PDA

View Full Version : WAR has begun...


Pages : [1] 2

etoiles
Mar 19, 2003, 08:49 PM
...what a surprise...turn on your TV's, radio...

nospleen
Mar 19, 2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by etoiles
...what a surprise...turn on your TV's, radio...

The President is going to speak at 10:15 Eastern.

vniow
Mar 19, 2003, 08:57 PM
Here we go...

G4scott
Mar 19, 2003, 09:08 PM
The first strike was a cruise-missile attack on an iraqui 'leadership' target.

They didn't think that the war would start tonight, but maybe something has pressured the US to do something...

NavyIntel007
Mar 19, 2003, 09:09 PM
about time...

Mr. Anderson
Mar 19, 2003, 09:09 PM
Well, I'm glad its started, just means it will be over sooner. Hoping for a swift conclusion with low casualties and high accuracy on the part of the smart bombs.

D

NavyIntel007
Mar 19, 2003, 09:13 PM
He's got more balls than his father. Bush Sr. attacked at night, GW attacked at dawn.

Mal
Mar 19, 2003, 09:16 PM
President Bush is talking now. Sounds very good so far.

JW

zimv20
Mar 19, 2003, 09:18 PM
be careful what you wish for.

NavyIntel007
Mar 19, 2003, 09:19 PM
He reads pretty well, eh? :D

Don't get me wrong, I voted for him. For that reason I can pick on the guy.

By the way Doesn't he look like Alfred E. Newman from Mad Magazine?

ibookin'
Mar 19, 2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
By the way Doesn't he look like Alfred E. Newman from Mad Magazine?

He does... although not completely. I've been trying to figure out a person (or character) that he looked like.

pivo6
Mar 19, 2003, 09:25 PM
Thanks for posting this thread otherwise I would have missed it. Let's hope it's a quick one.

vniow
Mar 19, 2003, 09:31 PM
Has anyone else noticed the eerie similarities between this situation and the Dune movie and miniseries?

Desert planet, desert country
Arrakis, Iraq (say them out loud)

and a couple others I can't think of at the moment...

Creepy stuff.

G4scott
Mar 19, 2003, 09:31 PM
It sounds like there will be cruise missiles during the day, and an all out attack later on in the day, and most likely during the night. The US has focused mainly on night attacks, and their equipment is best designed for the night. The US basically "Owns the night".

pivo6
Mar 19, 2003, 09:38 PM
I still think it's unbelievable that I can turn on the TV and watch the war *live* as if I'm watching a sporting event. (I don't mean that with any disrespect to our soldiers who i hope all come back alive).

Who will be this wars *Scud Stud*?

NavyIntel007
Mar 19, 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by vniow
Has anyone else noticed the eerie similarities between this situation and the Dune movie and miniseries?

Desert planet, desert country
Arrakis, Iraq (say them out loud)

and a couple others I can't think of at the moment...

Creepy stuff.

Nevery thought about that. That's pretty cool.

etoiles
Mar 19, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by pivo6
I still think it's unbelievable that I can turn on the TV and watch the war *live* as if I'm watching a sporting event. (I don't mean that with any disrespect to our soldiers who i hope all come back alive).

Who will be this wars *Scud Stud*?


yeah, it is a bit disturbing when some commentators say things like 'game plan', 'first round' etc...at least there is no commercial breaks !

G4scott
Mar 19, 2003, 09:56 PM
This first attack was meant for Saddam, according to the pentagon. They hoped to take him out before the start of the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.main/index.html

The US is serious now. We just fired more than a dozen cruise missiles and precision guided weapons at the leader of a country.

It'll take some time to find out for sure if we got him...

vniow
Mar 19, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Nevery thought about that. That's pretty cool.

Catch this:

In the origional Dune movie (which I watched Sunday) one of the main characters was called Emperor Shaddam IV.

Probably doesn't mean anything, but when I watched Dune on Sunday and heard those names, a sort of chill went throughout my body.

Stelliform
Mar 19, 2003, 10:01 PM
....

G4scott
Mar 19, 2003, 10:03 PM
OK, they bombed a bunker that they believed that Saddam and some other leaders were hiding out in.

The F-117's were outfitted with bunker-busting bombs...

GeneR
Mar 19, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
So what you are saying is Bush is going to develop blue on blue eyes and learn to ride sand worms? :p :D

See Bush ride Sand Worms?! Yeehaaa! Oh, that's right! He's from Texas so he should do all right. :D

MrMacMan
Mar 19, 2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by GeneR
See Bush ride Sand Worms?! Yeehaaa! Oh, that's right! He's from Texas so he should do all right. :D

Keep watching Children of dune.

Chef Ramen
Mar 19, 2003, 10:24 PM
there is going to be two waves of attacks tonight

the first one not much *appeared* to happen to the viewers. the second one will probably occur when most americans would be asleep


psychological warfare, people

NavyIntel007
Mar 19, 2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Chef Ramen
there is going to be two waves of attacks tonight

the first one not much *appeared* to happen to the viewers. the second one will probably occur when most americans would be asleep


psychological warfare, people

Awww man, I'm going to miss it all.

ddtlm
Mar 19, 2003, 10:45 PM
Awww man, I'm going to miss it all.
Well with all the reporters crawling around Iraq you aren't gona miss much. At least it makes the armed forces very accountable for their actions, keeps em honest.

sinbushar
Mar 19, 2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Awww man, I'm going to miss it all.

damn get to miss people dying...sucks for you!! HAR DE HAR HAR

A**HOLE..think about what you say

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot

sinbushar

nospleen
Mar 19, 2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by sinbushar
damn get to miss people dying...sucks for you!! HAR DE HAR HAR

A**HOLE..think about what you say

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot

sinbushar

Maybe you should think about what you say. 'Confirmed', maybe to you, but not to everyone. The beauty of this country is you can speak out against what you see is wrong. Just as he can support what he thinks is right.

zimv20
Mar 19, 2003, 11:01 PM
when the trade towers were attacked, some celebrated while others watched in horror. tonight, some celebrate while others watch in horror.

no one's perspective is necessarily "right," it's simply their own.

and in either case, a lot of innocents die. personally, i celebrate in neither case and shake my head at the stupidity of people who think they're always right.

why is it so hard for some people to listen? why is it so hard to be open-minded? on ALL sides, mind you, i find idiocy.

how many people have to die to satisfy the idiots?

G4scott
Mar 19, 2003, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by sinbushar
damn get to miss people dying...sucks for you!! HAR DE HAR HAR

A**HOLE..think about what you say

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot

sinbushar

The only people that are split are idiots like you who can't see beyond two feet in front of them, and think that everything is nice and peaceful.

The majority of democrats, as well as republicans are with Bush now, as he takes the country to war. Right now, we need to show our support for our armed forces. Calling Bush an idiot is not showing support for the people who are fighting to protect your rights and freedom.

ddtlm
Mar 19, 2003, 11:22 PM
sinbushar:

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot
Why don't you shut your trap and wait to see what actually happens? Your wining does nothing now that the war has started.

eyelikeart
Mar 19, 2003, 11:41 PM
unless u want this thread shutdown...tone it down! :rolleyes:

NavyIntel007
Mar 20, 2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by sinbushar
damn get to miss people dying...sucks for you!! HAR DE HAR HAR

A**HOLE..think about what you say

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot

sinbushar

Actually 70% of US citizens are for the war buddy, so much for that split pal.

Do you're homework before you start name callingl

NavyIntel007
Mar 20, 2003, 12:25 AM
For real, at this point no one but Saddam's thugs are dead.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
This first attack was meant for Saddam, according to the pentagon. They hoped to take him out before the start of the war.


wait, i was all excited that they might have blown him up.....and that would be that.


why would we continue with the war if we cut the snakes head off? oh right his sons. i dont know. i think once that monster is gone it will be over. i just hope thats the case. can you imagine how EVERY country would be so impressed with us. going in and taking him out without even launching a full attack. now THATS skill. i dont think people are anti-remove saddam.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
OK, they bombed a bunker that they believed that Saddam and some other leaders were hiding out in.

The F-117's were outfitted with bunker-busting bombs...
i woudlnt get to excited, saddam has many look alikes and i bet he already left the country a couple of days ago. but then again im not in iraq so i know nothing, but im just guessing.

iJon

ddtlm
Mar 20, 2003, 12:39 AM
beatle888:

why would we continue with the war if we cut the snakes head off? oh right his sons. i dont know. i think once that monster is gone it will be over
The country would still need to be occupied while a new government is established.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 12:39 AM
what i think is funny is every catholic pro war american :D hehehe. im refering to the opposition between bushy wushy and the pope

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
70% of US citizens are for the war

source?

i've found:

NBC/WSJ poll from yesterday w/ support at 65%
link (http://www.msnbc.com/news/886732.asp?0si=-)

the most recent WashPost/ABC poll, Jan 20, showed support for war at 57%
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data012103.htm)

that site has some historical numbers which i find interesting. in the past year, support peaked at 72%, just over a year ago. the low point was in august, at 56%.

normally, i would expect support to be highest when war is imminent (i.e. yesterday), yet it's not as high as it's been.

it will be interesting to see what happens to public support in the coming weeks.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by sinbushar
damn get to miss people dying...sucks for you!! HAR DE HAR HAR

A**HOLE..think about what you say

this is not worth the lives of the armed forces AND iraqi civilians that it will cost....congratulations bush, you just confirmed yourself as a president that basically split the nation in two after firmly unifying it...idiot

sinbushar
cry me a river, we are going to war, get over it. if the iraqi civilians are smart they would have already left the country. if iraqi soldiers die its their own fault because we already told them, dont screw with us and we wont screw with you.

iJon

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by ddtlm
beatle888:


The country would still need to be occupied while a new government is established.


right. well atleast we shouldnt have to use as much force. damn anyway that would be to good to be true. but still, i'll keep my fingers crossed.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by iJon
if the iraqi civilians are smart they would have already left the country.

easier said than done. most countries don't want iraqi refugees. this article (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vID/A482CC1C026D54FE85256CBB0070F879?OpenDocument) says most applications for asylum to european countries are denied, neighboring countries return or persecute iraqis, and some 700,000 iraqis are displaced w/in their own country.

i am in favor of improvements for the iraqi people. they deserve better than they've gotten. but i fear, in the end, they'll be forgotten.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 12:53 AM
did anyone see that iraqi american family celebrating on the news. they had a huge dinner spread out in the kitchen....looked really good too...and they were dancing around so happy to celebrate that they may have struck the leaders. one of the older ladies shouted "long life to bush" over and over. they are so happy. so it makes me think that the iraqi people are ready for this. we better find weapons with an extreme capacity for destruction.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
easier said than done. most countries don't want iraqi refugees. this article (http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vID/A482CC1C026D54FE85256CBB0070F879?OpenDocument) says most applications for asylum to european countries are denied, neighboring countries return or persecute iraqis, and some 700,000 iraqis are displaced w/in their own country.

i am in favor of improvements for the iraqi people. they deserve better than they've gotten. but i fear, in the end, they'll be forgotten.
good point. well i hope they are safe. but this will make life in iraq better for people in the future. this must be done to help this country. people will probably lose their lives but it will be good in the long run.

iJon

Snowy_River
Mar 20, 2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by zimv20

the most recent WashPost/ABC poll, Jan 20, showed support for war at 57%
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data012103.htm)


I think that this site has more interesting information in the form of noting things like 50% of those polled thought that the US should try harder to use diplomacy, 55% thought that Bush was moving too fast into military action, and so on. I think the split is fairly evident.

Ah, well. I simply pray that this conflict is short lived, and, by some miracle, the rest of the world doesn't hate us all the more for it...

748s
Mar 20, 2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by iJon
cry me a river, we are going to war, get over it. if the iraqi civilians are smart they would have already left the country. if iraqi soldiers die its their own fault because we already told them, dont screw with us and we wont screw with you.

iJon

the iraqi people are locked in. the only place they can go to is jordan. jordan will close the border if too many try to cross. a lot are struggling to get food. they just can't jump on a 747 and live somewhere else for 3 months. by the way, YOU are not going to war. you'll be watching other people, on tv, trying to avoid being killed.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by 748s
the iraqi people are locked in. the only place they can go to is jordan. jordan will close the border if too many try to cross. a lot are struggling to get food. they just can't jump on a 747 and live somewhere else for 3 months. by the way, YOU are not going to war. you'll be watching other people, on tv, trying to avoid being killed.
trust me i know whats goin on, i come from a militart background, thos men dont sign up for the services without knowing what their job may be on day.

iJon

etoiles
Mar 20, 2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by iJon
trust me i know whats goin on, i come from a militart background, thos men dont sign up for the services without knowing what their job may be on day.

iJon

ehm, I think we are talking about civilians here...

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by etoiles
ehm, I think we are talking about civilians here... well he said I am not going to war so i assumed he meant the soldiers going to war.

iJon

etoiles
Mar 20, 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by iJon
i woudlnt get to excited, saddam has many look alikes and i bet he already left the country a couple of days ago. but then again im not in iraq so i know nothing, but im just guessing.

iJon

yes, apparently he already appeared on Iraqi TV to condemn the strikes...or at least one of them did.
This is worse than those 60s movies were they kill the villain only to remove his mask and realize they killed the wrong guy.

Ok, maybe I should go to sleep...

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 01:45 AM
ive watched that televised announcement from the supposed saddam. i thought his mustache was black. the guy on tv has a medium brown mustache. and when he raises his head a bit towards the end, it just doesnt look like him.

maybe we got him and this is a decoy. oh well. whatever, just thought i would point that out.

oh yea, a lady from that iraqi american family said the same thing when she was on the news. thats what made me look. she also said that saddam has never used square frammed glasses with super thick lenses and that the guy in the announcement has about four chins.

ddtlm
Mar 20, 2003, 01:50 AM
beatle888:

she also said that saddam has never used square frammed glasses with super thick lenses and that the guy in the announcement has about four chins.
Maybe he's getting fat with age, and his maybe his eyes are degrading with age.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 02:06 AM
yea i know, but i just saw him in that rare interview they aired a couple of days ago. he really looked a bit different. but it could of been the light...maybe he didnt die his mustache, tons of maybe's. i just felt like posting i guess.

i do have to say that these kids have guts to go out there and fight to the death. i couldnt do it. i mean, i could fight if there was an invasion but at any other time, i would just question the motives of war to much.

well i wish our troops the best. i will pray for them and everybody in iraq except for saddam and his special forces.

748s
Mar 20, 2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by iJon
well he said I am not going to war so i assumed he meant the soldiers going to war.

iJon

i'm concerned about everyone in the middle of it. collateral damage, as i believe it is now called (aka getting killed). i was concerned about your un-informed comment suggesting that if the people of a third world country were smart they would just leave.
the few that can, have been fleeing iraq for years, but members of the coalition of the willing have been shipping them straight back to saddam. they can't go anywhere. you did say 'we are at war'. your life will continue in an orderly, routine, predictable fashion. you, as an individual are not at war and most likely never will be.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 06:42 AM
To prove how truly insane Iraq is, they have fired missiles at kuwait. American patriot missiles took out two of them, and there were no casualties.

This is why saddam is so scarry. He will attack without a cause. He will not hesitate to launch missiles at his neighbors or own people in a desperate attempt to bring down more people, or make the US look bad.

I hope this war doesn't last long, and saddam is quickly brought to justice.

Stike
Mar 20, 2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
This is why saddam is so scarry. He will attack without a cause.

Sorry, the U.S. opened fire first. :rolleyes:

Kiss the whip
Mar 20, 2003, 07:40 AM
Speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Senator Robert Byrd (D-W. Vir.):



March 19, 2003 3:45pm



I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.



But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.


Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.


We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.


After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.


The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.


There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.


The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.


But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.


The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?


A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.


What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?


Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?


War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Stelliform
Mar 20, 2003, 08:36 AM
....

Stike
Mar 20, 2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Stelliform
Criticizing the president at a time like this is political suicide.

So, being a "yeah"-sayer all the time makes one a good politician? Sad. Criticism is necessary. It is the root of democracy. I agree with those views, a good speech.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Right now, we need to show our support for our armed forces. Calling Bush an idiot is not showing support for the people who are fighting to protect your rights and freedom.
Originally posted by iJon
cry me a river, we are going to war, get over it. if the iraqi civilians are smart they would have already left the country. if iraqi soldiers die its their own fault because we already told them, dont screw with us and we wont screw with you.

So let me get this straight? We pre-emptively strike against a soveirgn nation, effectively starting a war, and now all political dissent to this administration should cease.

Hogwash!!

My political opinions now are no different than they were yesterday. Its just that now I have to worry about the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi people as we enter this conflict.

Lets get this straight:

1) I think Bush is a bad leader. Even an "idiot", if you will.

2) This by no means indicates that I don't support our troops. Now that Bush has committed them to eliminating the Iraqi regime, they are simply doing their job. As long as our troops and their commanders try within their power to avoid civilian casualties, they will continue to receive my support.

3) Anyone who labels me unpatriotic for expressing my dissent, even in a time of war, can [insert vulgar saying here].

Just because I don't support the current administration's actions doesn't mean I don't love my country. It doesn't mean I don't care or worry about the lives of our citizens and soldiers. All it means is that I think George W Bush is a jack***.

