Iraq

[TheScribe]

I watched Colin Powell speak today and all i have to say is Iraq is screwed. They are really dumb to think that we dont watch them with sattelites. They actually moved all their shit out of the sites before the inspectors came. Iraq is going down. Especially now that 8 of the 15 NATO nations agree with us.

Well thats my 2 cents. Iraq could have just given up their shit and we would't have to go into this stupid war. BUT NO!

[G*E*R*D]

Colin Powell always comes through....and that idot Jim Laher was talking all this sh*t about how we didn't have a good enough reason to go against Iraq in a war...Iraq is going down, and its better to do it now than later

[tgone]

Originally posted by TheScribe
I watched Colin Powell speak today and all i have to say is Iraq is screwed. They are really dumb to think that we dont watch them with sattelites. They actually moved all their shit out of the sites before the inspectors came. Iraq is going down. Especially now that 8 of the 15 NATO nations agree with us.

Well thats my 2 cents. Iraq could have just given up their shit and we would't have to go into this stupid war. BUT NO!

There's no doubt that the leaders of Iraq don't really value their people. Do you believe it's worth thousands of American and Iraqi lives? What justifies this war?

I've heard some government officials make the argument that since Saddam is a threat to the world, we have to invade Iraq to "protect the world". If that's the case, why aren't we invading North Korea? They have openly threatened the U.S. and other nations with nuclear weapons. Don't forget that China has been brutalizing and murdering Tibetans for decades. Why aren't we doing anything about that? China is much stronger than Iraq. Are we affraid of confrontation? Does the U.S. not care about Tibetans? Or is it both?

A war in Iraq will leave the thousands (maybe more) of lives destroyed. I don't think I'll ever be convinced to fight a war in Iraq.

Maybe if Iraqis were invading my home town, I may consider to defend myself and family, but this clearly isn't the case.

[tommyknokas]

yo we ain't gonna invade north korea because they have nuclear weapons and that would be the start of world war three and ultimitly the end

[tgone]

Originally posted by tommyknokas
yo we ain't gonna invade north korea because they have nuclear weapons and that would be the start of world war three and ultimitly the end

If Saddam has "weapons of mass destruction", do you think he's going to let them sit in a warehouse while his country is invaded? I think a war with Iraq could start a lot of shit around the world. I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden's posse expanded by the thousands. The result may not be world war III, but it could trigger even more terrorism against the west.

[tommyknokas]

he has weapons of mass destuction but nothing that a gas mask wont take care of also we are going to invade for several other reasons football season is over the media monster has to have something on tv you might not believe it but corporate america has a lot more power then anyone thinks also if saddam is housing terrorists as it is said then you have to take into account the whole war on terrorism a war also helps president bushes chances on a re-election due to the fact that in times of war a country tends to stand by it's leader and support him blindly
i just hope they don't draft

[tgone]

Originally posted by tommyknokas
he has weapons of mass destuction but nothing that a gas mask wont take care of


That's not completely true. Haven't you heard about all the U.S. service people who are experiencing health problems as a result to the gas Saddam used?

[tgone]

Originally posted by tommyknokas

i just hope they don't draft

They've already talked about it. I won't be going if it happens!

[S...]

Originally posted by tgone
They've already talked about it. I won't be going if it happens!

See ya in Canada, homeslice.

[tommyknokas]

actually gulf war syndrome is debated as far as its origins some say the uranium rounds we used caused it others say it was caused by getting bit by sand fleas and others say biological weapons but i personally believe the depleted uranium rounds we used caused it that shit is deadly

[TheScribe]

lot of thought here but the simple fact remains. sadaam's evil rule is over.

[tgone]

Originally posted by TheScribe
lot of thought here but the simple fact remains. sadaam's evil rule is over.

I don't know about you but I'm more concerned with ending the evil rule within our own nation.

[amanda]

whatever excuse the US government uses for its reasoning behind a war on Iraq, i wont believe it, until they say, "it is in the best interest of oil ".

[amanda]

Originally posted by tgone
I don't know about you but I'm more concerned with ending the evil rule within our own nation.

word! im backing that, im sure others are too.

[tgone]

Originally posted by amanda
word! im backing that, im sure others are too.

A lot of this evil is obvious too. And when I say evil, I'm not referencing anything religious. To me, evil is just emmense negativity/ignorance. Anyway, just recently Trent Lott re-exposed his true feelings (like he has before). Thankfully he was forced to resign. John Ashcroft is a racist who's openly celebrated the Confederate General calling him a "hero". I can't believe we have an Attorney General that thinks like that. Bush is a gangster. The list goes on. The amount of racism imbedded in our system is just as wrong as Saddam's actions. The fact is, most American people ignore it, don't know about it or can't worry about it because they're struggling.

