of war before we do it"

don't be so naive. We don't ignore the bad effects of war. They are on the minds of all those who will take part and who will command us to go to war, but sometimes war is the path you have to tread.

"Will it have negative consequences on all of our personal freedoms - already has. On our lives after and during - count on it."

Funny my life hasn't changed since talk of war with Iraq has begun, how has yours?


Yenhoi, I know it was heavy handed but it is the way I feel about that particular issue. There are plenty of people out there not willing to truly back up the ideals they espouse. In america we are stricken with an over abundance of poeple willing to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

As a soldier, you question everything you are asked to do, thats being human, and you keep your hopes that what you do is right and that not everyone involved with making you do what you do is out for their own ends. I met alot of top brass who truly and deeply cared about their troops and I met a lot of front line troops who truly and deeply cared about their country and their right to fight for freedom. In Desert Storm we didn't have necessarily the fight to keep america free, but a fight to free the kuwaitis of an oppressive and deadly regime under the control of Saddam. While it is easy for those who were here in america to point fingers and say that it was about the oil, I looked into the faces of those people we were there to help and I saw the fear of their plight and I saw the relief that we gave them reflected in their faces. I watched the precious oil burn and I watched the bodies burn of men and women on both sides who fought and died for what they believe in and I can tell you this. no matter how much oil played a part, every one o fthose kuwaitis I met or faced gave me one more reason to be doing what I was doing and although they themselves weren't americans they were human beings who deserved the best that they could scrape from their already rough lives.
I get tired of hearing the people who have not made those sorts of choices (and I don't mean just service in the military, I for one spent roughly 4 years in two different third world countries as a civilian doing humanitarian work) who sit behind their cushy lifestyles, and point fingers and place blame on those and those thing that they cannot understand.

[dnc101]

Dang, go do something useful for a couple of days, and when I get back this thread is starting to rival the Got Chi Girls.


Originally posted by GLW
Remembering the Viet Nam years, I recall coffins coming back, body bags, obituaries of sons of people I knew, images of carnage, an extreme division between the hawks and doves to the point of riots and fights. The anger from BOTH sides is still there 25-30 years later. That war combined with Nixon and Watergate set the tone for the 1970's and early 1980's and wrecked the American spirit and the sense of nation. It left everyone with a sense of alienation and mistrust. ...
Will this war happen - probably.

GLW, I too remember those years and their effects on our country. I also remember that later some of the VC and NVA leaders said that the reason they continurd to fight was they knew they were winning the propoganda war in the US. We won the war on the battlefields. The war was lost on the campuses of Berkley and Kent State, and in the streets of San Francisco and Washington. How many American fighting men died needlessly because the war was extended? How many Vietnamese, on both sides? And how many people were slaughtered in the aftermath of our withdrawal? The blood on the hands of the 'peace' protestors is that of hundreds of thousands.

So, I'd suggest that we acknowlege that our actions have consequences. Protest before the war starts, if that is what you want. But once the shooting starts we should all support our fellow citizens who we send to fight. You don't have to like Bush (I don't). But I do and will support him as Commander in Chief in the war on terror, and in Iraq.

Easy for me to say, as I think we are justified in going to Iraque. But consider this, after the war, we'll know. Saddam has 'em, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, both Bush and myself will have egg on our faces. Bush will lose his job, and I'll have to listen to LC (mmmMMM-BAW-HAW-haw) and the "we told you so's". During the war, to protest like happened in the 60's is murder on a large scale. It supports and emboldens our enemies. It will only prolong the conflict. And it is treason.

[red5angel]

"Saddam has 'em, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, both Bush and myself will have egg on our faces"

This is not necessarily true. Even if we never find out whether he has them or not, we stopped him from getting them and doing something horrible with them, and we also cut off a major monetary supplier to terrorist organizations.

[dnc101]

r5a, good point. But the media and the dems will ignore that aspect. And, I feel pretty safe setting myself up like that. I am sure he has them. Truth be told, so are the libs. Heck fire, since the inspections restarted, Iraq has had three cargo ships out going nowhere. Just circling. What do you suppose their cargo might be?