I still think this was a bad idea. A very bad idea. But we are now committed to it, for better or for worse. Even if the action is a success (and it will most likely be), even if we find bio weapons (I'd say its 50-50 we will find them--they probably exist), I maintain it was not a good idea. Those of you who have read my previous posts know why. We will feel the reprecussions of this action in future generations. Mark my words.

Political dissent is good, especially in a time of war when the public's perception is skewed by the tragedy of such actions.

Taft

WinterMute
Mar 20, 2003, 09:21 AM
I just saw the "Saddam" broadcast after the attack, it didn't look exactly like him, but one old, uniformed middle eastern guy with a mustache looks a lot like any other;)

Here's a thought: Saddam deliberately puts up a double, lets everyone think he's dead but trying to cover it up, then he gets a chance to escape.

This could be a double bluff, and there's no second guessing it.

Saddam is evil, not stupid, don't underestimate his level of cunning.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Stike
Sorry, the U.S. opened fire first. :rolleyes:

The first I read of this, was that Iraq fired the missiles at kuwait, not at a US base in kuwait. Fortunately the missiles missed, but there is no guarentee that he won't open fire on neighboring countries, or Isreal.

As far as Robert Byrd, he has gone too far for his own good, IMHO. While a few anti-war supporters will back him, in a time when the US is already at war, he has committed political suicide.

The first couple of paragraphs were ok, and were decent criticism, but the rest of his speech just attacked Bush and his administration. Unfortunately, it seems that Byrd doesn't realize that terrorists and people like Saddam don't play by the rules anymore, and that our current military strategy does little to prevent terrorist attacks.

Whether he likes it or not, we are going to war, and if he loves this country, and he cares for US troops, he will not call this war meaningless. He doesn't have to show support for the war, but he can show some support for our troops.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Taft
So let me get this straight? We pre-emptively strike against a soveirgn nation, effectively starting a war, and now all political dissent to this administration should cease.

Hogwash!!

My political opinions now are no different than they were yesterday. Its just that now I have to worry about the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi people as we enter this conflict.

Lets get this straight:

1) I think Bush is a bad leader. Even an "idiot", if you will.

2) This by no means indicates that I don't support our troops. Now that Bush has committed them to eliminating the Iraqi regime, they are simply doing their job. As long as our troops and their commanders try within their power to avoid civilian casualties, they will continue to receive my support.

3) Anyone who labels me unpatriotic for expressing my dissent, even in a time of war, can [insert vulgar saying here].

Just because I don't support the current administration's actions doesn't mean I don't love my country. It doesn't mean I don't care or worry about the lives of our citizens and soldiers. All it means is that I think George W Bush is a jack***.

I still think this was a bad idea. A very bad idea. But we are now committed to it, for better or for worse. Even if the action is a success (and it will most likely be), even if we find bio weapons (I'd say its 50-50 we will find them--they probably exist), I maintain it was not a good idea. Those of you who have read my previous posts know why. We will feel the reprecussions of this action in future generations. Mark my words.

Political dissent is good, especially in a time of war when the public's perception is skewed by the tragedy of such actions.

Taft To call anyone a idiot who has been a governer and won the the office of the Presidency of the United States is very sad reflection on you Taft. I know you disagree but that doesnt make you right. Any man that can be a governer and president has allready proven many things and being a idiot is not one of them.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
To call anyone a idiot who has been a governer and won the the office of the Presidency of the United States is very sad reflection on you Taft. I know you disagree but that doesnt make you right. Any man that can be a governer and president has allready proven many things and being a idiot is not one of them.

Right...

People in powerful positions couldn't possibly be underqualified or general ignoramuses, right? Or be driven by greed or self-interest, right? God, I hope not, because that would question my unwavering faith in the inherent goodness of people and fairness of the political and social system!!!

Catch the sarcasm?

Have you ever worked for a large corporation? Have you ever read about political corruption? The advancement of the children of the priviledged because of their parent's positions or connections?? Good compaign managers???

I'd like to think that the world is a fair place and that hard work, good ideas and general smarts get you to the top. But I've seen far too many instances of corruption, favoritism and unqaulified people in high places to believe its not possible.

As to this specific case, Bush's actions have proved (to me, obviously) that he is not a good leader. Idiot was a quote from a previous post and too strong a term. But the my point has been made...

Taft

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 09:53 AM
It looks like "shock and awe" has begun, or will begin soon. There will be a news conference at the Pentagon at 11:00 EST

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Taft
So let me get this straight? We pre-emptively strike against a soveirgn nation, effectively starting a war, and now all political dissent to this administration should cease.

Hogwash!!

My political opinions now are no different than they were yesterday. Its just that now I have to worry about the lives of our soldiers and the Iraqi people as we enter this conflict.

Lets get this straight:

1) I think Bush is a bad leader. Even an "idiot", if you will.

2) This by no means indicates that I don't support our troops. Now that Bush has committed them to eliminating the Iraqi regime, they are simply doing their job. As long as our troops and their commanders try within their power to avoid civilian casualties, they will continue to receive my support.

3) Anyone who labels me unpatriotic for expressing my dissent, even in a time of war, can [insert vulgar saying here].

Just because I don't support the current administration's actions doesn't mean I don't love my country. It doesn't mean I don't care or worry about the lives of our citizens and soldiers. All it means is that I think George W Bush is a jack***.

I still think this was a bad idea. A very bad idea. But we are now committed to it, for better or for worse. Even if the action is a success (and it will most likely be), even if we find bio weapons (I'd say its 50-50 we will find them--they probably exist), I maintain it was not a good idea. Those of you who have read my previous posts know why. We will feel the reprecussions of this action in future generations. Mark my words.

Political dissent is good, especially in a time of war when the public's perception is skewed by the tragedy of such actions.

Taft

Taft, everyone has opinions. You know they are like *******s. But with all due respect, I really don't think anyone here gives a flying **** what you think of Bush. Now is not the time. Can't you understand that. To insult the commander of chief during a time of war with such brilliant antidotes as "I think George W is a jackass". You and I have argued a lot. I do not dislike you, not am I attempting to disrespect you. I do however, in MY opinion, think that the arguement that you make is not an arguement, but an insult. Frankly, that is insulting to me.

As for you idea of chemical and biological weapons. Look he has already used scuds that were outlawed. He will use other weapons. He is going to go down, and the world will be exposed to just how deep his weapons programs, terrorist ties, and other information that will be juicy at the very least. Just wait till the illegal weapons sales from France come to light. That is what I cannot wait for.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, everyone has opinions. You know they are like *******s. But with all due respect, I really don't think anyone here gives a flying **** what you think of Bush. Now is not the time. Can't you understand that. To insult the commander of chief during a time of war with such brilliant antidotes as "I think George W is a jackass". You and I have argued a lot. I do not dislike you, not am I attempting to disrespect you. I do however, in MY opinion, think that the arguement that you make is not an arguement, but an insult. Frankly, that is insulting to me.

As for you idea of chemical and biological weapons. Look he has already used scuds that were outlawed. He will use other weapons. He is going to go down, and the world will be exposed to just how deep his weapons programs, terrorist ties, and other information that will be juicy at the very least. Just wait till the illegal weapons sales from France come to light. That is what I cannot wait for.

Welcome back! Somehow I knew you wouldn't stay away.

But you know what? I don't give a flying crap if you want to hear my opinion about Bush right now. That was the whole point of my post. I have the right to speak against our president, and by doing so I am not automatically disrespecting our country or soldiers. Dissent is necessary, even in war. Now IS the time. Anytime IS the time if I feel we are acting unjustly.

What I said IS an insult. But not a bigger insult than the one I feel his administration is making with these actions. Why in the heck should I give him respect if I don't think he deserves it? Because not doing so disrepects our country and troops? ************. It has nothing to do with it.

That was my whole point. I feel this is a mistake and I don't respect this president. But it doesn't mean I don't love my country and respect it and the brave actions of our soldiers. These are two seperate issues!!!

What you and others are attempting to do is hide behind a state of war. You don't want to hear dissent so you say its inappropriate and disrespectful to speak against the actions of our president. I respectfully disagree.

Taft

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:15 AM
OK, guys, I know I'm not perfect, and I know that nobody else is, but please, lets keep our manners, and don't post anything that may start an argument here. This thread is about the ongoing war in Iraq, and not about whose beliefs are wrong or right.

we each have our own opinions, but if we all post who we think are idiots and who we don't like, this thread will turn into a big pissing contest.

Keep it calm guys, and don't fight or start flamewars. We already have a war going on in Iraq, and we don't need any here.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Taft
I respectfully disagree.

Taft

I respectfully dissent with you. I think that during a time of war, we are obligated to support our President. I think that we have too. I did so with Clinton, even when I did not agree with his politics. You have the right to you opinion.

skunk
Mar 20, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
To insult the commander of chief during a time of war......

This is a very silly line to take. Nobody has declared war, have they? Scuds are not "illegal", and never were. Iraq did NOT fire first. This whole "opinion" is based on a fairy story.

Good letter from Byrd, all the way to the end.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by skunk
This is a very silly line to take. Nobody has declared war, have they? Scuds are not "illegal", and never were. Iraq did NOT fire first. This whole "opinion" is based on a fairy story.

Good letter from Byrd, all the way to the end.

Just a note, according to UN, and as Hans Blix just said, Iraq is violating UN resolutions by firing scuds. Iraq is not supposed to have scuds, and firing them just goes to show that they were not in compliance with certain UN resolutions.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by skunk
This is a very silly line to take. Nobody has declared war, have they? Scuds are not "illegal", and never were. Iraq did NOT fire first. This whole "opinion" is based on a fairy story.

Good letter from Byrd, all the way to the end.

I think that I have that opinion because I have served in the military. You don't question the commander in chief. I think that is why I am the way that I am. I just think there is an appropriate time to do things, and the 1st day of the war is not the time to say "Bush is a jackass" Say, "I don't support the policy, but I do support the troops." See the difference. Futhermore, yes, Scuds are illegal. They have been since 91 for Iraq. They travel over 400 nautical miles, but are highly inaccurate. That being said, they can only have missiles that travel less than 93 kilometers. Much less than 400 miles.

As for Robert KKK Byrd. I won't even go there.

skunk
Mar 20, 2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Scuds are illegal........

As for Robert KKK Byrd. I won't even go there.

My mistake on the Scuds, although no debris has been produced to prove they WERE Scuds, but what is this KKK business?

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by skunk
My mistake on the Scuds, although no debris has been produced to prove they WERE Scuds, but what is this KKK business?

You don't verify scuds by debris. you verify scuds based on flight path. They are more a ballistic missile than is the Al Samoud II.

The KKK business. Lets keep it out of here, I should not have even said it. Lets keep it on topic. I just PM'd you about Byrd.

Kiss the whip
Mar 20, 2003, 11:15 AM
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war."
This is patently false. In 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully pressured UNSCOM director Richard Butler to withdraw inspectors without authorization from the Secretary General or the Security Council--before their mission was complete--in order to engage in a four-day heavy bombing campaign against Iraq. As predicted at the time, this illegal use of military force--combined with revelations that the United States had abused the inspections process for espionage purposes--resulted in the Iraqi government barring the inspectors' return until a reorganized inspections commission known as UNMOVIC commenced inspections last year. UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly called upon the United States and the international community to give the inspectors more time to do their job, noting that it would take a number of months before their mission could be completed.



"That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991."
Iraq was presented with this demand as part of UN Security Council resolution 687, which mandated Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems. This was a unilateral decree from the Security Council which--while nominally part of the ceasefire agreement--was void of any explicit threat to continue prosecuting the war if Iraq did not agree to the disarmament provisions. It is noteworthy that the demand for Iraqi disarmament in the resolution was put forward within the context of a call for regional disarmament. The United States has refused to encourage any regional disarmament initiative, however, and remains a strong supporter of the Israeli and Pakistani governments, which have advanced nuclear arsenals among other weapons of mass destruction.



"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."
Iraq's cooperation has indeed been less than total, but most independent reports--even during UNSCOM's inspections regime between 1991 and 1998--conclude that cooperation was close to 90%. According to UNMOVIC, Iraq's cooperation since inspections resumed last year has been far better.



"Over the years, UN weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived."
This was not an uncommon practice during the UNSCOM era, but there have been no reports from UNMOVIC of such harassment subsequently.



"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again--because we are not dealing with peaceful men."
Peaceful efforts at disarming Iraq have succeeded in eliminating somewhere between 95% and 100% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related materiel and delivery systems as a result of UN Security Council resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions. The determination to go to war despite such success raises serious questions as to whether the United States is governed by peaceful men.



"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
If the United States really has evidence that the Iraqi government continues to possess and conceal weapons of mass destruction, why has the Bush administration refused to make such evidence public or pass such intelligence on to United Nations inspectors, who have the authority to destroy them?



"This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."
Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians back in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's regime was being supported by the United States. The Reagan administration covered up for the Halabja massacre and similar attacks against Kurdish civilians by falsely claiming that it was the Iranians--then the preferred enemy--who were responsible. In addition, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency provided Iraq with U.S. satellite data to help Saddam Hussein's forces locate Iranian troop concentrations in the full knowledge that they were using chemical weapons. Many of the key components of Iraq's chemical weapons program came from the United States, ostensibly for pesticides as part of taxpayer-funded agricultural subsidies, despite evidence that these U.S.-manufactured chemicals were probably being diverted for use in illegal chemical weapons.



"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East."
This is true, though Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 was quietly supported by the U.S. government and ambivalent signals by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to conquer the sheikdom in 1990. Now, with Iraq's offensive military capability just a fraction of what is was during that period and an unambiguous resolve by the international community to thwart such future aggression, there is little chance of Iraq invading another country again.



"It has a deep hatred of America and our friends."
Iraq willingly accepted U.S. support during the 1980s. The more belligerent posture of recent years is largely a result of the U.S. destruction of much of the country's military and civilian infrastructure in the 1991 Gulf War, which was supported by a number of other Middle Eastern states with which Iraq had also once collaborated and been on friendly terms. Subsequent U.S.-led sanctions, periodic bombing raids, and invasion threats have resulted in widespread suffering of the population that has intensified anti-American sentiment. Had the United States adopted a more enlightened policy, such deep hatred would likely have not developed.



"And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
Every independent investigation of every Bush administration claim of a connection between the secular Iraqi government and the Islamist al Qaeda network has found no evidence of any Iraqi aid, training, or harboring of al Qaeda terrorists. According to both published U.S. government reports and independent analyses, Iraq's support for international terrorism--which has always been restricted to secular nationalists like the radical Palestinian Abu Nidal faction--peaked in the 1980s.



"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."
The Bush administration has failed to present any evidence that Iraq has the intention to pass on weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, an act that would inevitably lead to a U.S.-led invasion, only in this case with the support of the international community. This is the essence of deterrence, which protected the United States and its allies from Josef Stalin, Mao Zedung, and other leaders as tyrannical and far more powerful militarily than Saddam Hussein. And no country has the right to invade another on some far-fetched scenario that they might do something someday. Ironically, as the CIA has noted in a report released this past October, Saddam Hussein would not likely use WMDs as a first strike, but in the case of a U.S. invasion--with nothing to lose and the logic of deterrence no longer in effect--would be far more likely to use whatever WMDs he may possess. In other words, a U.S. invasion, rather than preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, would be the most likely--and the only realistic--scenario that such horrible weapons would be utilized.



"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."
The oath of office also demands that the president uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which forbids such an illegal use of force. Virtually no international legal authority recognizes such an invasion as an act of assuring legitimate national security interests.



"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."
The U.S. Congress--with the support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership--did authorize the use of force against Iraq. However, the resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow Congress to grant such open-ended warmaking authority to the president for an offensive military action. Only a formal declaration of war in such a situation can be considered legitimate. Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution declares that international treaties to which the United States is a party are to be treated as supreme law, thereby proscribing Congress from passing any resolution that violates the UN Charter, such as supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation. As a result, this resolution is unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

Kiss the whip
Mar 20, 2003, 11:16 AM
"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations."
Then why is the United States violating the UN Charter, which forbids the use of military force unless a country finds itself under armed attack or it is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council? The mission of the United Nations is to preserve international peace and security, not to approve the invasion of one country by another.



"One reason the UN was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."
The United States refused to confront Saddam Hussein active and early when he was committing acts of aggression against Iranians and Kurds and opposed decisive action by the United Nations. Iraq's ability to attack the innocent and destroy the peace has already been reduced dramatically through a series of actions by the United Nations, including authorizing the use of force to remove Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait, placing strict military sanctions against the dictatorship, and overseeing the most aggressive unilateral disarmament effort and inspections regime in history.



"In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687--both still in effect--the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will."
The assertion that resolutions 678 and 687 give the United States the right to invade Iraq is patently false. Resolution 678 authorized the use of force to enforce prior UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Iraq remove its occupation forces from Kuwait. Once that was accomplished in late February 1991, the resolution became moot. Resolution 687 called for Iraqi disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems, but--even though it was the most detailed resolution in the history of the United Nations--no enforcement mechanism was specified. According to United Nations Charter, such resolutions can be enforced militarily only if the Security Council as a whole recognizes that a country is in material breach, determines that all non-military means have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of force. The Security Council has not done so subsequent to the passage of resolution 678 in late November 1990.



"Last September, I went to the UN General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."
True, but it did not authorize the use of force. Article 14 of that resolution specifically noted that the Security Council would "remain seized of the matter," reiterating that only the Security Council as a whole--not any one member state--has the power to determine whether military force can be legitimately utilized to enforce its resolution.