I didn't mean to sound preachy. I just feel strongly about this.

[t-reck]

i didn't see colin powell's speech today (yesterday) because i was working - ironically, at a newspaper - but this is what i've been thinking about all this...

the rest of the world wants us to give the inspectors more time. even tony blair is only grudgingly going along with us...sometimes i get mad at bush, but it's pointless, like getting mad at a child who can't read good.

if we lived in any other country george bush would be on trial for war crimes if he goes much further. saddam's alot worse, but there's alot of cool people over there like me & you. neither those people nor our soldiers deserve to be sent home in a box of goo with a thumbnail floating at on top. saddam will go, but i think we should wait until a concencious beyond the bush administration concurs before we go into war when our military is...pretty ready for another war.

[TheScribe]

your so confused dude.war crimes lol. your aware president clinton attacked for violation of resolution 1441 in 98. dont let your political biases blind you.

[seak]

dude i wouldn't believe those pictures...it's probably our facist government getting propaganda out to go to war....the media lies way to much......the truth will never be told...find out whats the truth through your own thoughts cause they are feeding you lies.........peace

[TheScribe]

ok i see where this is going

[IrieEyed]

Originally posted by TheScribe
IThey are really dumb to think that we dont watch them with sattelites.

And you don't think the US government is watching us with those same sattelites? To me that's scary as hell!!

[TheScribe]

they really dont as much. they can just send field agents. remember with iraq they cant film on the ground. but in theory all those porns being done outside coudl be watched.

[Blue]

Okay, there's a lot of comments in here I'd like to hit on, but after reading everything I probably won't remember half the shit I wanted to say.
But my first thought was in regards to the first post - something about Iraq should have given up their arms so we don't have to go in and bust them up. My thought: We should be the LAST country to have any sort of stance on other countries being in possesion of nuclear weapons/WMD. We have the largest stockpile of weapons in the world, and we are the ONLY country to have ever used nuclear weapons - therefore we have NO RIGHT to say that other countries can't have them. Until we complete rid ourselves of nuclear weapons we have no right to condemn others.
Another statement regarding why we won't act on China's abuse of Tibet. My thought: We have no interest in Tibet, so China's slaughter doesn't have any impact on us. There's nothing in the region we want. However, Iraq hates us MAINLY for our backing of Israel. We back Israel so that we have a strong ally in a region where we would like to make further strides towards obtaining oil, and keeping an already vulnerable region in a state of upheaval. We're attacking Iraq in order to ensure that they don't mess with our friends the Israelis.
A statement that attacking Korea would be the start of WWIII: My Thought: Attacking Iraq will have a more profound effect on the world than attacking N. Korea, and has a better chance of inciting WWIII. N. Korea isn't nearly as dangerous as people are making them out to be. Sure, Kim Jong Il is damn kooky, but he's just being open about his weapons in order to get some attention - just flexing his muscles a bit.
Saddam's WMDs - if he'll use them/gas mask, etc. My thought: Saddam used gas against his own people - he'll definately use them against our troops whether it affects his own troops or not. A gas mask WON'T take care of it - but a full-body suit will. The full-body suit will also greatly hinder our troops, as they get EXTREMELY hot, and encumber sight/maneuverability. Oh - and Gulf War Syndrome: I definately think it was the US use of shells made of depleted uranium - that's FUCKED!
Finally - the thought that this war is just about oil. My thought: Yes and no. More important than the oil is the smoke screen effect this war will have. After 9/11 Bush SWORE that he would catch Osama. Have we? Our War on Terrorism has been a huge failure. Not to mention that in two years Bush has depleted our first surplus in how many decades, and created the 2nd largest deficit in our history - in TWO YEARS! So, war will take the emphasis off our huge failure in catching Osama (notice you haven't heard about Osama in months - it's all about Iraq now, so this smoke screen is obviously working, no one cares about, or even remembers, Osama) and the state of our economy.
Yeah, there's my thoughts so far...

[hydrogen]

deleted uranium....i don't know all the specifics but isn't deleted uranium mean that it is no longer radioactive...more like radioinactive. in the us, you can get an mri (magnetic resonance imaging) at the doctors, but was formerly known as nmr (nuclear magnetic resonance). the nuclear scares a lot of people even though it is safe. the resonance depleted uranium is used is b/c of the its density----the shit will have a tremonous amount of kinetic energy. it could still be toxic tho' i am not to sure.

another thing, we put saddam in power....but when we got caught selling arms to iran when iraq was waring with them, they no longer were friendly to us. we just put in a dictator that we could control and now he no longer listens to big brother so we need an excuss to take him out and replace him with someone else who will do the exact same thing



war sucks, sometimes it is necessary....iraq it is not.

