I Am Against The Pending War (I'm Serious This Time)

I think this may be the toughest post I have ever made here. I am feeling a whirlwind of emotions right now, most of them bad.

This is not the first time this has happened to me. The same thing happened to me on the way to the Persian Gulf in 1994 when it looked like we were going to have to kill a bunch of Iraqis again. I was in deep dread the whole way there.

Please bear with me, I am just rattling away off the top of my head. I apologize if it isn't coherent.

First, I have agonized over the plight of the Iraqi people for over a decade. I strongly wish to see them set free. Just as I agonize over people under repression everywhere.

When the war drums first starting beating, I had faith that our government was correct that Hussein was still building/amassing Weapons of Mass Destruction. I still believe that if he could, he would.

As time passed, and no hard evidence of WMD was produced, I began to trust that our government knew something we didn't, and couldn't tell us about it for obvious reasons.

Recently, I am having a hard time believing there is a serious offensive threat in Iraq. I still believe, however, that Hussein will hurt the U.S. any way he can, even so far as financing terrorism. Whether that would be Al Queda, I don't know.

What has convinced me more than anything, though, that this is the wrong time to invade Iraq is the unprecedented lack of support from our friends. France didn't surprise me. Germany did. And Turkey has been a long time and very loyal friend to the U.S., and now even they are turning their backs on us.

I realize that a case can be made to explain each and every one of these country's reasons individually. I have made those arguments myself. But when you take the sum total, then you have to pause.

I especially have to pause when a man like Colin Powell is on the job of buildng a coalition and not succeeding. I have the highest respect for that man, I even have a real love in my heart for him, and I feel that if Colin Powell can't do it, nobody can. And if nobody can, then something is amiss.

Before, acting unilaterally didn't bother me. But lately, my gut is telling me that we are about to make a serious error.

I also don't have faith that our country will follow through in Iraq after the war is over. I am even beginning to lose my faith that we are going to follow through in Afghanistan.

I will always respect our President for what he did in the crucible of 9/11. I do not regret voting for him instead of Al Gore. I respect our President for going after Al Queda and running them to ground in Afhganistan and wiping most of them out.

I also respect him for turning up the heat on Hussein and getting him to start complying with U.N. sanctions. The only way to get a bully's attention is to put a gun to his head and for that bully to know you are willing to pull the trigger.

My problem is that I think our government, in the heat and the pain of 9/11, has become a little too willing to pull the trigger.

I fear that we have too much momentum going to stop an invasion of Iraq.

In 1994, I swallowed my revulsion of taking other lives because I felt that sometimes taking other lives is a necessary thing. And I felt that the mission we were on was the right thing. And it was. And we showed up with such force, that no killing was necessary.

I honestly don't know what our government's motives are for invading Iraq any more. I am just as cynical about the Left's argument that it is "blood for oil" as I am of the Right's argument about WMD.

I think we have just gone a little insane. And I wish we would wake up and come to our senses.

I am still the right-wing Conservative I have always been. Some of you are probably doubting that right now. I don't care.

In case anyone is wondering what I meant about "I'm Serious This Time," I started a topic last week in a joking manner saying I was joining the peace movement because of the proclivity of some protestors to get naked.

Oh. You won't find me in a "peace protest."

Luke, my already substantial respect for you just went up a few notches. Not because you "agree with me", but because that must have been a very tough thing for you to decide, and even tougher to put into words.

[Tricky]

Thank you Luke. Very sincere and well thought out.

I also don't believe we should go to war. To me, the ideal solution would be to make the arms inspections permanent. It would be one heck of a lot cheaper than a war and less damaging to US interests world wide.

Even saying so, it has to be understood that the only way Saddam is going to allow arms inspections to continue is to make sure he realizes the consequences of refusing. In this sense, it is beneficial to have a loony with his finger on the button to keep Saddam scared. Let us hope that this is just posturing by Bush to keep the pressure on. Sadly, I fear it is not.

[Foodbunny]

Originally posted by LukeT
What has convinced me more than anything, though, that this is the wrong time to invade Iraq is the unprecedented lack of support from our friends. France didn't surprise me. Germany did. And Turkey has been a long time and very loyal friend to the U.S., and now even they are turning their backs on us.

I realize that a case can be made to explain each and every one of these country's reasons individually. I have made those arguments myself. But when you take the sum total, then you have to pause.

I especially have to pause when a man like Colin Powell is on the job of buildng a coalition and not succeeding. I have the highest respect for that man, I even have a real love in my heart for him, and I feel that if Colin Powell can't do it, nobody can. And if nobody can, then something is amiss.

This is exactly why I am against the war as well. I'm a big ol' bleeding heart liberal who voted for Al Gore but I can see the advantages to getting Saddam out of power and installing a US-friendly democracy. I don't think that getting Saddam out of power is worth what it's costing us in our relationships with other countries and have no faith that a democracy will result from our actions.