"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
There actually are some nations that believe that Iraq has disarmed under the resolutions. Though this is not likely the case, the Bush administration has been unable to present clear evidence to the contrary.



"And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power."
This is sheer speculation. As a dictator who has proven his desire to ruthlessly hold on to power at all costs, he very well could disarm to save his regime. However, the Bush administration has made clear its intention to invade anyway, thereby providing little incentive for Saddam Hussein to do so.



"For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it."
Actually, most Security Council members do not believe that Iraq is the imminent threat that the United States claims it to be, though, if convincing evidence were presented that Iraq indeed posed a threat to international peace and security, a clear majority of the Security Council--including France--have indicated their willingness to authorize the use of force. A veto of the proposed U.S.-sponsored resolution by France, Russia, and China would probably not have been necessary since the United States was unable--despite enormous pressure, including promises of increased foreign aid, trade preferences, and other incentives--to convince a simple majority of nations on the Council that it was necessary to take the unprecedented step of authorizing the United States to invade Iraq, overthrow the government, and replace it with one more to its liking.



"Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."
There is nothing close to the broad coalition such as that which joined the United States in ridding Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait in 1991, when Iraq clearly did constitute a threat to peace. As of this writing, only one major power (Great Britain) and two minor powers (Spain and Australia) have offered to send troops. All three of these governments are doing so contrary to the sentiments of the vast majority of their population and their combined participation still leaves the United States contributing at least 85% of combat forces. As columnist Maureen Dowd noted, since the Bush administration has driven virtually everyone from the schoolyard, it now has to rely on imaginary friends.



"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
In reality, the United Nations Security Council has gone to extraordinary efforts to minimize any threat to peace from Iraq, including authorizing the use of force in 1990 to enforce resolutions requiring an Iraqi withdrawal from occupied Kuwait, the imposition of strict sanctions against Iraq, and the creation of an inspections regime that has been largely--if not 100%--effective. By contrast, it is not the responsibility of the United States or any country to invade a sovereign nation when it feels like it.



"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately."
President Bush has no authorization to demand that United Nations inspectors or foreign nationals leave Iraq. Nor does he have the right to demand that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave their country. No Security Council resolutions require that Saddam Hussein resign or that he and any other member of his family go into exile. And neither the United States nor any other country has the right to commence an invasion of another country at the time of its choosing.



"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."
It is highly likely that a major U.S. military campaign--particularly one with such a heavy reliance on air power and the determination to seize by force a capital city of over five million people--will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.



"As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need."
In large part as a result of the U.S.-led sanctions, there are already severe shortages of food and medicines in Iraq. Strict and mostly equitable rationing have left few Iraqi families with more than a couple of days' worth of food in storage. It is unlikely that the United States will be able to supply most Iraqis with the food and medicine they need in any timely manner.



"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."
The fact that the United States has supported scores of regimes--including a number in the Middle East--that have tortured, raped, and murdered dissidents raises serious questions as to whether the Bush administration really supports a free Iraq. The Bush administration's ongoing support of Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, Turkish occupation forces in northern Cyprus, and Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights raises serious questions as to whether the United States is actually bothered by countries that commit acts of aggression against neighbors. The United States also supports a number of Middle Eastern countries that are believed to have developed chemical weapons, similarly raising questions as to whether the Bush administration is really worried about "poison factories."

Kiss the whip
Mar 20, 2003, 11:17 AM
"The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
Most Iraqis would certainly welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. But it is highly questionable whether a Western nation that has already wrought enormous suffering for the Iraqi people, invades the country, and installs one of its own generals as a provisional military governor will be seen as an act of liberation or a foreign occupation.



"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."
First, it is hard to imagine any national army--even under the most ruthless of dictators--that would not resist a foreign invasion. Second, if the United States knows where these alleged weapons of mass destruction are located, why haven't U.S. government officials informed UNMOVIC inspectors, who have the authority to destroy them?



"Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life. And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders"."
The United States has actively undermined and refused to participate in the International Criminal Court, which was designed to try and punish war criminals like Saddam Hussein. As a result, any such trials will likely be under the tutelage of an occupying American army, which will be seen by the vast majority of the international community as illegitimate. For a foreign occupation army to try and punish leaders of an internationally recognized government--however reprehensible they may be--is in itself a war crime and would make these thugs martyrs in the eyes of much of the world.



"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it."
Refusing an illegitimate order by a foreign government to surrender power is not choosing confrontation. And, clearly, the Bush administration has not taken "every measure to avoid war."



"Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice. Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible."
Then why prosecute and unnecessary and illegal war?



"And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
According to the CIA and other estimates, Iraq has not engaged in any anti-American terrorism since the alleged 1993 assassination attempt against former President George Bush and has already dramatically reduced his support for international terrorism since the 1980s, when the United States was supporting his government. By contrast, most intelligence analyses predict an increase in the terrorist threat to America and its allies should the United States invade Iraq.



"Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America. Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people--yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences."
The chances of the United States being attacked will be greatly increased if the U.S. attacks first. Indeed, if there was any logic behind the madness of 9/11, it was Osama bin Laden's hope that the United States would react in such a way that would only increase the popularity of anti-American extremists. History has shown that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become.



"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities."
Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States nor does it have the ability to attack the United States. That country became a formidable military threat back in the 1980s as a result of support from industrialized nations like the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. With a strict military embargo imposed upon the country since 1990, it will be extremely difficult for Iraq to become a military threat to the United States or any other country.



"The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."
The analogy with Hitler's Germany and other Axis powers is spurious. Germany was the most powerful industrialized country in the world in the 1930s. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor, third-world country that has had most of its military infrastructure destroyed and has been under the strictest military and economic sanctions in world history. The current UN policy of inspections, sanctions, and the threat of UN-sanctioned war if Iraq again threatens its neighbors can hardly be considered "appeasement." None of the Axis powers of the 1930s were ever subjected to such international pressure until they had invaded and occupied dozens of nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Iraq has not invaded and occupied any countries since its six-month occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91.



"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations--and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
Essentially, President Bush is saying that a country has the right to invade and occupy another country without any evidence that the targeted country has the intention, willingness, or ability to strike first. This would give virtually any country the right to invade any other. Most of Iraq's neighbors do not consider Iraq to be a threat, either now or in the perceivable future.



"As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country."
Violating the U.S. Constitution and international legal covenants to which the U.S. government is legally bound is, in reality, a dishonor to the deepest commitments of the United States.



"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation."
If the United States really believes the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, then why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein during the height of his terror? And why are the leading candidates the United States hopes to install in Baghdad to replace the current dictatorship lacking anything remotely resembling democratic credentials?



"The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."
Then why does the United States support dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and other autocratic regimes? And why does the United States support Moroccan, Israeli, and Turkish occupation forces? Such policies belie any claim of support for liberty and peace.



"Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace."
To unleash bombs and missiles on cities, to engage in war-mongering, and to lie to the American people and the world in order to rationalize such an invasion is itself a form of hatred and violence.

etc....

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 11:38 AM
i'm going to deconstruct all the arguments i've seen

pro-war:
they're bad and must be punished

anti-war:
lots of people are bad. i'm questioning motives.

skunk
Mar 20, 2003, 11:52 AM
Good analysis by the Prof!:)

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm going to deconstruct all the arguments i've seen

pro-war:
they're bad and must be punished

anti-war:
lots of people are bad. i'm questioning motives.
lol

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 12:06 PM
One question Professor. Why is it illegal again? Is it illegal because the UN says no? That in itself is illegal. The Constitution of the US is the supreme law of this land, not the UN Charter.

skunk
Mar 20, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
One question Professor. Why is it illegal again? Is it illegal because the UN says no? That in itself is illegal. The Constitution of the US is the supreme law of this land, not the UN Charter.

However, the rest of the world did not agree to live under the US Constitution... :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by skunk
However, the rest of the world did not agree to live under the US Constitution... :rolleyes:

No, they did not. Be WE do. This was is legal according to our Constitution. We have the right to defend ourselves.

And one other thing, why do people keep acting like we are all alone. Over 35 countries are supporting this, and another 15 silent partners.

skunk
Mar 20, 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, they did not. Be WE do. This was is legal according to our Constitution. We have the right to defend ourselves.

The legality of this action is highly questionable. Without legality, it becomes nothing better than a piece of mismanaged, opportunistic banditry.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by skunk
The legality of this action is highly questionable. Without legality, it becomes nothing better than a piece of mismanaged, opportunistic banditry.

No, it isn't in question. The Congress gave the President approval for this war, and he has abided by the laws of the United States, and the Constitution. That means it is legal.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 12:48 PM
Just a note guys, the US is the only superpower left on this planet. We must not rely on other countries or organizations (the UN) to keep us safe. We have to take it upon ourselves to protect the US and our interests. We also must take the responsibility to take out tyrants like Saddam, since nobody else is capable of it. The US may be picky in who they help, but they do it for a reason.

I also think that many people question the motives of war because they are so used to knowing so much about the government, and what they are doing. The government keeps some things secret because if everybody knew about it, the government wouldn't be able to do anything about it. You must have faith in your government. The public knows more about this war than they have ever know about any war in history. We can watch cruise missiles strike in baghdad, and watch planes take off of carriers on their way to strike.

I imagine that if we had as much information about other wars as we do this war, we would critique the president at the time for his motives.

Let us all just support our troops, and hope that this conflict is quickly brought to an end.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac We have the right to defend ourselves.

We have the right to defend ourselves, IF WE ARE ATTACKED. We are NOT defending ourselves, In this case the US is the aggressor.

There is no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There is however ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistan, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and THE US! We trained Bin Laden to fight Russia in Afghanistan and we supported Saddam in the war against Iran.

There is no doubt in anyones mind that Saddam is evil and must be removed, but we are dropping bomb on innocent civilians and destabilising the middle east.

60 % of the Iraqi people are dependent on the UN food-for-oil program, which is now cut off.

1/3 of all Iraqi newborns are malnurished

about 1/2 the population in Iraq are children!

We are supposed to help these people, not kill them. This war will result in a massive recruiting campaign for Al Qaeda. The world is now a far more unstable place and we are another step closer to world war III.

In the next 50 years, China will become a superpower far greater than the US. Is this how you would like to be treated?

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 01:10 PM
Much of the analysis offered by the professor is quite thickheaded. This war is not illegal. It is not illegal because it is, in the final analysis, a resumption of hostilities due to the violation of a cease-fire between Iraq and the United States. It is justified for several reasons. It is necessary for the liberation of the Iraqi people. They live under a terrible tyrant, and he will not be removed by any other means. It is prudent to remove him because the threat he poses to his neighbors.

I note that the professor offers up the canard that sanctions were working on Iraq and and its twin that Saddam shouldn't be compared to Hitler. There are two points here. First, sanctions were not working to stop Saddam from his nuclear program which was found in the mid 1990s after some defectors revealed it. Why should we expect that they would stop him from developing them at a later time? Also, sanctions themselves were not being maintained. The coaltion against Iraq had collapsed by 1997, with France and Russia calling for an end to sacntions. Saddam played the world community like a violin. He blocked the inspectors. Despite the professor's obtuse contention that Clinton "forced" them to leave before they could do their job, the truth is that the inspectors were denied at every turn in Iraq. They were unable to disarm Saddam because he didn't want to be disarmed. Finally, the sanctions themselves are not a long term solution. Sanctions are generally a bad idea. They harm the people in the country, but the leadership continues to remain in power.

To the second issue on whether Saddam can be compared with Hitler, yes, he can be. No analogy is perfect, but the similarities in his rise to power, his means of control, his brutality, and his desire to dominate areas outside of his own country are clear to all except the most dense of observers. The argument that Iraq is a poor third world country and thus can't be compared to Germany in terms of a threat omits the very real concern that a third rate county plus a few nuclear weapons equals a first rate problem. The difference between Saddam in the middle east and Hitler in Europe is that when Hitler occuppied Czechoslavakia, the world did nothing, but when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the United States, with UN backing, took action. It is now time to finish the job.

The professor also offers the rather assinine opinion that Iraq's neighbors don't see Saddam as a threat. LOL. What has the little professor been smoking? The Kuwaitis want to try him and his buddies for crimes from when they invaded Kuwait. He's lobbed missiles on many of his neighbors, and started an eight year war with another one. Another of his neighbors decided he was such a threat back in 1981 that they carried out a preemptive strike on his nuclear capability.

There are risks in this war, and there are legitimate arguments against it, some of which are mentioned by the professor. There is a chance that terrorist attacks might increase. There is a chance that it will damage US relations with other countries. There is the inevitable loss of life that is common to war. However, the professor has offered up mere polemic for the most part. It is a real shame that such a dim-witted perspective is offered up by someone who is entrusted with teaching students how to think critically.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Just a note guys, the US is the only superpower left on this planet.


excellent point. it's imperative that we lead by example. for instance, now many countries will feel free to attack their neighbors on the suspicion they may be plotting something.


I also think that many people question the motives of war because they are so used to knowing so much about the government


though i find this adminstration's penchant for secrecy dangerous, that's not the root cause of my distrust. i distrust them for what i _do_ know, and must assume what they're not telling me is even worse.

The public knows more about this war than they have ever know about any war in history.


i disagree. reporters are kept in press corps, not allowed to wander freely (like was done in vietnam). networks self-censor, military video is scrubbed and released by the military itself. dick cheney has gone on record about the dangers of the press allowed to report a war freely.

i don't know how old you are and what you remember of the gulf war 12 years ago.

the military reported 100% of patriot missiles struck their targets. research since that time, including that of an MIT group that specializes in weapons, concludes that it's closer to zero, if not in fact zero. note that the military today claimed 100% patriot performance in this conflict (yes, i've seen the reports that they've been improved since, but that doesn't change the lie of 12 years ago).

the first bush administration invented the fact that some 150k iraqi troops were stationed on the saudi border. this helped sell the war. some good journalistic work, years later, proved that there were no troops on the saudi border.

you _must_ be skeptical. you _must_ question your government, regardless of which party is in power. a gullible populace _will_ be fooled, lied to, taken advantage of.

"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe." - Thomas Jefferson


Let us all just support our troops, and hope that this conflict is quickly brought to an end.

agreed. and let's pray for our safety afterwards, 'cuz my fear is the world just got more dangerous.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
One question Professor. Why is it illegal again? Is it illegal because the UN says no? That in itself is illegal. The Constitution of the US is the supreme law of this land, not the UN Charter.

The Constitution also says that the president has the right to sign treaties and Congress to ratify them. The UN charter is a treaty that states that when a nation signs it, it agrees that all other treaties both past and future are secondary to that treaty.

We are part of the UN, and the UN mandates that a nation cannot declare aggressive war -- that is, a war of choice and not protection. The UN exists to protect the world from exactly the kind of horror the US is now commiting itself to.

The Connecticut cowboy is leading us down a dark and dangerous path. You reap what you sow in this world, and the US is setting a dangerous precedent for other aspiring world leaders to follow.

This war is about US capital maintaining its place in the world. It's sad that so many will die for such a shallow cause.

How anyone can announce that they've made the decision to kill our troops, Iraqi troops and civilians in one breath, and then invoke the name of God in the next is beyond me.

I support our troops, yes. I support them in that I want them to come home alive, but that does not mean I want them to "win" either. We've seeen what "winning" did to the thousands of troops with Gulf War syndrome. Our men and women will be exposed at least to the horrors of war, the death and destruction of life on a grand scale. That is no victory.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
We have the right to defend ourselves, IF WE ARE ATTACKED. We are NOT defending ourselves, In this case the US is the aggressor.

There is no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. There is however ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistan, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and THE US! We trained Bin Laden to fight Russia in Afghanistan and we supported Saddam in the war against Iran.

There is no doubt in anyones mind that Saddam is evil and must be removed, but we are dropping bomb on innocent civilians and destabilising the middle east.

60 % of the Iraqi people are dependent on the UN food-for-oil program, which is now cut off.

1/3 of all Iraqi newborns are malnurished

about 1/2 the population in Iraq are children!

We are supposed to help these people, not kill them. This war will result in a massive recruiting campaign for Al Qaeda. The world is now a far more unstable place and we are another step closer to world war III.

In the next 50 years, China will become a superpower far greater than the US. Is this how you would like to be treated?

NO! We do have the right to defend our interest. We have the right as a soverign nation to determine what is a threat to our national security. That gives us the ability to declare, and conduct war.

Can people please stop the retoric! We are not dropping bombs on innocent civilians. We are targeting military targets!

There are ties to terror. Saddam funds suicide bombers in Israel, he has harbored members of Al Queada.

Those children are the way they are because of HIS dictatorship. That will end soon.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The Constitution also says that the president has the right to sign treaties and Congress to ratify them. The UN charter is a treaty that states that when a nation signs it, it agrees that all other treaties both past and future are secondary to that treaty.

We are part of the UN, and the UN mandates that a nation cannot declare aggressive war -- that is, a war of choice and not protection. The UN exists to protect the world from exactly the kind of horror the US is now commiting itself to.



Ok, let me explain. A treaty does not superseed the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Period! mcrain can weigh in on this, but it is called the Supremecy clause of the Constitution. Second. I have said for years that the UN Charter is unconstitutional, and your statement proves it. We are not committing horror on the world. You sound like a posterboard for Saddam. You support our troops but hope they don't win. That is total crap. I won't even warrant the rest of your statement with a response.