[Blue]

Depleted uranium is definately still radioactive - the targets we hit with those shells make geiger counters scream!
And yeah, that whole Iran Contra thing sparked Iraq's hatred of the US! Damn, are we some stupid SOBs or what?

[TheScribe]

us supporting isreal for the last 50 years are why the arabs hate us. iran contra has nothing to do with it.

[hydrogen]

i was saying that saddam was our homie for a minute.
i think that the much of the resentment of america comes from the fact that many americans act like no other is even remotely important, also how much of the natural resources does the average american use up daily compared to citizens of other countries. isreal does play into it but that is not the number one factor

[Blue]

Iran contra is what sparked IRAQ 'S hatred of the US. They were fine and dandy with us when we were helping them fight Iran, but then they found we were playing both sides.
Our continued support of Israel has made everybody hate us.

[tommyknokas]

the main reason saddam needs to be taken down has nothing to do with weapons it has to do with the fact that he wants to regain all the land that used to belong to the people of iraq before it was even iraq he feels as if it was stolen and is rightfully his and saddam wnats it back i think it is funny how no one speaks on this anymore but it is a fact that saddam wants to control the middle east and wnats the downfall of our country and all ya'll dumbshits that have nothing better to do then talk shit about this country listen up the worst so called ghetto in this country doesn't compare to what people in third world countries deal with everyday no matter where you live in this country you can go to school you can vote you can work a majority of the world can't do any of those things and president bush is doing a lot better of a job running this country then any of ya'all could do
you got any idea of all the shit he has to stress about and no way in hell does the military want to send off it's troops to die with out probable cause if you watched the state of the union address you would see that the leaders of the armed forces did not clap once when disarming iraq was brought up could you send thousands off to die and not shed a tear
if ignorance is bliss no reason i'm so fucking angry all the damn time :mad:

[Dr. Kris Knacker]

Hey, I rack cans! oh wait, Iraq, sorry, I dont follow that shight!

[A.L.TRUIST]

Originally posted by tgone
Maybe if Iraqis were invading my home town, I may consider to defend myself and family, but this clearly isn't the case.

So if somebody (Iraqi or not) came into your house or onto your property with malicious intentions, maybe you'll protect yourself and your family and maybe you won't? If after your considerations you decided not to defend your family, what would you do?

Naive pacifism projecting an extreme anti-war view is unconvincing to those who stand with a realistic posture...I would defend myself, my family, my block, my city, my state, and of course, my country....Although this does not justify attacking another country, we should always be ready to defend.

Furthermore, don't the Iraqi people deserve to live in a society led by an administration that values human rights, governmental ethics, the sovereignty of their bordering nations, environmental interests, valid elections (not 100% candidates), and other freedoms generally associated with modern developed nations?

There is no comparison between the so-called "evils" of Bush's policies and the "evil" conducted by Saddam Hussein upon his own people and with his obvious violations of imposed sanctions. It is beginning to appear that pro-active measures may be necessary to prevent future attacks upon American people and the sustained mistreatment of the Iraqi people.

Nobody wants war, it's not a pretty thing at all...people on both sides are guaranteed to die...it will be tough to convice skeptics that war is necessary, but when will the burden of instabilty in that region, the pervasive anti-american sentiments bred with governmental propaganda, the heavy investments in weapons of mass destruction, and the inhumane treatment of poor people by a rich dictator overcome the restraint to let these conditions prevail? This may be one of those times when the end absolutely justifies the means? It sounds funny but, war = peace...

nice talking with you...

communa.l. individua.l.
a.l.truist

[Blue]