[Black Jack]

Didn't have a clue that this post was going to get this big.

By the way, very good post red.

[GLW]

"don't be so naive. We don't ignore the bad effects of war. They are on the minds of all those who will take part and who will command us to go to war, but sometimes war is the path you have to tread.

"Will it have negative consequences on all of our personal freedoms - already has. On our lives after and during - count on it."

Funny my life hasn't changed since talk of war with Iraq has begun, how has yours?"

Come now...who is being naive. I recall quite well the news during Viet Nam. I also recall how the news was handled during the Gulf War. It was sanitized for everyone's protection. The military fed the news media what they wanted. Virtually none of them dug any deeper. The images were of how well the weapons worked but never on the results of them. There were no images of carnage.

We should NEVER separate the carnage of war from the act of doing it. The carnage and cost is what keeps war from being something that people want to do. It makes people think.

How have things changed...look at the Patriot Act and the provisions that are in there. They are things that the CIA and FBI have wanted for years but that even the folks in earlier Republican administrations felt were too extreme. There was an FBI document that resulted in a lawsuit about such plans. The official FBI position in that lawsuit - pre-9/11 - was that the document was NOT an assignment to the agents that authored it. It was NOT official desire or policy. However, there are major sections of those documents in Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Did they copy or was it plausible deniability.

Giving up ANY freedom to ANY government is something I would not want to do. These laws give up a lot. The rights to due process are severely curtailed. Search and seizure - changed. Bill of rights...potentials for witch hunts...its like the spaghetti sauce....it's in there.

Until you have had your rights trampled you don't see it. The argument is that "You have nothing to fear unless you are doing something wrong" But, the thing that says what is wrong or not is the part that has been changed. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is next to impossible to put it back in.

No one has ever gone broke betting on the stupidity of the public or the ability of people to live down to their basest level. It is there.

Closer to home...the was is conservatively estimated to be about to cost $200,000,000,000. A BIG chunk out of a budget that is already running in the red. This WILL affect what happens here at home. We WILL pay for it...in many ways.

Now, my question for ANYONE for a war:

Are you going to enlist to go fight?

If not, why not?

If you are too old, are you going to encourage those of age in your family and circle of friends to enlist?

If so ...well, you ARE putting your money where your mouth is..and good luck in basic training.

If not, why do you feel OK espousing a war you are not willing to fight in?

On a different vein...

The thing that led to the end of Viet Nam was that the toll of bodies and the things people were saying in protest began to ring true. There was no end to it and the lies that were built up by folks like Macnamara and others began to unravel. The US populace got tired of it. They were not going to get a win and a draw was not possible.

I was against the Viet Nam war....but I also was of a mind that if you send even one soldier to fight and die, you send him to also WIN. We did not allow that so it was doomed from the start.

For a war, I would want to know the Who, What, Why, When, How...

What are our objectives - all of them?

How will we know they have been reached?

How long will it take to reach them?

What types of checkpoints are there along the way? Accountability?

When the war part is done, what then?

What is the final goal?

What will we do if that final goal is not possible?

What will we do if the reaction to everything escalates to a large scale?

These are ALL the types of things that I am held accountable for as a manager to my boss and the shareholders of my company. I see no reason NOT to hold our military and elected officials accountable for the same types of things to their shareholders...the citizens of the US.

And, just as in my job, there should be consequences for not meeting objectives and for any falsification of results.

Fat chance of that one.

[red5angel]

"There were no images of carnage. "


Lest we forget the highway of death, whose images pretty much halted the war?


"look at the Patriot Act and the provisions that are in there. "

I wasn't aware this was due to an impending war on Iraq? I was under the impression this was because of A TERRORIST ATTACK on the US?
Of course why learn from that lesson? What business is it of ours if those who abide and harbor terrorists are free to do as they please unmolested? As long as they only kill what? 3000 every couple of years? a few hundred a year?



"We should NEVER separate the carnage of war from the act of doing it"


The people who cause and create that carnage never forget the affect of war...I am not so sure it is important for the rest of you to know. Do you bring your children out to watch you put down the family dog? Why not?