GO READ. Learn the true!
Oh, and once again, this is not the US alone. There are Thirty-five countries involved in this war!

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:38 PM
Here's what the "coalition of the willing" looks like... a pathetic hodgepodge of third world nations who aren't committing troops or money.

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

what's shocking to me is that Eritrea spends nearly 20% of its GDP on the military. holy cow.

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Here's what the "coalition of the willing" looks like... a pathetic hodgepodge of third world nations who aren't committing troops or money.

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

3rd world nations? Man, I have to watch my temper. Ok, so South Korea, Turkey, UK, Spain, Hugary, Japan, Phillipeans, etc are 3rd world countries!

Notice that most of these countries are ones that have been under oppressive rule before. I wonder why they are supporting this?

Backtothemac
Mar 20, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Here's what the "coalition of the willing" looks like... a pathetic hodgepodge of third world nations who aren't committing troops or money.

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

One final point. That is more countries than supported the original Gulf War!

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 01:45 PM
Post Edited by Moderator: Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can not conduct yoruself in a civil manner you will be banned from posting on these forums.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:46 PM
The Congressional resolution against Iraq decreed that war was an option only if there was irrefutable proof of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. 1441 said that any future action against Iraq would need to be authorised by the Security Council.

The USA has violated its own law and international law with this action.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Post Edited by Moderator: Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can not conduct yoruself in a civil manner you will be banned from posting on these forums.

Please stop with the personal attacks. I have not insulted you or anyone else on this board.

Stelliform
Mar 20, 2003, 01:50 PM
....

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 01:51 PM
Post Edited by Moderator: Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can not conduct yoruself in a civil manner you will be banned from posting on these forums.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

There are ties to terror. Saddam funds suicide bombers in Israel, he has harbored members of Al Queada.


The Al Queada link is of dubious truth. There are conflicting CIA reports and harboring is far too general a term. Aiding? Allowing to be in the country? What does it mean?

And lets assume for a moment Saddam was responsible for all suicide bombing in the west bank. How is that justification for war? How does that constitute a direct threat to the US that would necessitate defending ourselves? Do we attack the PLO when they suicide bomb Isrealis?

This is not justification for war and never has been. Its half truths used to sway public opinion and attempt to get votes in the UN. That is all.

Taft

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
3rd world nations? Man, I have to watch my temper. Ok, so South Korea, Turkey, UK, Spain, Hugary, Japan, Phillipeans, etc are 3rd world countries!

Notice that most of these countries are ones that have been under oppressive rule before. I wonder why they are supporting this?

Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Nicaragua, Romania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan... these are not third or second world nations?

Only two have nuclear weapons.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
NO! We do have the right to defend our interest. We have the right as a soverign nation to determine what is a threat to our national security. That gives us the ability to declare, and conduct war.

Can people please stop the retoric! We are not dropping bombs on innocent civilians. We are targeting military targets!

There are ties to terror. Saddam funds suicide bombers in Israel, he has harbored members of Al Queada.

Those children are the way they are because of HIS dictatorship. That will end soon.

What interest, exactly? We have communist pointing nukes at us right now, but that for some odd reason is not considered an "interest". North Korea is a far greater threat and there is clear evidence that they do have weapons of mass destruction.

OK, so let's say in 20 years from now when China is the great superpower (trust me, they will be). What if they decided that the US is a threat to them and they would launch a preemtive strike against us? Just because their government ok'd it does that mean it is the right thing to do? I think there is a significant difference between the whole world (UN) deciding on launching a preemtive strike on the US as opposed to China alone launching a preemtive strike against the US.

Are you saying that there will be no civilan casualties in this war? Let's hope our Army does a better job at finding Saddam than they did with Bin Laden...

Bush has no evidence whatsoever that Iraq poses a clear and immediate threat (unlike North Korea) to us. It's all assumptions, lies and using brainwash words like; evil, weapons of mass destruction, bla bla, bla

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 01:57 PM
Taft,
Saddam had 45 days to disarm back in 1991. This war has been justified since day 46. That is not a half-truth designed to sway public opinion. The swaing of public opinion has depended on any variety of connections with terrorism and WMDs and who knows how many half truths, but the justification in a legal sense has been there since day 46.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,

You have insulted entire nations who have joined together to eliminate a brutal tyrant by calling them "a pathetic hodgepodge of third world nations."

You get what you give, and you deserve more than you're getting.

My best friend is from one of those nations and I know he'd agree with my assessment.

We're joining together to eliminate a brutal tyrant that we helped install, supported and we gave weapons to and also weapons of mass destruction to.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Taft,
Saddam had 45 days to disarm back in 1991. This war has been justified since day 46. That is not a half-truth designed to sway public opinion. The swaing of public opinion has depended on any variety of connections with terrorism and WMDs and who knows how many half truths, but the justification in a legal sense has been there since day 46.

THAT is something that is a justifiable argument for war. It is also an argument I'm not trying to debunk.

I was responding to a specific argument, not all arguments.

As I've conceded before, there are reasons to go to war with Iraq. There are also reasons not to. I am a person who believes there is more harm than good that will come out of the current action.

Taft

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 02:01 PM
for those who support what bush is doing, at what point will you say, "bush has gone too far?"

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Taft,
Saddam had 45 days to disarm back in 1991. This war has been justified since day 46. That is not a half-truth designed to sway public opinion. The swaing of public opinion has depended on any variety of connections with terrorism and WMDs and who knows how many half truths, but the justification in a legal sense has been there since day 46.

Just because you can piece together a shoddy argument for war based on lies and half-truths does not make a "justified" war a right war. North Korea has been in a state of cease-fire for half a century. We have "justification" to open that battle again.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 02:03 PM
pseudobrit,
Just because you have a friend who thinks that he comes from a pathetic nation does not mean that it isn't an insult to call most of eastern Europe a "pathetic hodogepodge."

If North Korea violates the terms of the cease-fire, we would be legally justified in restarting a shooting war, even after half a century.

The cease-violations give this war legal justification. Moral and practical justification are different, but the contention that this war isn't jusified is simply a canard.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
Just because you have a friend who thinks that he comes from a pathetic nation does not mean that it isn't an insult to call most of eastern Europe a "pathetic hodogepodge."

If North Korea violates the terms of the cease-fire, we would be legally justified in restarting a shooting war, even after half a century.

Eastern Europe has been a mess since the collapse of communism. Prove it otherwise.

My "pathetic hodgepodge" statement was not directed at the nations themselves, but at the "coalition" itself. If you would not be seeing what you wanted to see, you'd notice that I used the terms "pathetic hodgepodge of third world nations," and not "pathetic third world nation hodgepodge." But you see what you believe rather than believe what you see.

They are patched together from all over and none of them are particularly strong militarily or economically.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
Just because you have a friend who thinks that he comes from a pathetic nation does not mean that it isn't an insult to call most of eastern Europe a "pathetic hodogepodge."

Why not? Since when did we care about insulting Europeans? Our government leaders have recently insulted France and Germany. Whats the difference? I especially enjoy the lies and insults about Chiraq. He used to live and work in the US, He loves the US, but that doesn't mean he has to agree with our opinions and it certainly doesn't make him deserve insults for disagreeing.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 02:22 PM
Even if we're not defending just ourselves, why can't we defend other people who can't defend themselves?

sinbushar
Mar 20, 2003, 02:27 PM
events of last night:

attack in iraq
attack in afghanistan

events of this morning

$10 billion pledged in aid to Israel

how is the arab world going to view this?

quote spiderman:

with great power comes great responsibility...

i feel that as a citizen of the united states, we are the opressors

the first casualty was a civilian

nothing good will come of this, we will only be resented further by the rest of the world, there will be no trust in the united states, we willl no longer be seen as the land of hope...

we are the most powerful nation in the world..yet it requires a war to capture one man...

i hope that our beloved president (sarcasm) doesn't decide to label himself as a king or a crusader....

i hope that the men and women of the armed forces (of BOTH sides) live as well as the innocent iraqi citizens who are caught in this power struggle

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Oh, and once again, this is not the US alone. There are Thirty-five countries involved in this war!
40 now. and i expect the number to grow within the days.

iJon

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 03:06 PM
Well the list is growing, and i notice that iraq has fired at least one confirmed scud, you know the missile they are not supposed to have and the one inspectors couldnt find. Well i guess this again shows the lies and lies from Saddam.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 03:08 PM
The worst part of this may prove to be that we have no exit strategy for this conflict. That, if you remember, was faulted as the reason the first Gulf War seemed like half a failure after it was all over.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
this again shows the lies and lies from Saddam.

does bush lie?

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Well the list is growing, and i notice that iraq has fired at least one confirmed scud, you know the missile they are not supposed to have and the one inspectors couldnt find. Well i guess this again shows the lies and lies from Saddam.
so they have confirmed that there was a scud was shot. im at work and the tv is around the corner so i cant pay as much attention to it.

iJon

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Well the list is growing, and i notice that iraq has fired at least one confirmed scud, you know the missile they are not supposed to have and the one inspectors couldnt find. Well i guess this again shows the lies and lies from Saddam.

Confirmed by whom? The "embedded" reporters reporting what their military handlers tell them? Like when the "independent press" accused the Iraqi troops of taking Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators to die back in 1991 and it turned out to be a flat-out lie?

I've heard reports that Iraq launched their al-Samoud missiles. You know, the ones they were destroying on a daily basis under watch of the UN? I wonder why we didn't let them totally disarm themselves before we waged war? Oh, right, then they wouldn't be able to kill any of our troops and there would be more public outcry because the score would be like 19,000-0 instead of 19,000 - 112. Then all you must do is say "how dare you defame the names of those 112 who died so courageously! How can you be against them (and, by proxy, the war itself and the president)!?"

Am I the only one who thinks this is being sold like the SuperBowl? Countdown clock to kickoff, rah rah for the hometeam... all they need now are some hilarious new commercials and a halftime show!

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 03:28 PM
Its amazing how we do everything to warn the people, try not to hit civilians,try to only get military targets, have foods and medicine for the iraqi's, stated that their oil wells are for them. And people can only cry how bad we are. If the the U.S. was as bad as you make it, we wouldnt be trying to do everything we can not to hurt the public in ousting this Murderer of a tyrant who has ignored his earlier cease fire. We could simply carpet bomb the city! Well we dont, we want to help the Iraqi people and those that dont see this choose not to.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Post Edited by Moderator: Please refrain from personal attacks. If you can not conduct yoruself in a civil manner you will be banned from posting on these forums.



:D :D :D :D :D

yes, please lets at least appreciate OUR freedom to NOT agree with our government. would it be better if people in oposition be strung up and skinned?

if so then then that type of person is the same type of person we are fighting in iraq.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Its amazing how we do everything to warn the people, try not to hit civilians,try to only get military targets, have foods and medicine for the iraqi's, stated that their oil wells are for them. And people can only cry how bad we are. If the the U.S. was as bad as you make it, we wouldnt be trying to do everything we can not to hurt the public in ousting this Murderer of a tyrant who has ignored his earlier cease fire. We could simply carpet bomb the city! Well we dont, we want to help the Iraqi people and those that dont see this choose not to.



i hope we do a precise job in the bombing of iraq. i also hope they arent forgotten a year from now. i do believe that we are trying to minamize innocent casualties. i just hope to god this is what the iraqi people wanted. ive seen some iraqi's absolutely thrilled about this war. but they were in the US. so maybe after this war we will recieve thanks from the people IN iraq. we wont know until saddam is gone.

im still not comfortable with how we went in without being fired upon first. i think our will for peace should be stronger than anything. and by that i mean we should NOT strike first. we should wait for the first punch to be thrown before we take someone out. but then that leaves tyrants free to build weapons that destroy at all costs...and that im not comfortable with either.

damnit. im starting to sway. not all the way. but i dont think i can put up a hostile argument against this war.

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Taft

As I've conceded before, there are reasons to go to war with Iraq. There are also reasons not to. I am a person who believes there is more harm than good that will come out of the current action.

Taft



YES, Taft is part of a very few that has expressed themselves in a sane fashion. people have to be OPEN to all facts here. not just pick the ones that support their position.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 04:01 PM
Why do we make a big show about how we're using precision guided bombs to make sure the innocent aren't harmed? Is the fact that civilians aren't targeted specifically any comfort to those who have bombs raining down on their apartment complex? What about the children who huddled in an underground bunker in 1991, whose shadows can still be seen charred on the wall because a bunker buster came through and vaporized them all?

And what about the "guilty"? The conscripted troops of the Iraqi army are just as innocent as our troops, maybe moreso as they don't volunteer.

Either way, a life is a life, be it a random citizen's, an Iraqi soldier's, or even Saddam Hussein's. One life is too many ("whatsoever you do to the least of my people" applies to the murderer and criminal as well as the meek and the poor).

And the first casualty of this "police action" (aka undeclared war, like Vietnam) is a civilian. How appropriate.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Am I the only one who thinks this is being sold like the SuperBowl? Countdown clock to kickoff, rah rah for the hometeam... all they need now are some hilarious new commercials and a halftime show!

Yes, Exactly! It's one big reality TV-show that's what it is. Some pretty fireworks on TV...

it's sickening. And the sad thing is that a lot of people in this country can hardly tell the difference...

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Yes, Exactly! It's one big reality TV-show that's what it is. Some pretty fireworks on TV...

it's sickening. And the sad thing is that a lot of people in this country can hardly tell the difference...
but they are doing exactly what they intend to do, get you to watch it. and apparently you have watched it or else you couldnt comment. i guess i really havent noticed them advertising it like that, i like watching fox news, they seem better than anyone else in my opinion.

iJon

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 04:16 PM
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World

To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance

BY BRIAN ENO

Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?"

I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith ? the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.

Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward ? courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought ? America's real wealth ? is squandered.

This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.

When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.

Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important ? civilized, in fact ? to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.

Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea?

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by iJon
i like watching fox news, they seem better than anyone else in my opinion.

iJon

You mean CNN (Conservative News Network)?

Yeah, they're really into that fair and balanced stuff. Especially when they let Bill O'Reilly call Mexican immigrants "wetbacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/business/media/10MAG.html?ex=1045458000&en=4cfa80b90d164b5d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)" on national TV. :rolleyes:

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
You mean CNN (Conservative News Network)?

Yeah, they're really into that fair and balanced stuff. Especially when they let Bill O'Reilly call Mexican immigrants "wetbacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/business/media/10MAG.html?ex=1045458000&en=4cfa80b90d164b5d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)" on national TV. :rolleyes:
opinions are like *******s, everyones got one. I like fox news, big deal.

iJon

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Yes, Exactly! It's one big reality TV-show that's what it is. Some pretty fireworks on TV...

it's sickening. And the sad thing is that a lot of people in this country can hardly tell the difference...


I TOTALLY HERE YOU. we need to send a message to the network news saying they need to work on reducing their sensationalism and lack on proper conotation.

ABC news is better than most, on network tv that is.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by iJon
opinions are like ***holes, everyones got one. I like fox news, big deal.

iJon

As far as I'm concerned, all 3 of them (CNN, FNN, M$NBC) are awful. They're haemorrhoids on the minds of the nation.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
As far as I'm concerned, all 3 of them (CNN, FNN, M$NBC) are awful. They're haemorrhoids on the minds of the nation.
fair enough. its all good, its just tv.

iJon

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:33 PM
well it looks like i cant watch cnn anymore, the guys camera got hit by a shell. haha. Back to Fox

iJon

wdlove
Mar 20, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
I TOTALLY HERE YOU. we need to send a message to the network news saying they need to work on reducing their sensationalism and lack on proper conotation.

ABC news is better than most, on network tv that is.

Slowly but surely they are getting the message. That is why viewership is decreasing. I think the election of '04 will be a great revelation for them.

Fox viewership is increasing because of their fair coverage of both sides.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Slowly but surely they are getting the message. That is why viewership is decreasing. I think the election of '04 will be a great revelation for them.

Fox viewership is increasing because of their fair coverage of both sides.
thats what i feel, many times they just lay down the info, the viewer decides for themselves.

iJon

beatle888
Mar 20, 2003, 04:37 PM
oh i love brian eno.

thanks for the post.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by beatle888
oh i love brian eno.

thanks for the post.

you're welcome

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by iJon
thats what i feel, many times they just lay down the info, the viewer decides for themselves.


two comments:

1. i feel it is the job of the media to ask tough questions (i think only Bill Moyers' of NOW is doing that on TV, otherwise you have to look at print media)

2. imho, TV news isn't disinterested, it's tainted w/ either personal or station-directed views

3. for TV news to be valuable, it must do more than repeat what the administration has told them

okay, that was three

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Confirmed by whom? The "embedded" reporters reporting what their military handlers tell them? Like when the "independent press" accused the Iraqi troops of taking Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators to die back in 1991 and it turned out to be a flat-out lie?

I've heard reports that Iraq launched their al-Samoud missiles. You know, the ones they were destroying on a daily basis under watch of the UN? I wonder why we didn't let them totally disarm themselves before we waged war? Oh, right, then they wouldn't be able to kill any of our troops and there would be more public outcry because the score would be like 19,000-0 instead of 19,000 - 112. Then all you must do is say "how dare you defame the names of those 112 who died so courageously! How can you be against them (and, by proxy, the war itself and the president)!?"

Am I the only one who thinks this is being sold like the SuperBowl? Countdown clock to kickoff, rah rah for the hometeam... all they need now are some hilarious new commercials and a halftime show!