A.L. Truist - Thanks for actually having a valid view on the pros of going to war. While I don't agree with you, at least you have a well formulated opinion and a well constructed argument. Seems so many people on this board (with the pro-war view) either swallow everything the govt has to say, or are blinded by patriotism and though they think the govt is full of shit, they still stand by it.
I agree with what you have to say about defense - yes, we should defend out country. But a war on Iraq has nothing to do with National Defense. They've not attacked us, nor do I think they ever will. I think the only way Iraq would attack us, would be through Israel - not actually on US soil.
Yes, Iraqis' - and everyone - deserves to live in a society that values human rights. But it's clear that our govt DOESN'T value human rights so we're definately NOT the ones to be fighting for the Iraqi people.
And yes, you can compare the evils of Bush to the evils of Saddam - it's just that Bush is more subtle in his approach. Bush's evil is manifested through policy, where Saddam's is outright, physical brutality - the game is different but the outcome is the same.
I agree that Saddam should be overthrown - but our reasons for doing it aren't pure. Before he's dethroned we have to change our policy and set up diplomatic relations with Iraq. Start building a frame work for real change now, let the UN (or if not the UN, then at least a conglomeration of nations) take Saddam out of power. If we don't have better diplomatic relations with Iraq prior to taking him down, then any attempt at a positive regime change will be futile.
Anyway, I'm sure I didn't change your opinions, as you didn't change mine, but it was refreshing to read a valid argument.

[S...]

Originally posted by Blue
A.L. Truist - Thanks for actually having a valid view on the pros of going to war. While I don't agree with you, at least you have a well formulated opinion and a well constructed argument. Seems so many people on this board (with the pro-war view) either swallow everything the govt has to say, or are blinded by patriotism and though they think the govt is full of shit, they still stand by it.


Agreed.

[A.L.TRUIST]

Originally posted by Blue
1. But a war on Iraq has nothing to do with National Defense. They've not attacked us, nor do I think they ever will...

2. But it's clear that our govt DOESN'T value human rights so we're definately NOT the ones to be fighting for the Iraqi people...

3. the game is different but the outcome is the same...

4. let the UN (or if not the UN, then at least a conglomeration of nations) take Saddam out of power...

5. it was refreshing to read a valid argument.

Just a few comments sir:

1. Just because war may not take place on our soil does not mean that it does not involve National Interests to be protected by National Defense...We live in a global society, and our interests extend beyond our national borders.

2. Can you explain how it is clear that our gov't doen not value human rights? Especially with current topics of debate like abortion (pro-life), the death penalty (Illinois pardons death penalty sentences), affirmative action (equal access for minorities), it seems as if our country is very concerned with human rights...

3. How is the outsome the same? Are you comparing physical brutality and death without due process to policies that a whole party of political leaders support? Are democrats and republicans really "evil," even if their respective messages are more conservative than what may constituents expect?

4. I would not advocate a solo U.S. mission...I agree, we should act with support of the global community with an International coalition.

5. Thanks bro...I appreciate good conversations with people who can actually articulate their positions...nice talking with you.

a.l.truist
communa.l. individua.l.

[Blue]

Hoo boy, let's see if I can address your questions...

#1 Yes, we do live in a global society, but we should not act as the global police (that's why everyone hates us, not just the Middle East, but S. America, Europe, Asia - everyone!). National Interests may be at stake in Iraq, but not National Defense - they are two different things. Our interests often lie too far past our national borders. I feel that the reasons for this war are for our National Interests, and not National Defense - our interests being oil, and the protection of our only regional ally, Israel. (Although I still feel the MOST important reason of this war is the smoke screen effect.)

#2 Sure, we do value human rights, to a certain extent. Our domestic policies show that we care about our citizens' well being - sort of. The abortion debates - one side is fighting for the rights of the unborn, but the other side is fighting for the right to govern ones own body. Both sides are involved with human rights, neither side is 100% right, but that's usually how everything is - varying shades of grey (although I think the pro-choice people are a better shade of grey than anti-chioce - I hate the moniker pro-life...just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you're not also pro-life...but that's a whole nother issue altogether) The death-penalty debate...at least it's being debated now, but the death penalty still exists. Our interest in human rights is better than Saddam's, but it's by no means one of our strong points. And then there's the actions we've taken in other regions of the world that have shown an utter disregard for human rights. The countless dictatorships we've set up or funded. The democratic elections we've trashed. The way we shell the crap out of urban areas. I think it's quite obvious that we value human rights, but it's not what we value most, and if they get in the way of whatever it is that we value most then fuck them - human rights shmuman rights...

#3 The outcome is the same in that our policies brutally kill people the world over. We may not send a private army out to behead a prostitute, but we impose sanctions that starve entire cities of people each day. What's more brutal, a quick and horrifying beheading, or the slow painful death of starvation?

I wish I could give you a little more time and go into the regimes we've been behind, the elections (besides Bush's "win" in 2000) that we've trashed, etc, but I'm at work and have to type my responses in quick bursts. I'm sure you've heard of many of them though...

[tgone]

First, to everyone reading this, please point out to me if you feel I have used invalid information.