"Until you have had your rights trampled you don't see it. The argument is that "You have nothing to fear unless you are doing something wrong" But, the thing that says what is wrong or not is the part that has been changed. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is next to impossible to put it back in"

this is just chauk full of paranoia. Those who say these things wouldn't be so upset if we put more police out on the streets? Would you feel the same way if your family was killed by someone who could have been stopped? The chances for abuse by any law are there and if you think that the government has to make laws to do these things I suggest you drink some coffee, watch a little news and go back to your quiet little suburban world. Atleast in this way you have some warning...

"Are you going to enlist to go fight?"

Ben there done that, still have the bdus, and will do it again if need be.

"If not, why not?"
see above

"If you are too old, are you going to encourage those of age in your family and circle of friends to enlist?"

A freind just asked me two months ago if I thought he should enlist, we talked and I told him I thought it would be a good idea.

"If so ...well, you ARE putting your money where your mouth is..and good luck in basic training."

I addressed this after LC's ignorant statements because it works on both sides of the coin. I see all sorts of people claiming to know what war is about or what the Iraqis are about or what Terrorist are doing, all of this from the comfort of their own homes, if you missed it go back a page and read it.

If not, why do you feel OK espousing a war you are not willing to fight in?

"The thing that led to the end of Viet Nam was that the toll of bodies and the things people were saying in protest began to ring true. "


You can stop with the vietnam thing any time. Do a little marching in college did we?
The thing that led to vietnam had nothing to do with protests and the north vietnamese leaders didn't win because of moral at home. Most soldiers had no idea what was going on at home while they were off fighting, hence all the stories of shock and surprise at their "welcome homes". The Vietnam war ended because we were losing, and losing badly in a war we had no idea how to fight. We got stuck in way too deep and didn't know how to recover. That happens in war sometimes.

"We did not allow that so it was doomed from the start."

Contrary to what was going on here in the US, we lost because the North Vietnamese would not allow us to win. They had more men willing to die for a cause they believed in, and they had the know of the land and a way of fighting that we did not understand at the time and weren't prepared for. Our special ops units did just fine and had a high success rate. Why do you ask? Because they fought like the vietcong, they adapted tactics that worked.

"For a war, I would want to know the Who, What, Why, When, How...

What are our objectives - all of them?

How will we know they have been reached?

How long will it take to reach them?

What types of checkpoints are there along the way? Accountability?

When the war part is done, what then?

What is the final goal?

What will we do if that final goal is not possible?

What will we do if the reaction to everything escalates to a large scale?"

Our goal is to take Saddam out of power. all else follows that. You can't know all these things and you will never learn half of it in any conflict before it is all said and done for reasons you're not going to understand because you believe that you have the right to know everything and have it provided for you on demand. however reality does not work that way and if we decided to do it your way many many more lives would be lost, not because we avoided war by placating the masses but because we laid all our chips on the table before the game was over. Do you play poker with your cards lying face up?

[GLW]

Those are YOUR understandings of the goals. Where are they IN WRITING from the adminsitration.

These are the same folks who were really big on the Contract With America. I want another contract. Tell me the who, what, why, etc... I don't want one drop or US GI blood spilled for unstated goals or hidden agendas. Of course, it's not like what I want matters....but this is the level of accountability our legislators should be requiring and the level we should require of them.

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. THAT is why I bring up history. I doubt we have learned much.

You seem to like to send insults to people instead of look for the why's of their views. That is counter productive.

Now, I will say that your willingness to encourage those you care about to put their lives on the line is exactly how it should be. If you are willing to say go to war, you should be willing to tell your son or daughter to do so. That is something worth respect...even if we do NOT agree that it is or is not necessary YET.

Your saying that you did your time and don't need to again..well that is less than worthy. From everything I was raised to believe...and of course I could be wrong...the price of freedom is constant vigilance and a willingness to fight for it.... If the battle is not won, are you OK with being called up? If so...good. If not, well.....

Awareness of abuse of power and things that have been and are still being done is NOT paranoia. To note the places where these anti-terrorist laws bend and break the constitution is actually being a good citizen...at least how the idea of being an active member of the community was envisioned.