Saddam said that they would not destroy all of their Al-Samoud missiles because of the pressure Bush was putting on Iraq. Bush didn't have to attack them, and Saddam would still not comply with the UN.

Besides, the UN has failed. After 12 years of trying to get saddam to disarm, they have failed miserably.

I should find the transcript of Tony Blair's speech to Great Britian, because he really sold the idea of war. He made it clear why we have to take out saddam now.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 04:51 PM
BBC America is reporting stuff I haven't heard all day from the Cable Newsies. It's a shame you can't trust the US media to tell you what's going on anymore, like the worldwide protests going on today, or the fact that Blair and Chirac are so mad at each other that they're not speaking to one another over their state dinners.

This one's from the Guardian:

The Red Cross said the strikes killed one civilian and wounded 14 others. Reuters reported that the civilian fatality was a male Jordanian taxi driver who had stopped to use a public telephone centre when US bombs hit.

That's one too many already... how many more human beings must become "collateral damage" so that we can feel good about allaying our fears?

How many people is it okay to kill so that America can feel more secure about not losing one citizen to terror? Are a million foreign lives worth a thousand American lives?

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
BBC America is reporting stuff I haven't heard all day from the Cable Newsies. It's a shame you can't trust the US media to tell you what's going on anymore, like the worldwide protests going on today, or the fact that Blair and Chirac are so mad at each other that they're not speaking to one another over their state dinners.

This one's from the Guardian:



That's one too many already... how many more human beings must become "collateral damage" so that we can feel good about allaying our fears?

How many people is it okay to kill so that America can feel more secure about not losing one citizen to terror? Are a million foreign lives worth a thousand American lives?
man, one guy died (when he shouldnt have been on the streets anyways, should have been safe somewhere) and you are already digging up numbers claiming millions and thousands of lives will be lost. wow.

iJon

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
for those who support what bush is doing, at what point will you say, "bush has gone too far?"

anyone? i'm really curious.

Taft
Mar 20, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Slowly but surely they are getting the message. That is why viewership is decreasing. I think the election of '04 will be a great revelation for them.

Fox viewership is increasing because of their fair coverage of both sides.

I gotta disagree here. I think Fox News is far more biased than the other networks.

But this is where I give them some credit: they are so overtly conservative that it is less insideous than the "under the radar" liberal slant some other networks try. In other words, at least they are up front about it.

But the "fair and balanced" or "both sides" style of journalism is a crock. They regularly shut down viewers who disagree with their opinions. And they often get boring and defenseless liberals on the shows so that the loud, brash conservative hosts can rip them to shreds. Or Hannity and Colmes: a perfect example of a whimpy liberal with a complete lack of charisma and clear viewpoints stacked against a powerhouse conservative who could talk himself out of a POW camp and make it so interesting all of America would tune in. Classic Fox News.

They have found a format that works. And they have a built in audience in that conservatives have only one clear choice for a cable news network. THATS why they are on top. The other networks will end up splitting the liberal and moderate viewership and Fox will get the rest. Or the other networks will start leaning right, too.

God help me!

Taft

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 05:11 PM
Civilians have been warned. If you walk downrange at a shooting range while people are firing weapons, is it their fault when you get hit, or yours?

Here is the transcript of Tony Blair's speech to his nation.

Full transcript of Blair's speech

This is the full transcript of Tony Blair's address to the nation, given on Thursday evening as British forces went into action in Iraq. On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq.

Tonight British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea.

Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

I know that this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country but I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers - they are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them.

The threat to Britain today is not that of my father's generation.

'Brutal states'

War between the big powers is unlikely, Europe is at peace, the Cold War already a memory.

But this new world faces a new threat of disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction or of extreme terrorist groups.

Both hate our way of life, our freedom, our democracy.

My fear, deeply held, based in part on the intelligence that I see is that these threats come together and deliver catastrophe to our country and our world.

These tyrannical states do not care for the sanctity of human life - the terrorists delight in destroying it.

Some say if we act we become a target the truth is all nations are targets.

Bali was never in the frontline of action against terrorism, America didn't attack al-Qaeda - they attacked America.

Britain has never been a nation to hide at the back but even if we were it wouldn't avail us.

Should terrorists obtain these weapons now being manufactured and traded around the world the carnage they could inflict to our economies, to our security, to world peace would be beyond our most vivid imagination.

'This threat is real'

My judgement as prime minister is that this threat is real, growing and of an entirely different nature to any conventional threat to our security that Britain has faced before.

For 12 years the world tried to disarm Saddam after his wars in which hundreds of thousands died.

UN weapons inspectors say vast amounts of chemical and biological poisons such as anthrax, VX nerve agent and mustard gas remain unaccounted for in Iraq.

So our choice is clear: back down and leave Saddam hugely strengthened or proceed to disarm him by force.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Saddam said that they would not destroy all of their Al-Samoud missiles because of the pressure Bush was putting on Iraq. Bush didn't have to attack them, and Saddam would still not comply with the UN.

Besides, the UN has failed. After 12 years of trying to get saddam to disarm, they have failed miserably.

I should find the transcript of Tony Blair's speech to Great Britian, because he really sold the idea of war. He made it clear why we have to take out saddam now.

I find Tony Blair to be articulate, eloquent and very suave, much like Clinton. Even when you disagreed with him, you still at least had respect for his view and for him as a person.

As far as saying one thing and doing another, UN Resolution 687 (?) was the one that called for Saddam to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting sanctions.

Bush Sr. said the next month that even if the regime complied 100% with the resolution the US would maintain sanctions as long as Saddam was in power. What about the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of? Why don't we check them? They are occupying territory of foreign nations with impunity.

There is no consistency in blaming the UN for failing to get Iraq to disarm while undermining that process by inserting spies in the inspector's ranks, nor in invading Iraq in defiance of the UN because they defied the UN!

The ironies would be funny if people weren't dying.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 05:16 PM
pseudobrit,
Please list the specific Security Council resolutions that Israel is violating.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Taft
I gotta disagree here. I think Fox News is far more biased than the other networks.

But this is where I give them some credit: they are so overtly conservative that it is less insideous than the "under the radar" liberal slant some other networks try. In other words, at least they are up front about it.

But the "fair and balanced" or "both sides" style of journalism is a crock. They regularly shut down viewers who disagree with their opinions. And they often get boring and defenseless liberals on the shows so that the loud, brash conservative hosts can rip them to shreds. Or Hannity and Colmes: a perfect example of a whimpy liberal with a complete lack of charisma and clear viewpoints stacked against a powerhouse conservative who could talk himself out of a POW camp and make it so interesting all of America would tune in. Classic Fox News.

They have found a format that works. And they have a built in audience in that conservatives have only one clear choice for a cable news network. THATS why they are on top. The other networks will end up splitting the liberal and moderate viewership and Fox will get the rest. Or the other networks will start leaning right, too.

God help me!

Taft

I agree. Fox news is very conservative, which is why I like them ;). Of course, there are hardly any liberal TV or radio networks, because people think they're too boring.

Their format, which includes putting people on the stand, and then ripping them apart, make it quite interesting. Most conservative news is like that, because people like Bill O'Riley, and the other conservative TV and radio hosts are so good at it... I like rush limbaugh too. Conservatives are so loud and basically rude about how they make their opinion heard, that liberals just go somewhere else, and complain to themselves, or other liberals that won't shoot them down like that.

Each side is unique, and has their own strenghts and weaknesses...

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 05:19 PM
God , how many Saddam lovers are there? to constantly spin this action into everything and anything other then the facts of Saddams lieing, murderous,torturous,killing government that ignored 17 resolutions by the world, And yes he still has scuds is totaly beyond me and many.. I truely understand that there are people out there that wont ever stand up to tyranny. This is brought to fact here by all the pro Saddam posts. Sad. This is how these guys can thrive because of the so called marchers for peace even if its a wrong movement. I am very glad that we have the George's and Tony's of the world rather then the Chirocs and do nothing crowd.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by iJon
man, one guy died (when he shouldnt have been on the streets anyways, should have been safe somewhere) and you are already digging up numbers claiming millions and thousands of lives will be lost. wow.

iJon

Civilians have been warned

One totally innocent man is dead and already his death is being mitigated. Sounds eerily like McVeigh's proclamation that the children who died in the OKC bombing were merely "collateral damage."

I hope should any of you ever be killed that your death isn't shrugged off in such a callous way.

At least 500,000 people are dead in Iraq already at least in part to the first Gulf War's aftermath.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
God , how many Saddam lovers are there? to constantly spin this action into everything and anything other then the facts of Saddams lieing, murderous,torturous,killing government that ignored 17 resolutions by the world, And yes he still has scuds is totaly beyond me and many.. I truely understand that there are people out there that wont ever stand up to tyranny. This is brought to fact here by all the pro Saddam posts. Sad. This is how these guys can thrive because of the so called marchers for peace even if its wrong movement. I am very glad that we have the George's and Tony's of the world rather then the Chirocs and do nothing crowd.

Can't you understand that it's possible to hold two opposing views at the same time? This isn't good v. evil. Just because I support a peaceful means to disarming Iraq and others support war does not by default mean they are anti-Saddam and pro-Bush and that I am anti-Bush and therefore pro-Saddam!

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
God , how many Saddam lovers are there?

are you talking to me? i can't tell.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 05:28 PM
I here psudeo complaining about this 1 death but where were you and the peace marchers as Saddam was murdering thousands? I just dont remeber hollywood and marchers even bothered by this. Well its good we will stop the murdering in Iraq. I just guess that it would have been better if this would have been done by a democratic president then the marchers wouldnt have had anything to march for. Free Iraq from the oppressor Saddam !

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Civilians have been warned.

i look at the WTC bombing in '93 as a warning. are all the NYC 9/11 fatalities therefore their own fault?

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
Please list the specific Security Council resolutions that Israel is violating.

106 111 127 162 171 228 237 248 250 251 252 256 259 262 265 267 270 271 279 280285 298 313 316 317 332 337 347 425 427 444 446 450 452 465 467 468 469 471 476 478 484 487 497 498 501 509 515 517 518 520 573 587 592 605 607 608 636 641 672 673 681 694 726 799...

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 05:36 PM
Stop all your darn spin and talk brass tax! Is it better or worse to have Saddam in power? worse unless you ignore everything he has done to his country! Did he ever do what was required at the end of the gulf war? No This senseless debate and trying to make this action look like anything but what it is , is simply that you choose to ignore Saddams actions or lack of actions. Anyways while all you Saddam lovers dream up ways to attack the president this thing will probably be over and then the Iraqi people will have their country back.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
106 111 127 162 171 228 237 248 250 251 252 256 259 262 265 267 270 271 279 280285 298 313 316 317 332 337 347 425 427 444 446 450 452 465 467 468 469 471 476 478 484 487 497 498 501 509 515 517 518 520 573 587 592 605 607 608 636 641 672 673 681 694 726 799... Spin Spin Spin this post is about the war in Iraq not Israel, But after we get rid of the terrorist Saddam,and if Palestine has a non terrorist leader who acts on his countries behalf then perhaps we are on the way to solving this issue.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I here psudeo complaining about this 1 death but where were you and the peace marchers as Saddam was murdering thousands? I just dont remeber hollywood and marchers even bothered by this. Well its good we will stop the murdering in Iraq. I just guess that it would have been better if this would have been done by a democratic president then the marchers wouldnt have had anything to march for. Free Iraq from the oppressor Saddam !

Well, I can't account for the actors or marchers but we know where the government was anyway -- giving money and weapons (including the chemical and biological ones we now claim we need to invade to remove) to his oppressive regime.

I never gave a dime to Saddam that didn't come from my own government, and I doubt any of the marchers or actors have ever done so either.

You need to find a better personal attack on us, because no one opposed to the war supports or has ever supported the regime of Saddam Hussein.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Is it better or worse to have Saddam in power?


worse. he should not be in power. the iraqi people have suffered and that should end.

i also called for removal of the taliban in '99 (how many americans had even heard of them?)

HOWEVER -- i am not a person who feels the ends justify the means.

you may agree with that. you might say "it is too much to nuke baghdad to get hussein." if you can commit to that, then our only difference is where that line is.

now i ask YOU to commit to something.

tell me: when will you say that bush has gone too far?

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
God , how many Saddam lovers are there? to constantly spin this action into everything and anything other then the facts of Saddams lieing, murderous,torturous,killing government that ignored 17 resolutions by the world, And yes he still has scuds is totaly beyond me and many.. I truely understand that there are people out there that wont ever stand up to tyranny. This is brought to fact here by all the pro Saddam posts. Sad. This is how these guys can thrive because of the so called marchers for peace even if its a wrong movement. I am very glad that we have the George's and Tony's of the world rather then the Chirocs and do nothing crowd.

And you would know, because you've been there?

LISTEN, NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY IN THIS THREAD (OR IN EUROPE FOR THAT MATTER) IS PRO SADDAM OR A SADDAM LOVER! THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT WHETHER OR NOT WAR IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION TO END SADDAM'S DICTATORSHIP. END OF STORY.

The only sad thing here are the people in this thread who twist truths and throw **** at others because they have a different opinion than their own.

Please rise above the grade school level reasoning!

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:41 PM
This isn't about Saddam Hussein and whether it's a better world without him. This is about the United States violating international laws by waging war on a sovereign nation that poses no immediate threat to ours, a nation that can be contained with peaceful means.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 05:44 PM
pseudobrit,
We have been mitigating far too many Iraqi deaths at the hands of Saddam for a much longer time. It is out of balance to say that deaths that result from the liberation of Iraq, as tragic as they are, and every one of them is a tragedy, are somehow worse than those which happen on a daily basis because of Saddam's decades-long brutality and oppression of the Iraqi people. If, for example, 500,000 Iraqis are dead because of Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN so that sanctions would be lifted, that is a very solid argument that Saddam should have been removed by force back in 1991. The result of this military action will be to liberate Iraq and end oppression. The result of Saddam's brutality if to maintain his tyranny.

To look at the tragedy of innocent civilian deaths and say that therfore nothing should be done is like saying that the French civilians killed at Normandy during the allied bombardment show that the attack should not have been carried out, never mind the gas chambers and ovens in the Nazi concentrations camps that were overrun shortly thereafter.

It is not the black and white equation that some make it out to be.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Can't you understand that it's possible to hold two opposing views at the same time? This isn't good v. evil. Just because I support a peaceful means to disarming Iraq and others support war does not by default mean they are anti-Saddam and pro-Bush and that I am anti-Bush and therefore pro-Saddam!

Exactly! The "either you are with us or against us", "either you are good or evil" is the grade school level arguments that I am talking about. The kind of argument the nazi used (and neo-nazi still use). When you grow up you realize that things aren't always black and white, in fact it is rare a rare thing.

This is the sort of thing pro-war people resort to for the lack of better arguments and facts...

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
worse. he should not be in power. the iraqi people have suffered and that should end.

i also called for removal of the taliban in '99 (how many americans had even heard of them?)

HOWEVER -- i am not a person who feels the ends justify the means.

you may agree with that. you might say "it is too much to nuke baghdad to get hussein." if you can commit to that, then our only difference is where that line is.

now i ask YOU to commit to something.

tell me: when will you say that bush has gone too far?

I too thought we should have committed our nation to removing the Taliban through a UN mission shortly after they came to power. (I also remember this being a time when most people couldn't find Afghanistan on a map, and Lester Holt was pronouncing Uzbekistan as Uzi-stan and Kazakhstan as Kazee-stan.)

We can put enough pressure on the UN in such cases to do something about these things. More often though, we do exactly the opposite, ignoring genocide and mass murderers because it's unpopular to send in troops to die for a Kosovo or Somalia. Why should we care about their problems?

So we let them be killed.

Which is why this sudden change of heart seems so disingenuous and hollow. We haven't cared for the past 20 years (we installed many of the genocidal tyrants ourselves), we aren't caring about it now, and we aren't pledging to care about it in the future.

If we want to rid the world of tyrants, that's fine. But we have to get rid of much worse than Saddam Hussein, and I just don't see that happening.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
...LISTEN, NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY IN THIS THREAD (OR IN EUROPE FOR THAT MATTER) IS PRO SADDAM OR A SADDAM LOVER! THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT WHETHER OR NOT WAR IS THE RIGHT SOLUTION TO END SADDAM'S DICTATORSHIP. END OF STORY.


Please rise above the grade school level reasoning!

That is, sadly, not correct. There are many around the world who have no desire to end Saddam's dictatorship. They see any move to do so as a violation on international law because it is interference in the internal affairs of other nations. They do not see Saddam as a threat. They do not wish to admit the scope of his brutality. They see Saddam as a soveriegn nation, deserving of the same rights as any other sovereign nation. However, those rights are not absolute, and Saddam lost them long, long ago.

Please rise to the level of grade school level reasoning! ;)

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
We have been mitigating far too many Iraqi deaths at the hands of Saddam for a much longer time. It is out of balance to say that deaths that result from the liberation of Iraq, as tragic as they are, and every one of them is a tragedy, are somehow worse than those which happen on a daily basis because of Saddam's decades-long brutality and oppression of the Iraqi people. If, for example, 500,000 Iraqis are dead because of Saddam's refusal to comply with the UN so that sanctions would be lifted, that is a very solid argument that Saddam should have been removed by force back in 1991. The result of this military action will be to liberate Iraq and end oppression. The result of Saddam's brutality if to maintain his tyranny.