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

So if somebody (Iraqi or not) came into your house or onto your property with malicious intentions, maybe you'll protect yourself and your family and maybe you won't? If after your considerations you decided not to defend your family, what would you do?


I know for sure that I would do everything I could to protect myself and family. There's no doubt. I can't say I know exactly what I would do.

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

Naive pacifism projecting an extreme anti-war view is unconvincing to those who stand with a realistic posture...I would defend myself, my family, my block, my city, my state, and of course, my country....Although this does not justify attacking another country, we should always be ready to defend.


I'm down to peacefully defend anyone, but I WON'T violently defend someone like George Bush. Violence is extreme and I'm pretty sure I would only use it if it came down to people I really cared about. I don't have anger towards Iraqis, so I won't go kill them. Period. I'm sorry if pro-war propaghanda has swayed you believe that Iraqis threaten you. Their fear campaign is working.

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

Furthermore, don't the Iraqi people deserve to live in a society led by an administration that values human rights, governmental ethics, the sovereignty of their bordering nations, environmental interests, valid elections (not 100% candidates), and other freedoms generally associated with modern developed nations?


First off, Iraq was once a modern developed nation. They had medical and educational insitutions comparable to Europe. They were doing very well in the late 80s. It wasn't until the early 90s that the nation as a whole went downhill. This is mainly due to U.S. imposed U.N. sanctions and war.

Second, do you think America is perfect? You mentioned valid elections as an attribute of a "developed nation". The last U.S. presidential election was far from valid. You also mentioned human rights. The U.S. government follows more human rights laws that other nations but those laws break down when they go ove seas. Some people feel Americans have human rights, but Nigerians don't. I personally don't want leaders with that logic.

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

It sounds funny but, war = peace...


It sounds funny because it IS funny. So, in your argument it sounds like peace DOES NOT EQUAL peace.

That logic has beeen used for centuries as propaghanda to promote war as a justifed cause. I bet a lot of war generals would agree war never equals peace. What's your reasoning?

World peace can ONLY be achieved if EVERYONE wins. That includes Bin Laden, Saddam etc. They are people to, who are trying to survive, like you and I. World peace must include everyone. It's possible.

War can NEVER equal peace because they are complete opposites. War can ONLY equal peace for one side of the comfrontation. In this case, the U.S. and Iraq won't get peace for these reasons:

1. Americans/Iraqis will die
2. America will face more terrorism
3. Israel may be attacked.
3. There may be an increase of fundamentalist Iraq-nationalism.

The Iraqi govenrment was by far the most secular in the region before the U.S. started starving it's people and bombing it. Now, fundamentalist religion is on a rise in Iraq as a way to protest western imperialism. The world doesn't need anymore fundamentalists. The U.S. and other western powers have spawned a good number of them around the world.

I have a question for you:

How is Iraq a threat to the American people?

If you use facts, please state where they came from.

[tgone]

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

it seems as if our country is very concerned with human rights...


The U.S. is usually concerned with DOMESTIC human rights. But when it comes to anything abroad, the U.S. acts completely different.

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

Just a few comments sir:

2. Can you explain how it is clear that our gov't doen not value human rights? Especially with current topics of debate like abortion (pro-life), the death penalty (Illinois pardons death penalty sentences), affirmative action (equal access for minorities), it seems as if our country is very concerned with human rights...


The U.S. doesn't always value human rights outside the U.S. Take for example Panama: the U.S. invaded Panama and in the process killed 2,000+ un-armed citizens. Sanctions against Iraq are said to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraq fatalities. U.S. support for Israel has contributed to the deaths and displacement of thousands of Palestinians. Those examples reveal how the U.S. doesn't always value human rights. Most governments only value human rights when it serves their interest. It's been like that for thousands of years.

[A.L.TRUIST]

Originally posted by tgone
1. I'm down to peacefully defend anyone...

2. It wasn't until the early 90s that the nation as a whole went downhill. This is mainly due to U.S. imposed U.N. sanctions and war.

3. Some people feel Americans have human rights, but Nigerians don't. I personally don't want leaders with that logic.

4. That logic has beeen used for centuries as propaghanda to promote war as a justifed cause. I bet a lot of war generals would agree war never equals peace. What's your reasoning?

War can NEVER equal peace because they are complete opposites.

1. How do you peacefully defend someone...negotiations? bargaining? If you were in imminent danger, how would you peacefully defend yourself? Unless you got a mouthpiece like PSC, and not many people do, I can't imagine too many people talking themselves out of an ass whipping...