If our soldiers were at war, would I do or say anything that would jeopardize any of them? No way.

Would I support them as fellow citizens worthy of my respect? definitely.

Would I expect them to behave in accordance with the ideals of this country - no massacres, cruelty, and accountability for their good and bad actions....? most assuredly

Would I feel it was my duty to speak my mind or protest in opposition if I felt the government's actions in engaging in a war were wrong? Yes...that is part of being a good citizen...to speak if you think your country is wrong. But, I also know that while I may speak out, the majority DOES or is supposed to rule.

Support for the soldiers is separate from blindly accepting any administration's orders....and well they should be.

Do I agree with you on much of this...obviously not. But, I do recognize and am willing to defend your right to have your opinion and voice from the tallest podium you can find. And...I may disagree with you but I would NOT discount your right to have that opinion or insult you for it.

I would expect the same coming back...but from the tone of some people's posts, that is not the case...(and this is NOT pointing a finger at anyone - it is noting the tone or ridicule and insult levied at people that some seem to disagree with).

[red5angel]

First of all GLW keep up, you said - "Your saying that you did your time and don't need to again..well that is less than worthy." I want you to go back to my post and find the sentence in which I absolutely agree and have said I will do so if necessary. If you persist in twisting my words like that this conversation will be over.

"the constitution "

I have news for you freind, the constitution isn't the constitution anymore and needs badly to be updated. The spirit should still be there but the letter has changed.


GLW here is what it comes down to in my opinion. There are a few simple facts, I am currently doing some research and will get back to you on supporting material. Saddam is a tyrant who has killed for reasons deemed not acceptable in the past by the UN. We went to Bosnia for exactly the same reason not too long ago. He has supported terrorist in the past My proof is four years in eth USMC on an anti-terrorist team learning to understand the whats whys and wheres of it all. Al Quaeda happend to, at the time I served have two o fthe largest terrorist camps in Iraqi borders. With Weapons of mass destruction and the anger he harbors at the US, he is more then capable of doing something foolish and hurting thousands or maybe even millions of American lives, not too mention that of his own people or the Iraqi people. There is no negotiating with him. They have tried. I know you and some others are trying to discredit the last 10 years working with the UN through UN sanctions, however the truth is he has defied the UN and the US at every oppurtunity and shows no real desire to back off except to buy some more time.
One way or the other there is going to have to be a blood bath to get the man out of power. It could happen locally, but we have tried that on a few occasions. We have used covert operations and overt operations to no effect.
With all of this, I see it as only a matter of time before he does something stupid and displicable. Those who want peace arne't wrong in what they want but they are most likely wrong in assuming Saddam does, he doesn't want peace he wants power, and whether you like the US govenrment or not, there is one thing about the power that Saddam has that we do not, and that is the desire to kill indiscriminately to gain that power.

Sometimes, peace has to fall to the wayside. It's not the best way , and it isn't the most desireable way, but it is sometimes the way we human beings choose. It is sad that one man can hold so much power that he can force something like this on the US or the rest of the world, but it happens. now we either do something about it now, and in the long run, most everyone benefits. Evne the country of Iraq, but they are going to have to go through some growing pains, and we are going to guide them along in that process. Its not an easy thing but it is better then some of the alternatives in my opinion.

All else aside, oil grabs, religious conflicts etc.. saddam is a bad man who will do his own brand of evil until he is gone...

[Rockwood]

redAngel5

You and others who have served our country in the military are deserving of respect. I don't look down on your opinions so please don't feel disrespected by my comments.

There are many people like myself who see a hypocracy in this war. Soddom isn't the only "bad man" in the world.

Saudi Arabia needs democracy, they oppress their citizens. Why not overthrow them?

The Turkish government has treated the Kurds horribly and they use our money to do it. Why not overthow them?

The Egyptian goverment gets lots of money from us to oppress their own people, it's hardly a democracy, why not over throw them?

The Coloumbian governement uses our money and troops to oppress their people. Why not overthrow them?