To look at the tragedy of innocent civilian deaths and say that therfore nothing should be done is like saying that the French civilians killed at Normandy during the allied bombardment show that the attack should not have been carried out, never mind the gas chambers and ovens in the Nazi concentrations camps that were overrun shortly thereafter.

It is not the black and white equation that some make it out to be.

Did you read my earlier post? Bush Sr. told Saddam publicly that the US would maintain sanctions on Iraq no matter what he did! Those sanctions deaths are not on his conscience.

And comparing this to the situation in Normandy is a fallacy. The French were in an occupied nation and Germany posed an imminent and grave threat to the US and her allies, having declared war on her. Iraq is a soverign nation who is not in violation of any nation's borders nor is she at war with us or our allies. We have no business there.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:00 PM
Just out of curiosity...

How many people in this thread have actually been to the middle east region?

I have been to Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Russia, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt. I may have forgotten some. Never been to Iraq though.

Ooh,

and question number two:

How many people in this thread as ever been to another country? Hey, it's a valid question, I hear only 20 some percent of Americans have passports (and its not likely to increase any time soon).

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
How many people in this thread have actually been to the middle east region?

i've been to turkey. nowhere else in the middle east, but lots of countries elsewhere.

I hear only 20 some percent of Americans have passports

actually, i thought it was around 7%.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by macfan
That is, sadly, not correct. There are many around the world who have no desire to end Saddam's dictatorship. They see any move to do so as a violation on international law because it is interference in the internal affairs of other nations. They do not see Saddam as a threat. They do not wish to admit the scope of his brutality. They see Saddam as a soveriegn nation, deserving of the same rights as any other sovereign nation. However, those rights are not absolute, and Saddam lost them long, long ago.

Please rise to the level of grade school level reasoning! ;)

There are many more who do want Saddam removed from power, but would like to see it done without a war. This administration's actions are cynical and unjustified.

We disagree not on the best outcome or the fact that Saddam is a bad person, but in the strategy on how to deal with him.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i've been to turkey. nowhere else in the middle east, but lots of countries elsewhere.



actually, i thought it was around 7%.

Oh, yeah, you might be right. thats one scary number.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Oh, yeah, you might be right. thats one scary number.

yep. and there's no guarantee that all those 7% have even traveled.

one of my travel goals had been to take the khyber pass from pakistan into afghanistan (i'd read an account of such a trip years ago and it sounded like something i wanted to do).

i don't even want to think how long it'll be before i can even consider such a trip.

edit: my curiosity w/ afghanistan began when i moved to chicago in 1989 and frequented an afghani restaurant. i found out recently that the restaurant (long gone) had been owned by the family of afghan president karzai, and those same owners now serve in the afghan gov't. small world.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 20, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
This isn't about Saddam Hussein and whether it's a better world without him. This is about the United States violating international laws by waging war on a sovereign nation that poses no immediate threat to ours, a nation that can be contained with peaceful means. Violating international law? Let me say this just once more for everyone and listen close. Saddam said he would give up his weapons of mass destruction 12 years ago as agreement for the cease fire. Did He? he had 45 days, Did He? They reported today they fired a scud that he wasnt supposed to have. The inspectors did their best spin but were never able find the Chemical/bio weapons and were not able to clear this guy. Case is closed.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Did you read my earlier post? Bush Sr. told Saddam publicly that the US would maintain sanctions on Iraq no matter what he did! Those sanctions deaths are not on his conscience.

And comparing this to the situation in Normandy is a fallacy. The French were in an occupied nation and Germany posed an imminent and grave threat to the US and her allies, having declared war on her. Iraq is a soverign nation who is not in violation of any nation's borders nor is she at war with us or our allies. We have no business there.

Of coures the deaths are not on Saddam's conscience. He doens' t have a conscience. Even if the US maintained sanctions on Iraq after he complied, we can be assured that Saddam knew and has known for many years that others would not follow suit. (Look at Cuba, the US still has sanctions on them, but other countries do not). Any deaths caused by the sanctions rest upon the head of Saddam himself.

The comparison with Normany is simply this. Innocent people died in Normandy due to military action. Innocent people are dying in Iraq due to military action. In WWII, the deaths of those innocent people were far fewer than the deaths of the innocent who Hitler killed and was continuing to kill until the camps were liberated. In Iraq, those innocent people who are dying will be far fewer in number than those who have been killed and continue to be killed by Saddam until Saddam is removed from power. Pointing out the differences doesn't chance the basic similarity. And, yes, we have been, in fact, in a low-grade war with Iraq since 1991. The war didn't end. There was a cease-fire and Saddam did not comply with the terms of that cease-fire. Given that, it is our business to be there, and we have probably been remiss in not taking more decisive action much sooner.

It is a terrible equation, but it is not the simple black and white decision that many opposed to the use of force seem to think it is.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Violating international law? Let me say this just once more for everyone and listen close.

sigh. are you planning on answering any of my thought-provoking questions or are you just going to bang your war drum all day?

i'm seriously curious as to what you think when you're not shouting.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World

To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance

BY BRIAN ENO

Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?"

I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith ? the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.

Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward ? courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought ? America's real wealth ? is squandered.

This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.

When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.

Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important ? civilized, in fact ? to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.

Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea?

AMEN!

I could not agree more completely and I wish that I could express myself a elequently as Brian Eno in my 2nd language. I am a European currently living in the US.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Violating international law? Let me say this just once more for everyone and listen close. Saddam said he would give up his weapons of mass destruction 12 years ago as agreement for the cease fire. Did He? he had 45 days, Did He? They reported today they fired a scud that he wasnt supposed to have. The inspectors did their best spin but were never able find the Chemical/bio weapons were not able to clear this guy. Case is closed.

Let me say it one more time: Bush told him the sanctions would stay no matter if he complied or not. Did Bush hold up his end of the bargain? Did he? No. He promised not to cooperate with the UN resolution, and we're faulting Iraq for following his lead?

The inspectors are spinning now? Hans Blix is hardly a policitian, and hardly pro-Saddam. I see one spin coming on this war and it's all the pro-war mantras.

Oh, BTW and FYI:

The current US passport population stands at 18% of US adults. Source : European Travel Commission. Recent research indicating that Britain is the most popular overseas destination (excluding Canada & Mexico) for US residents. Source: Travel Industry World Yearbook 2000. The top cities for passport ownership are: New York, 38%; San Francisco, 37%; Miami/Fort Lauderdale, 33%; West Palm Beach, 31%; San Diego, 29%; Los Angeles, 27%; Washington DC, 27%. Source: US Office of Central Statistics

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
I am a European currently living in the US.

dare i hazard a guess that you're german?

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

The current US passport population stands at 18% of US adults.

groovy. i stand corrected. perhaps 7% was the percentage that have traveled internationally. something NPR mentioned just a few weeks ago.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:22 PM
nope, but I speak German, even though I rather wish I didn't because it is such an ugly language (sorry germans, my opinion as far as the language ,not the people).

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
nope, but I speak German, even though I rather wish I didn't because it is such an ugly language

lol. actually, it's one of my favorites to speak and hear. the other is cantonese. absolutely beautiful language -- voices can be stacked and it becomes music.

oops, i'm off topic. uhhhh.... going to war w/o UN-backing may cause problems in the future!

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
We disagree not on the best outcome or the fact that Saddam is a bad person, but in the strategy on how to deal with him.

What would your strategy have been? How many more Iraqis would you be willing to see killed at the hands of Saddam's brutal tyranny in order to preserve your personal views of international law?

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:28 PM
I'm Swedish. Just like Hans Blix. Don't bother flaming me for it because most likely none of you have been there, so you'd have no idea what you're talking about.

Sweden did support the US in that they just recently deported Iraqi diplomats (accused of spying, I think), but they DO NOT support the war.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by macfan
What would your strategy have been?

after 9/11, the US had an incredible amount of support from many nations, including arab ones. i agree w/ the idea of going after terrorists and enlisting the help of the UN and world community.

i would have allowed the FBI to go where their investigation took them, even if it was saudi arabia and yemen (where the FBI was told "hands off").

i would have continued the liberation of afghanistan (currently only the capital is governed by the president), rebuilt roads, hospitals, schools, homes (none of this has been done), led the international community in humanitarian relief, and put a great deal of money into my budget.

i would have listened to my experts at the CIA, FBI, and NSA and let them do their work.

i would have asked the country to bear with me while i put copious amounts of money into my budget for homeland defense.

if the investigation would have led to Iraq, i would have led an international coalition in disarming. yes, the threat of force would probably be part of that. but for the peace of mind of the arab world, our allies, the american people, and everyone else, i would have let the UN take the lead and do its job. a job which, despite many peoples opinions here, would eventually have paid off.

i would play above board, allow Congress to be involved, allow judicial overview of arrests and surveillence, and ask the hardest question of all: "why do so many people hate americans?"

i would then position america to be the best neighbor it could be, adhering to international treaties, respecting other countries and views, and trying to bring our consumption of natural resources more in line w/ our share of the world population.

to address the iraq situation: my focus would be ending terrorism, not singling out a single oppressed nation for ending its peoples' suffering. (c.f. famine in North Korea)

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
I'm Swedish. [snip] most likely none of you have been there,

haven't been there, but i'd like to go. norway, too. i'd like to see fjords.

dubbelhund
Mar 20, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
after 9/11, the US had an incredible amount of support from many nations, including arab ones. i agree w/ the idea of going after terrorists and enlisting the help of the UN and world community.

i would have allowed the FBI to go where their investigation took them, even if it was saudi arabia and yemen (where the FBI was told "hands off").

i would have continued the liberation of afghanistan (currently only the capital is governed by the president), rebuilt roads, hospitals, schools, homes (none of this has been done), led the international community in humanitarian relief, and put a great deal of money into my budget.

i would have listened to my experts at the CIA, FBI, and NSA and let them do their work.

i would have asked the country to bear with me while i put copious amounts of money into my budget for homeland defense.

if the investigation would have led to Iraq, i would have led an international coalition in disarming. yes, the threat of force would probably be part of that. but for the peace of mind of the arab world, our allies, the american people, and everyone else, i would have let the UN take the lead and do its job. a job which, despite many peoples opinions here, would eventually have paid off.

i would play above board, allow Congress to be involved, allow judicial overview of arrests and surveillence, and ask the hardest question of all: "why do so many people hate americans?"

i would then position america to be the best neighbor it could be, adhering to international treaties, respecting other countries and views, and trying to bring our consumption of natural resources more in line w/ our share of the world population.

to address the iraq situation: my focus would be ending terrorism, not singling out a single oppressed nation for ending its peoples' suffering. (c.f. famine in North Korea)

I wish you were the president.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
I wish you were the president.

thank you. i'm now old enough if anyone wants to write me in.

"that zim guy from macrumors"

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by macfan
What would your strategy have been? How many more Iraqis would you be willing to see killed at the hands of Saddam's brutal tyranny in order to preserve your personal views of international law?

The US can impose international pressure and use the UN to squeeze the power out of a regime without having a military occupation (and getting the natural resources of a nation as a side benefit -- but hey, we're not interested in that at all, right?) or a war.

Maybe we should have been arguing about how terrible Saddam was back in the 80's when we were arming him and pumping him full of cash.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 07:13 PM
One more thing: by the standard of "we have to free any nation from a horrible tyrannical regime that tortures them for political dissent and acquires weapons of mass destruction to threaten the world," we'd have to attack China waaaaay before we woried about piss-pot regimes like Iraq and try Maggie Thatcher for war crimes against the Irish.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
The US can impose international pressure and use the UN to squeeze the power out of a regime without having a military occupation (and getting the natural resources of a nation as a side benefit -- but hey, we're not interested in that at all, right?) or a war.

Maybe we should have been arguing about how terrible Saddam was back in the 80's when we were arming him and pumping him full of cash.

Impose international pressure and use the UN to squeeze the power out of a regime? Two questions: What do you think the US tried for 12 years? Why do you think it would have worked in another 12 years? That is far too general of a "plan," and one that was tried and failed. Please provide a better, or more specific plan if you have a different kind of pressure in mind. We could have all the natural resources we wanted from Iraq just by lifting the sanctions. The oil argument is a red herring.

What may have been mistakes from the 1980s in tilting toward Iraq in the Iran Iraq War should not be used as justification for repeating those same mistakes in the 2000s.

China is too powerful to invade. The cost of action against China would be much greater than the costs of inaction.

wdlove
Mar 20, 2003, 08:15 PM
It's conservative talkshow radio that is increasing in listeners, more agree with the message. Katie Couric is an exaample of bias, always asks very leading questions to get her viewpoint across. She interupts a conservative, but allows a liberal talk and talk and talk about it! :(

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Impose international pressure and use the UN to squeeze the power out of a regime? Two questions: What do you think the US tried for 12 years? Why do you think it would have worked in another 12 years? That is far too general of a "plan," and one that was tried and failed. Please provide a better, or more specific plan if you have a different kind of pressure in mind. We could have all the natural resources we wanted from Iraq just by lifting the sanctions. The oil argument is a red herring.

What may have been mistakes from the 1980s in tilting toward Iraq in the Iran Iraq War should not be used as justification for repeating those same mistakes in the 2000s.

China is too powerful to invade. The cost of action against China would be much greater than the costs of inaction.

It's simple why it's so hard to get the UN to agree to invasion of a nation that does not threaten you: coming out and saying you're against a regime and for that reason you should invade is not a valid reason. Saying you want to exert pressure to contain the threat is reasonable and you will find support for it.

The funny thing is, it worked. Saddam is disarmed. His forces are a shadow of what they were in the 80's. He is a threat to no one except his own people, and you can use the UN and other peaceful means to remove that threat also. Look at the north of Iraq -- the Kurds essentially govern themselves because of US support.

As far as "China is too powerful to invade" Bush made it clear that what we're doing here isn't about reason or practicality, but about doing what right for human rights and the security of the world "whatever the cost."

Are you saying it's okay to have a double standard with regards to the nations you can't beat? Why bother having any standards then? Why does North Korea get containment while Iraq gets invasion? We could beat North Korea, right?

And the oil argument is valid: Iraq started backing their reserves with euros instead of dollars in 2000. It was seen as a costly political statement at the time, but has since paid dividends to Iraq's oil-for-food programme as the euro has surpassed the dollar in strength. That is what corporate America is most afraid of. If OPEC switched to the euro, the dollar would inflate massively and there would be a rush on the $7 trillion in dollar debt our nation has racked up over the years. This is a message to the Arab OPEC world: step out of line and you're next. We'll call you a terrorist state and invade.

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 08:24 PM
helicopter with 16 americans just crashed in kuwait, survivors is unknown at this time.

iJon

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 08:33 PM
16 confirmed dead -- 4 British, 12 Americans

That's 17 too many dead now. :(

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 08:43 PM
Are you saying it's okay to have a double standard with regards to the nations you can't beat? Why bother having any standards then? Why does North Korea get containment while Iraq gets invasion? We could beat North Korea, right?

Yes I am. It is okay to have a different standard for Iraq and North Korea. The cost of taking out North Korea would be huge for civilian and military loss of life. It was okay to decide not to invade the USSR and China because of the disaster that could reasonable be expected to result. You do what you can, you don't do nothing because you can't do everything. One can argue whether this attack on Iraq is worth it, but the argument that one must treat every situation the same or there are no standards is a specious one.

16 confirmed dead -- 4 British, 12 Americans

That's 17 too many dead now.

May their sacrifice not be in vain.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i look at the WTC bombing in '93 as a warning. are all the NYC 9/11 fatalities therefore their own fault?

You totally blew that one out of context. We've been dropping millions of leaflets over Iraq, we've been warning them over the radio, we've been telling them for a couple of days now to keep away from military installations and buildings, and to stay at their homes. We've been giving them immediate warnings.

What you're saying is totally irrelevant. It'd be like if we attacked Iraq now, and don't warn their civilians, but expect that they know what to do since we attacked in the early 90's. We are not targeting civilians here. The terrorists responsible for the WTC attacks did.

While the death of civilians and troops are sad, the troops were aware of the dangers of what they were doing, and the civilian (in this case) was fairly warned. Bombing an apartment building would be horrific, since the people were just staying at home, but that will most likely not happen, and I hope that it never does.

I won't continue further on the topic of casualties, because some people don't seem to have the same beliefs about fighting for ones country as people did back in the day.

On another note about hating Hans Blix: The french were responsibile for making him the chief weapons inspector. They did it because they knew he couldn't enforce jack, and he was quite anti-american. Unfortunately, him, and many other people are trying to spin this so that no matter what the outcome is, they look like they were the good guys all along.

Finally, I would appreciate it if people stopped using "Pro War" to describe people who aren't protesting the war, or who support it. I personally support the disarmament of Saddam, and the liberation of the Iraqi people, whether it takes war or not, but I am not a warmonger. I do not advocate war, I just support it when necessary, as in this case.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Finally, I would appreciate it if people stopped using "Pro War" to describe people who aren't protesting the war, or who support it. I personally support the disarmament of Saddam, and the liberation of the Iraqi people, whether it takes war or not, but I am not a warmonger. I do not advocate war, I just support it when necessary, as in this case.

LOL

Would you rather we call pro-war people anti-peace? That sounds better anyway. Thanks!

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 09:17 PM
So I guess the score is 16-1 now, with the underdog winning the game early in the first quarter.