2. It was the early 90's when Iraq selfishly attacked Kuwait, got their asses handed to them by American led coalition forces, and because they can't comply with UN sanctions on weapons, their people are being denied valuable trade commodities like new technology and medication. The Iraqi gov't needs to change their idealology that they can continue to defy the treaty they've signed.

3. I don't get you here...do you mean some Americans or some American leaders or who...what's your reasoning?

4. War is the means, Peace is the end result. The ends justify the means. Look how our greatest enemies in WWII are our allies, and we enjoy mutual peace and mutual respect with these nations (Japan and Germany). If you drive a honda, a toyota, a VW....these are the foreign companies that created machinery used against our country in WWII, yet we proudly support commerce with these companies as we purchase their products daily. I see plenty of Americans driving these cars, so the end justified the means. We did not have to have a hate for the people of those countries, we were opposed to the ideologies of thier leaders - ideologies that are by no means consistent with those of the leaders of our country.

I am not swayed by fear my brother, I am swayed by rational logic and history that has exemplified the success of war. It's not pretty, but it works. People will die, but the future relations with these countries will improve when oppressive leaders are removed from office. We thought before that because the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, that the general sentiment of the Afghan people was anti-american, but once those people were freed from the oppression of that gov't, we saw an amazing outburst of pro-American sentiment from their citizens...

Thanks again...

a.l.truist

[tgone]

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST

Nobody wants war, it's not a pretty thing at all...


You do. So why don't you say it flat out? It sounds like what you mean is "let's go to war - even if that means killing innocent people." Well, that would be a lot more harsh. But it's true right? Are you affraid to be completely honest?

I'm kjust fed up with people saying "nobody wants war, it's a terrible thing BUT..."

Why don't they just say what they really mean instead of saucing it up to sound "good"? I guess the media and Bush couldn't sell war if he was honest. It's too bad real life issues are being mixed with marketing tactics.

[A.L.TRUIST]

Originally posted by tgone
You do. So why don't you say it flat out?

I'm fed up with people saying "nobody wants war, it's a terrible thing BUT..."

Peace posers. Why don't they just say what they mean.

I served my country bro...I trained for war and was in hostile envrionments, and nobody wants war, nobody wants to die, nobody wants to be shot at, but we accept that we have a duty to do so in an imperfect world. No, I do not want to go to war....I hope and pray that the Iraqi gov't will comply for the good of their own people and the good of the world...George Bush won't be in office more than 5 more years, it will be another elected official, but Iraq has suffered as the result of a tyrannical dictator who needs to be removed from power....

a.l.truist

[tgone]

Originally posted by A.L.TRUIST
I served my country bro...I trained for war and was in hostile envrionments, and nobody wants war, nobody wants to die, nobody wants to be shot at, but we accept that we have a duty to do so in an imperfect world. No, I do not want to go to war....I hope and pray that the Iraqi gov't will comply for the good of their own people and the good of the world...George Bush won't be in office more than 5 more years, it will be another elected official, but Iraq has suffered as the result of a tyrannical dictator who needs to me removed from power....
a.l.truist


So you don't want to go to war? I got the idea from your earlier posts that you wanted too. Would you go to war if you were called?

Despite my tones, I'm not angry with you - I'm just passionately engaged.

[A.L.TRUIST]

Originally posted by tgone
So you don't want to go to war? I got the idea from your earlier posts that you wanted too. Would you go to war if you were called?

Despite my tones, I'm not angry with you - I'm just passionately engaged.

War is not the first option...diplomacy is, but Iraq has had years to comply...It has been 12 years since the Persain Gulf War, and Iraq still has not fully complied with the treaty they signed. Japan complied with the Treaty of Versailles...Germany complied....why cant Iraq just comply...they were co-drafters of the treaty they signed...we continue to be diplomatic, but if war rhetoric is necessary for them to get the picture - then our country will put the pressure on...YES, I would go to war if called upon to serve...because I can see everyday that the world has consistently convened to discuss the situation in Iraq and there is support outside of the US for the use of force...There has to be a limit....where will the line be drawn?

And, no worries, this is not personal, this is just one issue we disagree on, and I am sure your views on this subject matter do not define the whole of you. Your position and conviction is respectable, but I disagree with your view...that's all.

We're both on this board for a mutual affection and common endeavour...but our perspectives are diverse.

one

a.l.truist

I

[tgone]

I can't change your mind. It appears as though you believe the U.S. is flawless and must police the world. I disagree. All I ask is that you be upfront and admit to supporting a bloody war without making it sound like you have no choice.