These are just examples, what I'm getting at is, how do we pick and choose which dictator to overthrow today? Which one tomorrow? Which one the next day?

We are nervous about this president because he wants to put this country in a permanent war, a war that won't end in our lifetime.

The republicans have taken advantage of this to drastically change our domestic policy, to the point of subverting the Constitution itself (in terms of arrest without charges, indefinite detention, stripping of citizinship without trial, etc).

Terrorists don't scare me. Our soldiers will protect us and strike back at those who attack us.

Using war as an excuse to pay off campaign contributors (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, GE, etc) and crack down on personal liberties here in the states scares me.

I want future generations to enjoy the freedoms our forefathers and you yourself fought for. We can't give them away so easily.

This war needs to be reconsidered, and our approach to internal security can't be based on fear.

Ike warned us of the military industrial complex. These people are more concerned about making a profit than our Constitution and our unity as a nation.

Do you not feel that Bu$h and Co. are using our sacred Army to bring in more profits for themselves?

Respectfully

-JessO (lunatic Berkeley radical lefty etc.)

[GLW]

Red,

you have proven my point. Your posts continue to be condescending and insulting to any who disagree with you..and then you accuse others of twisting your words.

I said that if you felt that you could serve once in the cause of a freedom fight and then your obligation was over that you did not understand the basic idea that the obligation and fight for freedom is not and never has been one that you can be free of with a clear conscience.

If this fits you...so be it. If it doesn't...fine too. I am speaking about people who will encourage war and then not be willing to go.

I have the same feelings about people who are pro-death penalty abut unwilling to take the life themself. If you are for a death penalty and would not get up in the convicted's face and do the deed, you should not speak. Notice...nowhere did I say that this did or did not apply to you. It is a general principle that you should be willing and ready to put your money where your mouth is....regardless of the topic.

The history of the UN sanctions is ONE of the versions. There are other versions as well. I am sure that none of them are 100% true and the the truth lies in a combination of all of them.

Is Hussein bad...yes. He has always been such - even when we supported him.

Are there others equally as bad....you bet...but we aren't going after them.

I do not feel an obligation to police the world. If we are doing this for our self interest...tell me what that interest is in a way that it touches me and mine...and see my willingness change.

I find it much more telling that an accomplice to the NYC attack got 15 years...from some country that we are friendly with... That Bin Laden is still out there and we as a society have lost interest in that...it is OLD news.

But...still you have not addressed the need for the administration to spell out the what's and whys for this to the citizenship or at least to Congress. oops...not necessary, Congress passed a law against the Constitution that sort of gives the president the authority to declare war...even though only Congress has that authority.

You also did not address the concept of open debate or support for free speech and differing opinions. Instead of acknowledging those things, you started with assumptions on everyone that disagree with you. Again...this is counter productive.

I have said enough. I support your right to your opinion. I think it is simplistic and short sighted and such haste will lead to problems...but it wouldn't be the first time.

But...do YOU support other people's right to have their opinion and to disagree with you?

[dnc101]

Well, I was just listening to the news on NPR and guess what? The inspectors just said that the anti war protests are making Saddam Hussein bolder and making their job more difficult. They say he thinks the world is with him, and therefore he doesn't need to do more. Where, oh where, have I heard this predicted recently?

When will they ever learn? When will they e-e-ever learn? (From popular anti war song in the early 70's)

[Merryprankster]

Saudi Arabia needs democracy, they oppress their citizens. Why not overthrow them?

The Turkish government has treated the Kurds horribly and they use our money to do it. Why not overthow them?

The Egyptian goverment gets lots of money from us to oppress their own people, it's hardly a democracy, why not over throw them?

The Coloumbian governement uses our money and troops to oppress their people. Why not overthrow them?

Because everytime we try to defend freedom and liberty somebody accuses us of being imperialistic bullies, so we have to pick our battles.

[Rockwood]

MerryP-


"Because everytime we try to defend freedom and liberty somebody accuses us of being imperialistic bullies, so we have to pick
our battles."


It just seems like we should go after someone who attacked us like BinLadin (and his supporters in Saudi Arabia) instead of just another random ****tator.