Seriously, I'm waiting for MSNBC to start putting a score and clock in the top right corner of the screen along with the down and yardage.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 09:19 PM
-- 1026 arrested in San Francisco

-- Riots in Seoul

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
LOL

Would you rather we call pro-war people anti-peace? That sounds better anyway. Thanks!

I never said anti-peace. Just another liberal way of throwing things way out of context... That's ok. Conservatives do it too, but we tend to stay on topic, and when we throw things off, they still slightly resemble what they originally were... Back on topic:

I support the war. I don't advocate that we go out and fight everybody we hate, but if war is what it takes, then so be it. If there is a chance to peacefully take care of issues, then go for it, but when diplomacy fails, and war is the only option left to ensure that there isn't further damage, then I will not protest it.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
We've been dropping millions of leaflets over Iraq, we've been warning them over the radio, we've been telling them for a couple of days now to keep away from military installations and buildings, and to stay at their homes.


hey, war's dangerous and civilians will get killed. it's a fact of the modern age. and if i believe a conflict is necessary, i won't necessarily oppose it because of dangers to civilians.

but you made it out that it was that jordanian's own fault he got killed, 'cuz he got in the way of a bomb after he was told bombs are coming. c'mon, show a little sympathy.

i don't appreciate being lumped in w/ everyone you disagree with. i've asked several thoughtful questions in this thread that no one seems comfortable answering. good, maybe that means some people are thinking.

i'm not saying "no war under any circumstances." i'm not saying "it's okay to leave saddam there." what i am doing is asking people to think, really hard, about their positions, their doubts, and the ramifications of the actions they support.

are people doing that? are you doing that? i can't tell. i just know i'm being told i'm wrong. wrong for what? asking the hard questions?

here's one. take a shot at an answer: what will bush have to do to make _you_ say, "whoa, bush has gone too far" ?

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 09:56 PM
I'll float some ideas:

would it be too far if he...

* used "nonlethal" (like the stuff that killed 120 in Moscow last year) gas on troops and civilians as a first-strike measure, even though it's banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention and Geneva Convention would allow Iraq to legally retaliate with lethal agents in kind?

* used a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in response to a chemical or biological attack on some barracks?

* used a nuclear weapon on a rogue terrorist nation like North Korea before any other hostilities to bring a swift surrender?

* invaded Egypt if the people revolted against the anti-peace government in order to restore the martial law of the nation?

* invaded the nations surrounding Israel to prevent backlash against their nation from surrounding regimes

* invaded Pakistan to prevent the radical Muslims from gain control of the nation and hence its nuclear weapons.

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
here's one. take a shot at an answer: what will bush have to do to make _you_ say, "whoa, bush has gone too far" ?

Gathering defenseless Iraqis into large groups and machine gunning them to death. Marching Iraqi POWs across miles of desert without food or water, and killing any of them who can't keep up. Stuff like that.

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'll float some ideas:

would it be too far if he...

* used "nonlethal" (like the stuff that killed 120 in Moscow last year) gas on troops and civilians as a first-strike measure, even though it's banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention and Geneva Convention would allow Iraq to legally retaliate with lethal agents in kind?

* used a nuclear weapon on Baghdad in response to a chemical or biological attack on some barracks?

* used a nuclear weapon on a rogue terrorist nation like North Korea before any other hostilities to bring a swift surrender?

* invaded Egypt if the people revolted against the anti-peace government in order to restore the martial law of the nation?

* invaded the nations surrounding Israel to prevent backlash against their nation from surrounding regimes

* invaded Pakistan to prevent the radical Muslims from gain control of the nation and hence its nuclear weapons.

And why would the US ever have to do this? Would it be alright if Gore did this? Would it be alright if any other president in the future did this?

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:27 PM
Here you go guys, read your hearts out: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003205

My Grandfather Invented Iraq
And he has lessons for us today.

BY WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:01 a.m.

As thunderclouds gather over the Middle East, America and Britain stand once again shoulder to shoulder preparing to draw the sword in defense of freedom, democracy and human rights. A line has been drawn in the sands of the Arabian desert. We have deployed some 200,000 American troops, together with more than 40,000 British, who will shortly be committed to battle.

Meanwhile, I have a confession to make: It was my grandfather, Winston Churchill, who invented Iraq and laid the foundation for much of the modern Middle East. In 1921, as British colonial secretary, Churchill was responsible for creating Jordan and Iraq and for placing the Hashemite rulers, Abdullah and Faisal, on their respective thrones in Amman and Baghdad. Furthermore, he delineated for the first time the political boundaries of biblical Palestine. Eighty years later, it falls to us to liberate Iraq from the scourge of one of the most ruthless dictators in history. As we stand poised on the brink of war, my grandfather's experience has lessons for us.







The parallels between Saddam Hussein's repeated flouting of U.N. resolutions--17 over the past 12 years--calls to mind the impotence of the U.N. forerunner, the League of Nations. In the 1930s, the victors of the First World War--Britain, France and the U.S.--fecklessly allowed the League of Nations' resolutions to be flouted. This was done first by the Japanese, who invaded Manchuria, then by the Italian dictator Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia and, most gravely, by Nazi Germany.

Had the Allies held firm and shown the same resolve to uphold the rule of law among nations that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are demonstrating today, there is little doubt that World War II, with all its horrors, could have been avoided. Indeed it was for that reason that Churchill called World War II the "Unnecessary War." Tragically, the same sickness that infected the League of Nations--a feebleness of spirit, an unwillingness to face the realities of the world we live in, and a determination to place corrupt self-interest before the common good--now afflicts the governments of France, Germany and Belgium.

I can think of few actions more shameful than the recent vote by these three nations in the counsels of NATO to deny the Turks--the only NATO country to share a common border with Iraq--the protection they need against the very real possibility of an Iraqi missile attack. This region, in particular, was one of the great disappointments of my grandfather's career. After the creation of Iraq, Iran and Palestine, he wanted to create a fourth political entity in the region, Kurdistan. Against his better judgment, he allowed himself to be overruled by the officials of the colonial office, a tragic decision that, to this day, has deprived the Kurds of a nation of their own and caused them to be split up under Iran, Iraq and Turkey, each of which has persecuted them for their aspiration to self-determination--none more so than Saddam.

My grandfather's resolve and leadership offer a second parallel to today's situation--one that confronted the world 55 years ago, when America was on the point of losing her monopoly of the atomic bomb. As leader of the opposition in the British parliament, Churchill was gravely alarmed at the prospect of the Soviet Union acquiring atomic, and eventually nuclear, weapons of its own. He said at the time, "What will happen when they get the atomic bomb themselves and have accumulated a large store? No one in his senses can believe that we have a limitless period of time before us."







As President Bush and Mr. Blair intend today in the case of Iraq, Winston Churchill in 1948 favored the threat--and if need be the reality--of a pre-emptive strike to safeguard the interests of the Free World. Aware of the dangers ahead, Churchill believed that the U.S.--while it still had a monopoly of atomic power--should require the Soviet Union to abandon the development of these weapons, if need be by threatening their use.

The Truman administration chose not to heed his advice. The result was the Cold War, in the course of which the world--on more than one occasion--came perilously close to a nuclear holocaust.

It is no great surprise that the nations which long toiled under the yoke of communism during the Cold War are our greatest supporters today. Unlike the French, Germans and Belgians, the East Europeans have not forgotten the debt of gratitude they owe to the United States, first for liberating them from the Nazis and, most recently, from Soviet domination. With absurd Gallic arrogance Jacques Chirac has threatened to block next year's scheduled entry into the European Union of some 10 East European nations as punishment for their support of the Anglo-American position on Iraq. Beneath the protests of the French and the Germans, we can discern in the current crisis, the fading of the old Europe dominated by the Franco-German axis.

Mr. Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, in urging delay, know full well that if the impending attack is not launched in the next two to three weeks, it cannot, realistically, take place until the end of the year, granting Saddam an eight-month reprieve. In whose interest would that be, I wonder? No doubt they imagine that, by their delaying tactics, they can save Saddam's bacon and with it their own arms-for-oil contracts. But I have news for these two shabby peace-mongers who know no shame: By their failure to join in the coalition of the willing--indeed, by their deliberate attempts to frustrate the removal of Saddam--they will forfeit both their arms contracts and their Iraqi oil. And it could not happen to nicer people!







Like President Reagan before him, George W. Bush has what my grandfather would have called "the root of the matter" in him. He is able to discern the most important issues of the day and to stand firm by his beliefs. Likewise Tony Blair. On Iraq and the Anglo-American alliance, the British prime minister has got it absolutely right: He is pursuing the true national interest of Great Britain, which is to stand at the side of the Great Republic, as my grandfather was fond of calling the land of his mother's birth.

The time has come for the world community--or such of it as has the courage to act--to deal with this monster once and for all. Were we to shirk from this duty, the U.N. would go the way of the League. More gravely, a marriage of convenience would be consummated between the terrorist forces of al Qaeda and the arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities which Saddam possesses.

We have business to do and I believe that together America and Britain, and those of our allies who share our sense of urgency and strength of commitment, will soon rid the world of this demented despot, liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny, and strike a further blow against the ambitions of fundamentalist terror.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Gathering defenseless Iraqis into large groups and machine gunning them to death.

okay. thank you. this will hopefully not happen. but did you know it has?

in the previous gulf war, journalists were stunned to find so few iraqi casualties in the open desert.

in truth, at least one battlefield had been cleansed. there were iraqi soldiers in trenches. tanks had been outfitted w/ plows. they drove along the trenches and buried the iraqi soldiers in the sand. another vehicle followed, straddling the filled trenches, and pumped them w/ machine gun fire.

PBS frontline link (http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm)

link (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html)

another PBS frontline link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html)

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:33 PM
also, listen to this:

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Now, tell me how peace will work again?

iJon
Mar 20, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
okay. thank you. this will hopefully not happen. but did you know it has?

in the previous gulf war, journalists were stunned to find so few iraqi casualties in the open desert.

in truth, at least one battlefield had been cleansed. there were iraqi soldiers in trenches. tanks had been outfitted w/ plows. they drove along the trenches and buried the iraqi soldiers in the sand. another vehicle followed, straddling the filled trenches, and pumped them w/ machine gun fire.

PBS frontline link (http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm)

link (http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html)

another PBS frontline link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html)
wow thats crazy, thanks for the link, very interesting.

iJon

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
And why would the US ever have to do this? Would it be alright if Gore did this? Would it be alright if any other president in the future did this?

sheesh, that's not the question. i'm asking YOU, G4scott, YOU who are in support of the current military actions and, i can only assume, bush's policy on iraq, i'm asking YOU at what point you will say, "bush has gone too far." ?

i want to know. i want to know that you have a brain and can think for yourself. i want to know that you are capable of rejecting what the media feeds you, that you can assess an administration-created situation and have some sort of moral or ethical disagreement with it.

perhaps there's _nothing_ bush can do that will make you say, "wow, i hadn't bargained for that."

perhaps you will smile while he puts a bullet in daschle's head, or orders a military strike on NYC, or declares all registered democrats enemy combatants, herds them into a camp, and sprays them with VX. (not that i think he will, i'm trying to be extreme)

where do YOU draw the line?

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by iJon
wow thats crazy, thanks for the link, very interesting.


crazy indeed. wouldn't it be interesting if CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/Fox/et. al. had found that newsworthy?

afaik, only PBS found it important enough to air.

if it happens again, will we ever know?

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:40 PM
When Bush orders the mindless shooting of innocent civilians, that will go too far.

When Bush orders the use of nukes, or deadly chemical weapons, that will go too far.

When Bush orders the destruction of entire Iraqi villages, that will go too far.

When Bush orders US troops to purposely harm the people of Iraq, that will go too far.

But I know that Bush will not go too far. I trust my president, and his decisions. Do you?

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
And why would the US ever have to do this? Would it be alright if Gore did this? Would it be alright if any other president in the future did this?

The first three were proposals from the administration. The second set were my own fictional scenarios.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
When Bush orders the mindless shooting of innocent civilians, that will go too far.

When Bush orders the use of nukes, or deadly chemical weapons, that will go too far.

When Bush orders the destruction of entire Iraqi villages, that will go too far.

When Bush orders US troops to purposely harm the people of Iraq, that will go too far.


thank you


But I know that Bush will not go too far. I trust my president, and his decisions. Do you?

i do not. but now we have at least a semblence of a standard. i hope to god you're right.

your examples fall into two categories: those things that would happen only because bush ordered it (e.g. nuclear strike), and those that could happen under his watch (e.g. destruction of a village).

bush's culpability would be subjective in the second case.

indeed, i can point at afghanistan and say, "i don't think bush cares." not enough money funneled in, nothing is rebuilt, the entire country outside of kabul is in chaos. promised deadlines for democratic elections have come and gone.

BUT -- last week the long-desired pipeline from the caspian sea, through afghanistan and pakistan to the indian ocean finally made some headway. of course you know bush had been in negotiations w/ the taliban to get the thing built (enron was part of that contract). i know it's crass of me to bring up business, but at least a tiny part of my brain wonders if there were ulterior motives in afghanistan.

also watch closely what happens to water rights in iraq during the rebuilding phase. you can bet israel will get some of that yummy tigres water.

again, it's just that teeny part of my brain that questions motives. as the FBI likes to say, "follow the money."

G4scott
Mar 20, 2003, 10:52 PM
Liberal or conservative, personal interests are what drives a president.

Bush wants to do what's good for the world, but best for the US. Clinton, Gore, and any other president would too. Besides, if they do good for the US, it gets them re-elected, which is ultimately the goal of any politician. Nice guys don't do well in politics.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Nice guys don't do well in politics.

Ha! now THAT i agree with

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
okay. thank you. this will hopefully not happen. but did you know it has?


Not exactly. The PBS link you gave said that those soldiers died trying to defend the "Saddam Line." They were not rounded up, defenseless, and machine gunned to death, as I mentioned. War is hell, and people die. Using a tank to collapse a trench beats the hell out of sending in a platoon of grunts with bayonets to root out the opposition. There is a name for a "fair fight." It's called a "tactical mistake."

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Not exactly. The PBS link you gave said that those soldiers died trying to defend the "Saddam Line."

article also said some were trying to surrender.

either way, sounds like a nasty way to die.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
indeed, i can point at afghanistan and say, "i don't think bush cares." not enough money funneled in, nothing is rebuilt, the entire country outside of kabul is in chaos. promised deadlines for democratic elections have come and gone.

BUT -- last week the long-desired pipeline from the caspian sea, through afghanistan and pakistan to the indian ocean finally made some headway. of course you know bush had been in negotiations w/ the taliban to get the thing built (enron was part of that contract). i know it's crass of me to bring up business, but at least a tiny part of my brain wonders if there were ulterior motives in afghanistan.


There were plans for the invasion of Afghanistan formulated in the summer of 2001.

zimv20
Mar 20, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
There were plans for the invasion of Afghanistan formulated in the summer of 2001.

yes, i'd heard that. ostensibly, bush told the taliban, "we can carpet you with gold or carpet you with bombs."

i've never seen an authoratative source as to the authenticity of that quote, but, uttered or not, i think it captures the spirit of the negotiation.

anyone else notice afghanistan's opium production is booming? the taliban had slowed it to a trickle.

pseudobrit
Mar 20, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
perhaps you will smile while he puts a bullet in daschle's head, or orders a military strike on NYC, or declares all registered democrats enemy combatants, herds them into a camp, and sprays them with VX. (not that i think he will, i'm trying to be extreme)

where do YOU draw the line?

I could point out that the German Jews, communists, Gypsies, etc didn't think it was possible in 1933 that their new Chancellor would end up exterminating them and their kin. Little by little their rights were stripped away under cover of legality. So that extreme can happen in less time than you think.

We're already in a state of declared perpetual war (even Hitler wasn't crazy enough to declare that aloud), under rule of a military-industrial administration headed by a president who rose amid dubious circumstances, civil liberties are compromised, ethnic minorities are detained indefinitely without legal representation or even notification to anyone that they're detained, anti-administration voices are being harassed and monitored by the government, and right-wing hate radio hosts are calling for the arrest and trial of peace movement leaders for treason and making unveiled threats of violence against their own detractors. All of the above are the same exact tactics used by the Nazi movement or situations the German people found themselves in.

All extremism is dangerous. On the left, you have the dangers of communism that we are all aware of.

But the opposite extreme to the right is equally oppressive -- the "corporate state," as Mussolini called it -- fascism.

You tell me which way our government is leaning. It's a slippery slope.

Keep your eyes open. Remember that tyrrany and extremism never come and slap you in the face saying "I am oppression, here to destroy you," but "I am your friend, here to help your nation and your people."

macfan
Mar 20, 2003, 11:59 PM
I would certainly hope there were plans for an invasion of Afghanistan in the summer of 2001. Given that we had already been engaged in trying to strike at Al Qeada there for its previous terrorist attacks, the Pentagon would be remiss to not have an invasion plan. I would expect that there was such a plan for the Clinton administration as well, long before 2001. As for the alleged Bush quote, it smacks of urban myth.