[A.L.TRUIST]

the U.S. is flawless....ha now that's funny....why does the U.S. have to be flawless for my position to exist. What we do have is a better nation, a more successful nation, probably the greatest most advanced civilized nation this earth has known - the U.S.A., and our democracy has been the catalyst for our growth, and although, admittedly, it is not perfect, it is the safest, free-est nation in the world...

My arguments clearly state that I support a "bloody" (if you must) war when necessary...and I hope that it is over as soon as it begins...the less that die the better, but death is inevitable in war, and it is a war that I would support if the Iraqi's continue to defy the U.N.

I do like that song that s.w. posted though...pretty creative, but i still feel the same...

a.l.truist
ALL TRUE IZMs

[mf sw]

SADDAM WILL COME INTO YOUR FRONT YARD AND PISS ON YOUR ROSE BUSHES IF WE DON'T KILL HIM FIRST!

I made the mistake of turning on the local talk-radio station. I knew better but I was out doing errands and just turned on the car radio without thinking about it. Instantly, my senses were assailed by a non-stop diatribe of why "we" (meaning our kids but not those of the radio personality in question) had to invade Iraq. I kept hearing jingoisms about "time running out" and mentioning that the attack "should" start as soon as the UN inspectors turn in their report on the 27th, as if it is a foregone conclusion that the UN inspectors will submit a memo saying, "Go ahead and nuke them, we think they are scum!"

Well, I changed the car radio buttons to point to some mellow music stations and won't tune back to Clear Channel ever again. But I think it is time to take a close look at the supposed case for war, in order to reply to the pro-war salesmen, should they ever get their fingers unplugged from their ears, or the craniums dislodged from their sphincters.

Is there a case for war?

1. Has Iraq invaded the US?

A: No.

2. Okay, who HAS Iraq invaded?

A: Nobody for the last 10 years.

3. Does Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction?

A: Not that the UN inspectors have found, and Blix just announced he doesn't think there are any. Bush keeps screaming "Iraq isn't disarming" to which Iraq replies, "We don't have anything to disarm WITH!"

4. What about those chemical weapon warheads?

A: What was found were empty warheads, that could be used for chemical weapons, but tests show they have never had those chemicals in them. This means those warheads, 16 in all, are as dangerous as the empty warheads military buffs buy at the surplus store to decorate their dens with. Iraq says the warheads were listed in their declaration. Bush says they were not. Blix says that the complete Iraqi declaration hasn't been translated yet, so Bush cannot possibly know.

5. What about the documents which prove interest in nuclear physics?

A: These appear to have been papers written by college students in a quest not for weapons, but for an advanced college degree. Iraq has a justifiable and legal interest in nuclear power for electrical generation, except that Israel bombed their reactor. Don't forget that when the US was selling weapons of mass destruction to Iraq, many of their students came to the US to study advanced technology. That education continues now that they have returned home.

6. What would happen if Iraq obtained weapons of mass destruction?

A: Nothing. Iraq can have all the weapons of mass destruction it wants. It just can't use them. Your parents and grandparents got stuck with a $5 trillion bill to create a US nuclear deterrent capability. The instant Iraq uses a weapon of mass destruction on the US or its allies, the US nuclear force will melt Iraq down into a green glass parking lot. Saddam is many bad things but he is not stupid. He knows he cannot use a weapon of mass destruction. Maybe he can put them on display in a museum.

7. But Iraq is shooting at our planes!

A: Iraq, like any other nation, has a right to protect itself from invasion. The "no-fly" zones are illegal. The UN did not approve them. Iraq does not recognize them. Every time a US plane flies into Iraq it is committing a technical act of war by invading their air space without permission. Were another nation to fly their aircraft into US air space without permission, the US would shoot that aircraft down and nobody would find that response unusual.

8. But what about the "Secret Intelligence" the US says proves Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

A: The UN inspectors just finished checking the CIA's list of "sites of concern" and found nothing at all.

9. Rumsfeld says that not finding any weapons proves Iraq is hiding them.

A: Not finding any weapons proves that no weapons were found. If Rumsfeld wants to insist weapons are there in Iraq, the burden of proof is on him to show the world, and that proof had better be able to withstand close scrutiny.

10. But didn't Saddam gas his own people?

A: There doesn't seem to be any solid evidence that he did so. However, the United States, having gassed a church full of women and children in Waco with a poison gas that's illegal to use in warfare does not have the moral high ground to pass judgment on other nations.

11. Isn't Iraq in defiance of UN Resolutions?

A: It is only if it is PROVEN that Iraq has illegal weapons of mass destruction.