I'm not expecting you to have the answer, but if you have one that would be cool.

Columbia, Iraq, CHina, they are all dictators, I'm only concerned with the "bad guys" who attacked us.

And Bu$h doesn't seem to give a dam.

Who am I to argue, just another Berkeley Loonie! :)

-JessO

[David Jamieson]

The last thing a soldier is ...is free.

Although they are noble in defense and protection of their homes. They are not so noble when used to further the cause of their superiors and the geopolitical views of their superiors' superior.

They are defensless against their own masters and have no choice but to do or die, wrong or right. It is moot. There is no "plight" of the soldier that attacks without being attacked. With the exception of the soldier who is forced to go to war lest he be jailed. Drafted.

The soldier who attacks, simply because he is told to, or rather ordered to is only doing his job. It is by no means righteous action that is taken when viewed from this perspective. It is slaughter, especially against a toothless dictator and weakling country that is Iraq.

The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and so far Bush and his ilk have proved nothing but their own pushy attitudes, ignorance of what's good for everyone, thinly veiled vapid greed, and...well, what else can I say about this lack lustre not even mediochre president of the great United States.

cheers

[Radhnoti]

GLW- "But, I also know that while I may speak out, the majority DOES or is supposed to rule."
Nope, this is a republic. Majority rules would lead to oppression of the minority.

Rockwood- "It just seems like we should go after someone who attacked us like BinLadin..."
Lead our forces to him and you get a multi-million dollar reward.

Rockwood- "We are nervous about this president because he wants to put this country in a permanent war, a war that won't end in our lifetime."
Are you referring to terrorism? I can almost guarantee the Iraq war will be "over in my lifetime". I presume terrorist attacks will be occuring from now on, as it's the only semi-militaristic response the losers of war and life can muster.

Bottomline to me: Iraq said they'd follow the terms of the ceasefire, even the staunchest anti-war activist has to admit they haven't done so. They've been given so many chances it makes the U.S. look weak with it's foreign policy. Why should other nations care to live up to their part of an agreement knowing the U.S. can't/won't hold them to it?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Bottomline to me: Iraq said they'd follow the terms of the ceasefire, even the staunchest anti-war activist has to admit they haven't done so. They've been given so many chances it makes the U.S. look weak with it's foreign policy. Why should other nations care to live up to their part of an agreement knowing the U.S. can't/won't hold them to it?

Slight flaw of logic there for me.

The ceasefire was with the U.N. not the USA.
The USA can act on behalf of the U.N. with their approval/support as they did in the Gulf War and other areas.

But acting without the U.N. approval using the non-compliance as a reason for attacking another country is wrong.

This is my beef with the current issue.

What the USA says and what they appear to want seem to be 2 different things.

[dnc101]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
This is my beef with the current issue.

Good one!;)

We had the resolution from the UN. But we don't need it. We were one of the signatories on the ceasefire agreement. Saddam violated it. End of story. End of Saddam.

Peace through superior firepower!

[yenhoi]

The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and....

Id like a hit of whatever you are smoking up there KL...

The ceasefire was with the U.N. not the USA.

Not true.

I kinda wish I could motivate myself to find a copy of the ceasefire on the net so you might read it before making more **** up.

But acting without the U.N. approval using the non-compliance as a reason for attacking another country is wrong.

What the USA says and what they appear to want seem to be 2 different things.

You are a "... blind idiot ..." LC.

Rockwood:

Columbia, Iraq, CHina, they are all dictators, I'm only concerned with the "bad guys" who attacked us.

Where does everyone get this idea that the United States has something against dictators? We just dont like dictators in our own country. Our constitution only applies to us. For the Record, Columbia and China are not dictatorships. Funny that you arent making a fuss about American troops in the Philipines, Georgia, or Yemen.

These are just examples, what I'm getting at is, how do we pick and choose which dictator to overthrow today? Which one tomorrow? Which one the next day?

The current list goes like this:

Iraq.
North Korea.
Iran.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by yenhoi
I kinda wish I could motivate myself to find a copy of the ceasefire on the net so you might read it before making more **** up.