About the tanks and sand trenches. Yes, being buried alive is a nasty way to die. It's too bad if you don't surrender fast enough, but it's not like they were not told to surrender in the days leading up the the ground war. I would not, if I was a military commander, have asked my soldiers to go in and remove the soldiers in hand to hand combat thus putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
Bush wants to do what's good for the world

Ha, That's a whole load of hogwash! Bush has clearly shown he doesn't give a flying ****** about the world. He is a talking head for the oil industry and now he's cooked , he will not be reelected.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Bush has clearly shown he doesn't give a flying ****** about the world.


i'm not so sure. i think he's convinced his pre-emption policy is sound and for the good of the world. i simply disagree w/ his policy. i think he's a very impatient man and doesn't like people disagreeing w/ him.

now he's cooked , he will not be reelected.

don't be so sure. americans are scared, and when they're scared they elect republicans. karl rove and co. is pretty good at keeping that fear going.

and now....

it's prediction time! you heard it here first!

if, next year, bush is behind in the polls, there will be some sort of terror or other crisis. bush will declare martial law and suspend elections.

you heard it here first.

macfan
Mar 21, 2003, 12:16 AM
pseudobrit,
You comparison of Bush to Hitler is sooo compelling. The United States really is like Nazi Germany, and Bush is just like Hitler! I mean, he's been running a renegade party with brown-shirted thugs for several years, beating up citizens who don't agree. Not only that, he actually killed off all of his opponents in his political party after he came to power. I never thought of that. Bush is going to murder his political opponents instead of campaign against them. Gasp! Did you know that Bush actually declared a war on terror? That's just so he can find ways to round up people he doesn't like and kill them so as to solidify his power and reach his nefarious aims. I bet he actually planned the 9/11 attacks like Hitler did with the burning of the German parliament. Either that, or it was the jews. Yeah, it was probably those jewish bankers who control everything.

It is utterly ridiculous and borderline pathological to compare the United States to Nazi Germany and Bush to Hilter. It's like those people who thought Clinton was somehow going to turn over America to the United Nations or that he was planning on not leaving office after 2000. Such lunatic theories do eixist, but they are not held by serious thinkers. Shame, shame, shame.

zimv20,
Did you know there were nut cases who thought that Clinton was going to declare matial law and suspend elections? Looks like the right is not the only home of nut case conspiracy theories.

pseudobrit
Mar 21, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by macfan
About the tanks and sand trenches. Yes, being buried alive is a nasty way to die. It's too bad if you don't surrender fast enough, but it's not like they were not told to surrender in the days leading up the the ground war.

Imagine being conscripted into an army under a dictator. Now imagine an invasion force is heading your way, and you've been told how weak and pathetic they are and that they're so weak and pathetic that they'll probably use airplanes to drop leaflets telling you to surrender without a fight so we don't slaughter them wholesale. They also tell you stories of how the Americans shoot those who try to surrender. So you disregard the flyers, burning the ones you find as your commander has instructed. Then the invasion force comes, you have no support, and they start plowing your countrymen into their trenches -- deep trenches too high to quickly scramble out of -- as you cower from their sheer number and speed, hoping you aren't totally buried. Then the machine gun comes along and you hope to God that a bullet finds your head to stop you from suffocating so painfully.

It's not "too bad," it's a tragedy, and one that could be avoided if we gave a damn about foreign life.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by macfan

zimv20,
Did you know there were nut cases who thought that Clinton was going to declare matial law and suspend elections? Looks like the right is not the only home of nut case conspiracy theories.

neat, i'd never heard that about clinton. yeah, it's a bit nutty. but bush loves his power. i think he feels entitled to keep it. i wouldn't put it past him.

regarding america as a fascist state, lots of underpinnings are there. the media has stopped questioning, the gov't can legally disappear people, surveillence is unchecked, dissent is labled unpatriotic, leaders are (largely) unquestioned, people will do anything to feel safe, including trading away freedoms.

and most importantly, aside from the threat of terror, most people think everything is a.o.k.

pseudobrit
Mar 21, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by macfan
pseudobrit,
[SARCASM]snip...

And you totally ignored the last part of my statement, which was that extremism never manifests itself in broad daylight. It makes use of every means to hide itself (forever, preferably -- "The Matrix" thing would be the perfect form of it) and is often not seen as becoming a problem until the last moment. Everyone who aided Hitler's acension to power thought that they could use him once they installed him, that they would be able to check his power and use him for their own purposes. No one would have believed what happened could happen. Why is it so impossible that the same thing can happen in the USA?

Wherever there are weak men, there will be those who abuse them. Wherever there are free men, there will be those who seek to enslave them.

The USA is no exception. To think otherwise, to let your guard down for one moment, to assent to any step in that direction, is to allow oppression a foothold where it should have none.

One other thing that Hitler used -- the idea of preemptive war and annexation -- was declared illegal at Nuremburg and many of his leaders were hanged for nothing more than waging aggressive war, a war of choice. We now follow the same path, using different but similar justification.

macfan
Mar 21, 2003, 01:07 AM
pseudobrit,
And you totally ignored the last part of my statement, which was that extremism never manifests itself in broad daylight.

Extremism very often mainfests itself in broad daylight, as does the foolishness of thinking that Bush will suspend the Consititution and institute a Nazi state. There is a great difference between vigilance and foolishness, and there's a lot more foolishness than vigilance in these Bush-is-a-modern-day-Nazi rants. Just like the thinking that Clinton was going to declare martial law at Y2K so he could stay in power was shown to be false, the thought that Bush has these plans to take over as a dictator are equally assinine.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by macfan

Extremism very often mainfests itself in broad daylight, as does the foolishness of thinking that Bush will suspend the Consititution and institute a Nazi state.

one could argue parts of the constitution have already been suspended. americans have been arrested and denied access to judges, lawyers, and their accusers.

in Nazi Germany, hitler was waging war on his neighbors -- under the guise of protecting the fatherland and its economy from foreign workers -- while an ignorant populace was content the department stores were still open.

"Of course the people don't want war. But [they] can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It
will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
-Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)

macfan
Mar 21, 2003, 02:27 AM
zimv20,

one could argue parts of the constitution have already been suspended. americans have been arrested and denied access to judges, lawyers, and their accusers.

One could also argue that Jews drink the blook of Muslim children in their religious ceremonies, but that would not make it true. Since you seem to be fond of Nazi quotes, try this one.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Propaganda in Nazi Germany.

The argument that Bush is turnig the USA into a Nazi state is simply assinine, not matter how many times it is repeated.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by macfan

The argument that Bush is turnig the USA into a Nazi state is simply assinine, not matter how many times it is repeated.

well, i never said nazi, i said facist.

are you denying that americans have been detained w/o access to lawyers, judges, or the right to face their accusers? shall i turn up a link on jose padilla or is it enough to mention his name?

this isn't some fantasy, this is reality. it's happening. now.

have you been introduced to the highlights of the patriot II act, leaked to the center for public integrity last month?

have a look at a possible future (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7230)

am i fond of nazi quotes? if you think i'm a nazi, you miss the point. i think it's important to know that the nazis held power by scaring the public. i think bush is doing an excellent job of scaring the american public now. i'm simply drawing a parallel.

if you feel the need to misdirect my point to a fantasy of jews drinking baby blood, then i will infer you're scared and afraid to admit it. will you even allow yourself to look at what's going on around you and begin to wonder where we're going?

i ask you this: at what point will you say, "hey, we did become a facist state!"

G4scott
Mar 21, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Ha, That's a whole load of hogwash! Bush has clearly shown he doesn't give a flying ****** about the world. He is a talking head for the oil industry and now he's cooked , he will not be reelected.

You failed to read beyond the first few words of my post, apparently...

I guess nobody has anything to say about Winston S. Churchill's article, or the wonderful audio-clip of a discussion about going to war...

pseudobrit
Mar 21, 2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by G4scott
You failed to read beyond the first few words of my post, apparently...

I guess nobody has anything to say about Winston S. Churchill's article, or the wonderful audio-clip of a discussion about going to war...

That audio clip is a joke. Some nasty Iraqi misogynist laying into a young woman for voicing her opinion. "little bird" and "little girl" are not points of respect: he was mad at her more because she was a woman.

If I were on that show instead of her (but I wouldn't have been, because these right wing hate-radio hosts don't let strong minded liberals on their show to threaten them), I would have dished the rhetoric right back to that guy -- if he wanted to call me names, I'd call him a coward for not staying in his country and trying to change the situation himself. If he called me "little bird," I'd call him a "big chicken" for not dying for the cause of freeing his country but instead fleeing like a coward and coming to the USA so we could do his dirty work because he was too afraid.

Thousands have sacraficed themselves selflessly throughout the years for freedom. Is it nobler to let someone else die for your freedom?

That's what I'd say to that misogynist, but only the weaker liberals find voices on hate radio today.

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by macfan
zimv20, "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." -- Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Propaganda in Nazi Germany.

YES! Exactly!

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Weapons of Mass Destruction....

This country is slowly turnings into a fascist state...Americans love to use empty catchphrases like "freedom", while in reality they have no idea what they are talking about.

macfan
Mar 21, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
well, i never said nazi, i said facist.

are you denying that americans have been detained w/o access to lawyers, judges, or the right to face their accusers? shall i turn up a link on jose padilla or is it enough to mention his name?

this isn't some fantasy, this is reality. it's happening. now.

have you been introduced to the highlights of the patriot II act, leaked to the center for public integrity last month?

have a look at a possible future (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7230)

am i fond of nazi quotes? if you think i'm a nazi, you miss the point. i think it's important to know that the nazis held power by scaring the public. i think bush is doing an excellent job of scaring the american public now. i'm simply drawing a parallel.

if you feel the need to misdirect my point to a fantasy of jews drinking baby blood, then i will infer you're scared and afraid to admit it. will you even allow yourself to look at what's going on around you and begin to wonder where we're going?

i ask you this: at what point will you say, "hey, we did become a facist state!"

I don't think you're a Nazi. I think you like to quote Nazis. I think you are chicken little and believe that the sky is falling when it is not.

There are about 3 cases where a citizen is being detained as an enemy combatant. John Walker is one, he was tried in a regular court. There was another fellow arrested in Afghanistan on the field of battle, and there's Jose Padilla, the dirty bomb suspect.

Jose Padilla's case has made its way through the court system. It is subject to judicial process, and he is allowed to have access to lawyers (following a court ruling). The courts have made an independent determination, and if you don't their ruling, it that doesn't make the US a facist state. That determination may yet change again if the case goes to the Supreme Court. In addition, Congress has the ability to step in at any point it chooses if it believes that the executive branch has overstepped its bounds. That is how our system works, and it works very well.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/04/padilla.ruling/index.html

At what point wil I say we are a facist state? The point where you and your family are hauled into the street and shot by the federal storm troopers to make an example of you to your neighbors. The point at which the judicial branch is abolished and merged into the executive branch and elections are abolished, along with the revocation of the first and second amendments of the consitution. In the meantime, your arguments are chicken little-like. The sky is not falling.

At what point will you admit that the United States is not a facist state? Probably never.

dubbelhund, are you Swedish? What part of Dr. Blix's report that Saddam has never provided an account for his WMD programs is unclear to you? If you tell the truth over and over (Saddam has never complied with the UN resolutions about WMDs) that does not make it into a lie, no matter how much one might like it do so.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Jose Padilla's case has made its way through the court system.


it has already? i knew about the ruling, didn't know he'd been in front of a judge. if true, that's great news.

your points are well-taken. my point is not that we're IN a fascist state, it's that we're TENDING towards one. the administration has taken certain steps to point us in that direction. congress, to some extent, and the judicial branch, to a greater extent, are fighting it, which is good.

as citizens, our due diligence is to monitor the situation, know the dangers, and speak out when we don't like what we see. that is what i'm doing.

That is how our system works, and it works very well.

heh heh. i think it works in fits and starts, and at the moment it's a little stalled. it would be GREAT if it did work itself out. and if it didn't? suddenly i'd be right.


At what point wil I say we are a facist state? The point where you and your family are hauled into the street and shot by the federal storm troopers to make an example of you to your neighbors. The point at which the judicial branch is abolished and merged into the executive branch and elections are abolished, along with the revocation of the first and second amendments of the consitution. In the meantime, your arguments are chicken little-like. The sky is not falling.


good examples. but i'd counter that, up until the minute before i'm hauled into the street, it's not a fascist state? it's all about grey areas and slippery slopes.


At what point will you admit that the United States is not a facist state? Probably never.


it wasn't two years ago. it probably wasn't in the first part of 2001. since then, we're slipping. i'm still free to express my views in this forum, but is it being flagged somewhere? will it ever be used against me?

to ease my mind, i want:
- the DOJ to release the names of everyone arrested
- any enemy combatants not in the judicial system to be put there
- patriot II act to be taken off the table
- parts of patriot I repealed

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by macfan

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/04/padilla.ruling/index.html


article doesn't say he's been in front of a judge, only that he's allowed to see his attorney.

under the constitution, he's allowed a trial, access to the evidence/case against him, and the right to face his accusers. this is all apparently still denied.

the real problem in this case is that ashcroft jumped the gun and had him arrested w/o sufficient evidence.

FBI used to follow these guys to root out the cell and take the whole thing down. now they just arrest them straightaway. bad police work.

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 01:17 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by macfan
There are about 3 cases where a citizen is being detained as an enemy combatant. John Walker is one, he was tried in a regular court. There was another fellow arrested in Afghanistan on the field of battle, and there's Jose Padilla, the dirty bomb suspect.

Jose Padilla's case has made its way through the court system. It is subject to judicial process, and he is allowed to have access to lawyers (following a court ruling). The courts have made an independent determination, and if you don't their ruling, it that doesn't make the US a facist state. That determination may yet change again if the case goes to the Supreme Court. In addition, Congress has the ability to step in at any point it chooses if it believes that the executive branch has overstepped its bounds. That is how our system works, and it works very well.

It is quite obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. There is a number of people currently detained in Cuba from all over the world, one of whom is a 19 year old Swedish boy! He held indefinetly, is not allowed to communicate with anyone, not even his family. The US is not everything-is-perfect, la-la-land like you seem to believe! The arrogance in this country makes me sick. The US uses torture to soften up the "terrorist in Cuba and elsewhere, torture techniques that are being taught right here in the US at the school of americana. There is no difference in the "evil" actions between "us" and "them", we are not any more "good" than they are.

I am quite clear on Blix as well, it wasn't toothpicks that they were destroying in Iraq recently, it was Al Samoud missiles, so don't try to tell me that the inspections weren't working. We do NOT know if Iraq has nuclear weapons (WMD) because there is no evidence, I do not claim that they don't have them (nor that they do) simply because we do not know (We do know that North Korea does, however).

Goebbel propaganda techniques is all the Bush administration has, because they have no evidence of anything, which is why they have to resort to empty worlds and catchphrases to fool the public into believing that there is a clear and immediate threat.

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 01:25 PM
Did you know that way before the bombing started, American construction companies were bidding on the areas in Iraq which the military had planned to bomb. What a great way to pick up the American economy! Because we only have noble intentions, don't we?

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 01:37 PM
something like this...

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 01:39 PM
or this?

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 01:43 PM
ted rall rocks.

G4scott
Mar 21, 2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by dubbelhund
Did you know that way before the bombing started, American construction companies were bidding on the areas in Iraq which the military had planned to bomb. What a great way to pick up the American economy! Because we only have noble intentions, don't we?

Do you have proof? A link perhaps? Or is this just anti-bush propaganda?

Just because you think Bush is wrong doesn't make you entirely right.

zimv20
Mar 21, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
A link perhaps?

link (http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6008)

link (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/032003cdam3.htm)

link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05.htm)

link (http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031203_first_deals_to_rebuild_iraq_will.htm)

link (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/iraq/deals.htm)

link (http://www.arabia.com/newsfeed/article/english/0,14183,378085,00.html)

link (http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/eu_report/20030314_eureport_s46/)

et. al.

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 02:23 PM
THANK YOU!

Stelliform
Mar 21, 2003, 02:31 PM
....

jelloshotsrule
Mar 21, 2003, 02:33 PM
first. hopefully non-americans realize that not all americans are blind to our past and present atrocities. and iraq isn't nearly the worst. i'd hate to think that we were all seen as ignorant and arrogant. though i'm afriad many (most?) of us are....

second. some great links and articles and such in this thread. i don't want to rehash what's been said many pages ago, but basically i am pretty much 100% against this war in general. but, now that it's begun, i am pretty surprised with how it *appears* to be going. of course, as has been pointed out so clearly, we are not getting the full story for sure. however, i do hope that the intentions are pure, though my doubts are high.

anyways, just thought i'd commend a great discussion (mostly).


oh yes. i read in that tony blair discussion something like the british troops are the best in the world. BS. let's take them out! USA! USA!

ha. humor. carry on

Mr. Anderson
Mar 21, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Stelliform
The U.S. is going to rebuild Iraq. Isn't that a good thing? Who do you expect to do the rebuilding? Private companies can do it cheaper and faster than the government. Would you rather the US do nothing but destroy what little the Iraqis have and leave?

Actually, there will be a lot of countries interested in helping out a new Iraq. Japan didn't supply arms or men, but they've arleady pledged help to rebuild.

The only thing is Sadam has been around for so long that man of the people there don't know any other ruler or way of life. Its going to be a bit tricky.

D

dubbelhund
Mar 21, 2003, 02:39 PM
Blow it to pieces and build it up again. That'll boost the american economy. I could not think of a more noble way to make money. We are just altruistic heroes out to save the world and we only have others well being in mind, right?

Stelliform
Mar 21, 2003, 02:44 PM
....

Stelliform
Mar 21, 2003, 02:46 PM
....