12. Shouldn't we invade Iraq if it is proven to be in defiance of UN Resolutions?

A: A lot of nations are in defiance of UN Resolutions. The record holder is Israel. One cannot argue for invasion of Iraq solely on the grounds of defying the UN without also justifying invasion of Israel for the exact same reason.

13. Is Iraq linked to 9-11?

A: Nobody knows who did 9-11. FBI Chief Robert Mueller admitted that the hijackers used fake IDs with identities stolen from Arab men. We don't know who was on those planes. We know only who we were supposed to blame. Without knowing who was on the planes, we don't know who was the mastermind. Contrary to pro-wear propaganda, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam did not like each other. Osama viewed Saddam as a "poor Muslim". The UN has found no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Tony Blair actually admitted there was no provable link in Parliament. In short, there is no link from Iraq to 9-11.

14: Does the UN support war in Iraq?

A: No. And France and Germany will veto any attempt by the US to bring the issue to a vote.

15. Does NATO support war in Iraq?

A: No. With the exception of Tony Blair in Britain, the leaders of Europe do not think this war is a good idea.

16. Does the EU support this war?

A: No. Same answer as number 15.

17: Outside of the US, who does support this war?

A: Israel. I would add Great Britain to the list, but outside Tony Blair it is hard to find strong pro-war feeling in Britain.

18. But didn't Iraq kick out the UN inspectors before?

A: No. Chief inspector Butler ordered the inspection team to leave prior to a renewed US bombing campaign.

18. If the US nuclear deterrent can keep Saddam from using any weapons of mass destruction he has, then just why is the US so eager to actually invade Iraq?

A: Oil. The US Government is broke; so deep in debt that all the income tax paid by all the citizens cannot keep up with the interest payments. The American people are burdened by high taxation, most of which is hidden in excises, fees, tariffs, etc. and passed onto the citizen hidden in the price of consumer goods. The government has had to recently borrow more money just to make the payments on the money it already owes, and borrows so much money that it drives up interest rates, which means YOU pay more for the money you need to borrow as a result. All businesses take that increased interest, plus the taxes and fees they pay and pass them onto you in the final retail price. You would be amazed just how much of the purchase price of anything you buy eventually tracks back to government.

Because of high taxes and regulatory compliance, manufacturing started to leave this nation about 20 years ago. The government tried to conceal it with the "service economy", a silly notion that you can make a nation prosperous by doing each other's laundry. While the exchange of service fees back and forth among the citizens resulted in more opportunities for taxes to be assessed, very little new money was coming into the nation because the nation wasn't making as many products to sell outside the nation. Over time, money shifted from the population into the government, which meant cash flow to tax declined even more.

Because products we used to make and sell are now purchased from outside the nation, we have a trade deficit growing by a billion and a half dollars a day. That kind of deficit makes a devaluation of the dollar inevitable. This will cause the debt problem to increase, since the debt is payable in the currency of the nation in which the lender does business in. As the dollar drops in value, it will take MORE dollars to pay off the same debt.

Finally, there is the stock market. The Plunge Protection Team used market tricks to run the indicator numbers up for political gain during the 90s. But that did not actually signal a healthy stock market, it actually signaled a dangerously over-valued market, worse than the market in the weeks leading up to 1929. Toss in scandals like Enron, and the US stock market has a severe credibility problem.

The US Government cannot wave a magic wand and make the stock market a good investment overnight. Likewise, it took 20 years for manufacturing to be driven out of this nation and will take 20 years to build back up. The only possible way for the US Government to avoid defaulting on the debt when the dollar crashes (which it will do as soon as the real estate bubble bursts) is to reverse the trade deficit, and the only way to do that is to turn Mideast oil from an imported product to an exported one.

And THAT is the reason for the push to war.

[nashman]

hey guys -
what do you think about the european opinion ? - so im from germany, and i dont understand why bush want the war right now ??? mhh... well sadam is not a no pious lamb but he isnt danger for you amerikans, perhabs for the israeli...

ps: do u know that rumsfelds "great-grandparents" where born in Bremen/Germany ? ;)

[tgone]

Originally posted by nashman
hey guys -
what do you think about the european opinion ? - so im from germany, and i dont understand why bush want the war right now ??? mhh... well sadam is not a no pious lamb but he isnt danger for you amerikans, perhabs for the israeli...

ps: do u know that rumsfelds "great-grandparents" where born in Bremen/Germany ? ;)

Rumsfeld is an ass. I can't believe how he's been acting towards France and Germany. What a war monger.