Pls, do so.
So that I can read it for myself if the USA alone can act on a breach of if other parties approvals are needed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2002/0329iraq.htm

Cheers.
The difficulty for Washington lies in the phrasing of the resolution, which appeared to leave responsibility for overseeing that ceasefire with the U.N. Security Council itself, not individual states. "There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorises states to carry out military action," said Durham University's Professor Colin Warbrick. "It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take."

[Mokujin]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and so far Bush and his ilk have proved nothing but their own pushy attitudes, ignorance of what's good for everyone, thinly veiled vapid greed, and...well, what else can I say about this lack lustre not even mediochre president of the great United States.

cheers

Wow! I wasn't aware that Saddam completely disarmed and accounted for all his biological weapons! And he's is no longer supporting terrorism, but planting trees for a better Iraq.

Honestly, Kung Lek, how can you type this blatant lie with a straight face?

After all these years, the UN wants more time. Bush has proved he is willing to enforce a resolution that the UN will not. Bottom line, it's put upon Saddam to prove something, not Bush. Your pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

www.brain-terminal.com

[yenhoi]

Nations that ran the world got together hundreds of years ago and set up rules of diplomacy and war. Nations do not need UN approval to wage war upon one another. The United States does not stand alone to start with, infact it stands shoulder to shoulder with the same allies it always has whenever it fights any war.

The UN is not a world governing authority.

So that I can read it for myself if the USA alone can act on a breach of if other parties approvals are needed.

Do you even know what a cease fire is? "Breach"ing a cease fire means resuming the war. This is not a decision the United States is making.

Anyways, I though you had abandonded this thread to us "...blind idiots..."

:eek:

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

The "breach" depends on the condition set forth in said cease-fire agrement and what actions are to/can be taken in case of said breach by which parties.

That's why I want to read it for myself as I hear opposing version about the breach and the actions that can be taken.

A breach does not mean an immediate continuation of war, that is a very simplistic viewpoint.
If the issue was that simple I doubt we would be having this discussion.

But I guess you rather not show it to me, since it might proove you wrong.
;)

Don't worry I will look for it myself, since I have doubts that you got all the facts right, or that you ever read the ceasefire agreement.

Material Breach (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2880)

[yenhoi]

I find it very odd that suddenly you wish to engage me. I dont find it odd that you have picked up on one of the most insignificant things I have said.

I wont find it for you, but Im sure someone on here will.

I stated my opinion, not facts. It would be interesting to see you prove an opinion wrong with a web document, regardless of the detail text. I would very much doubt that the United States bound itself to a document that gives the United Nations war making powers. If that happens to somehow be the case, then all the more reason for the United States to call for the United Nations as whatever international authority it is - to fulfill its obligations to the people of the United States. I will also admit freely that I do not 'know' the letter of the document.

Regardless, treatys do not change the war making authority of any independant nation - soldiers do.



:eek:

[Laughing Cow]

Yenhoi.

If you simplay stated your opinion there would be no problem, but you insisted that it was correct.

Read the article linked at the bottom of my last Post, it is an interesting read.
;)

I also haven't read the exact wording of the ceasefire, but many educated peoples been discussing it for a long time.

Ciao.

[Braden]

Kung Lek

"The sanctions and resolutions currently in place are working and so far Bush and his ilk have proved nothing..."

The sanctions and resolutions are working because of Bush and his ilk. Twelve years of absolutely no progress in Iraq. Bush gets in office and starts acting like he'll actually hold Iraq accountable and all of a sudden he's turning up mustard gas, long-range missiles, and allowing surveillance flights in Iraq airspace. You think this is a coincidence?

P.S. You must have somehow missed my 02-16-2003 2:42PM reply from the last time you brought up these arguments. (or you ignored it because you are unable or unwilling to substantiate your opinion, and believe that you can ignore the critique for a couple days then just repeat yourself and no one will notice; I hope you simply missed it though)

[red5angel]

"Because everytime we try to defend freedom and liberty somebody accuses us of being imperialistic bullies, so we have to pick our battles."

MP started something and I am going to help out here and nip one issue in the bud right now.

Next to oil, the second most popular argument against what we want to do is "Why not anyone else?"

If this argument occurs to you and you feel like it has some substance then I want you to spend 2 hours, just 2 measley hours, educating yourself on the "police actions" th eUS has taken part in or responibility for in the last 30 years. Panama, central america, Somalia, and Bosnia should get you started since those are the big ones. Once you get through those just keep poking around and you are going to find that when possible we try to defend freedom for others as well. We can;t do it all, and like MP pointed out, whenever we try, this argument, and many others comes up.
So please poeple no more arguing about why we aren't going after anyone else ok? We do our part when we can, maybe someone else should step up and help out a little?


Yenhoi, let me give you some advice from one rational individual to another...Don't bother with LC, his arguments are circular, hypocritical and moronic. You can't and won't get anything rational from the guy but not only that, at the same time he will throw the very same arguments he uses against you out the door and use them for his own ends...I am pretty sure he might be one of Saddams cronies sent to influence us here on the KFO, he already has Kung Lek, and a few other canadians convinced they are safe from Iraq, don't fall under his spell.

[Merryprankster]

What I don't get is this:

Do people understand what they are saying when they suggest that Bush and his admin are creating a war to increase oil profits or to benefit the weapons companies?

They are saying that these people are evil. I mean relentlessly, awfully, evil in the way that Hitler was--and not just one person--you're asking me to believe that an entire government, including the inherently combative legistlative, executive and judical branches, with widely disparate interests and personalities are all in collusion. This is possible in a dictatorship, but unlikely in a republic. Now, I didn't vote for the man, but I don't think he or his government, are evil, and I wonder severely about the thought processes of those who actually believe the oil and weapons line.

I don't think people really appreciate how awful a person would have to be in order to do what they are talking about and it makes me wonder what they think about human nature. It's inconceivable to me that anybody, beyond a fanatic, could perceive this about the admin. Misguided? Perhaps, perhaps not....but EVIL?

I'm absolutely certain the people who say these things have never stopped to think about the gravity of the oil and weapons line of thought and the blackness of soul it would take to really do this with either of those motives. It's just a convenient line to throw out so they don't have to think very hard.

[red5angel]

MP, good post, you may have said more clearly one o fthe thinsg I have been trying to get across. For me personally the whole war for oil argument is childish and naive to begin with and shows me who really is keeping up on world events. Lik eyou said, to believe that the US government, almost in total, has agreed to go to war because of oil is silly. Unless of course GW has managed to brain wash all of them!!!:rolleyes:

[dnc101]

MP,

Sadly, that is exactly the delusional view that some of the libs hold. It is why I often use the term in single quotes when responding to them; as in the 'evil' US, the 'evil' military, those 'evil' conservatives.

[Braden]

Conservative philosophy? Doesn't that mean you support burning the rainforests, enslaving the poor in giant underground necropoli, banning education, and making minorities into canoes?

[dnc101]

Braden, you forgot starving the children and denying old folks their medication. We want to do that too, right?

[Braden]

... funny, but only in a sad way.

The vast majority of self-professed liberals I have met have explained their beliefs to me in a not-so-different paraphrase of the above.

"Oh, I'm liberal because I believe in the rights and dignity of people! And I support education and health care! And I love the environment!"

Uh huh.

[yenhoi]

Maybe we all should switch sides for a day, give the libs a fighting chance?

:D :D

[red5angel]

"And I love the environment!"


Who doesn't!! Without it I wouldn't have fire wood or building materials or a place I could graze cattle on....oh yeah and spray chemicals all over my crops !

[dnc101]

r5a! You're not plannin' on eatin' them cows, are you?:eek:

[red5angel]

Only after loading them full of steroids and spraying them down with insect repellant!

[dnc101]

Go fer it, then! You invitin' us to the bar-bq?

[red5angel]

yer all invited!!!! I will provide the 30 lb baked potatoes (courtesy of all that genetic research I am doing curently) and enough carbonated embalming solution so's they can find easy in a few hundred years or so...