It's a tough thing to go back and say that your outlook has changed and I respect the hell out of you for doing it.

[kittynh]

Luke, we all have to wonder about a war where conservatives like yourself are non supportive. This isn't like Vietnam where it was seen as only the liberals were protesting. I just get a funny feeling about all this. Korea seems far worse, not that I'm saying we should invade there, but I just don't get why Iraq is worse. I asked once on a post and the reply was that they don't have oil (this wasn't said to be cynical - they thought it a good reason).
We all have loved ones over there - or somewhere, and while I know our armed forces will serve with professionalism, I want them to serve for a good cause too. Seriously though, my number one agreement with you have to be what you said about Colin Powell. I so admire that man. Plus, people other places in the world are really pissed at us. I think we could at least do better at PR, the Iraqis seem to do alright.

[PixyMisa]

Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion?

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion?

I have no doubt the Iraqi people support an invasion. And that has always been my biggest reason for supporting it.

Pixy, I have just lost faith that our government will successfully implement a democracy in Iraq. I have a feeling we will just "settle," like we have in the past. We will settle for whoever looks like they have the best shot at staying in power and introducing "stability."

Not that the devil we know (Hussein) is better than the devil we don't. Hussein would be pretty hard to top in cruelty and just plain evilness.

What I worry about is the lack of respect our country will have afterwards. Iraq is important, yes. But there are other important things we have to accomplish, some more important than Iraq, and if we have alienated everyone, we will not be able to accomplish any of them.

Like I said, I do agonize over the people of Iraq. I don't dive into just how much for fear of sounding like some sentimental sap.

[Girl 6]

Well, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one opposing this war. Thank you , LukeT for at least examining the situation and trying to think rationally through it.

Believe me, it's tough to do that when there seems to be so much overwhelming support for the war here in the U.S.

All I have ever asked anyone to do is to look at the mounting evidence against the war and examine it. It's okay to reverse your decision. This should NOT be about saving face or looking like fools for backing out.

This should be about respecting the lives that are going lose their right to live just because of leaders that can't seem to get past their antagonism toward each other.

I know that the Iraqi people are suffering. I know that Saddam isn't the most enlightened leader on the face of the earth. I know that we suffered the loss of our people on 9/11. BUT, there just isn't enough evidence or is there enough support from our allies to do this on our own.

I would like it if we would just admit that we need and respect our allies enough to not do this alone. That should be a minimum requirement before going to war.

Despite everything, I will still respect you if you support the war. But, just take the time to consider the consequences of this and be aware that people WILL lose their lives. Are you still comfortable with that? I'm not.

G6

Originally posted by Girl 6
Well, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one opposing this war.
G6

Huh? Have you got half the people here on ignore or what??? :eek:

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by sundog


Huh? Have you got half the people here on ignore or what??? :eek:

LOL!! :D

No. It's just that before this thread appeared, I felt like the lone protestor on this board.

G6

[Foodbunny]

You've never been alone here, Girl 6, I just don't speak up in political threads because they have a tendancy to turn nasty very quickly. Sorry.

Originally posted by Girl 6


LOL!! :D

No. It's just that before this thread appeared, I felt like the lone protestor on this board.

G6

I guess you don't get over to Politics and Current Events much. :D

edited to correct spelling.

[PixyMisa]

(Re: What happens after?)

It's a valid worry.

What needs to happen is a full-scale occupation and rebuilding - like Europe and Japan after World War II. That worked but it took a long time, a lot of money and effort, and a serious commitment.

I don't particularly agree with the politics of John Howard (the Australian Prime Minister) and even less with George Bush and Tony Blair. I think they are right that there should be a war to liberate Iraq; but whether I'd agree with their true motives is rather dubious.

Whether we'll see the necessary follow-through is also dubious.

But in the 12 years of sanctions, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein. Before sanctions were put in place, the toll was even higher. It's time for him to go.

Then we march for democracy in Iraq, and I'll be marching with you.

Originally posted by Girl 6

Despite everything, I will still respect you if you support the war. But, just take the time to consider the consequences of this and be aware that people WILL lose their lives. Are you still comfortable with that? I'm not.

G6

I am not opposed to the war because lives would be lost. If that were the case, I would have to oppose our involvement in every war we've ever been in.

And I think Hussein has already killed more Iraqis than we ever would.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
(Re: What happens after?)

It's a valid worry.

What needs to happen is a full-scale occupation and rebuilding - like Europe and Japan after World War II. That worked but it took a long time, a lot of money and effort, and a serious commitment.



And it worked because we had the whole world behind it. Not just us acting alone.

Alone, we are a fickle nation. We don't have the stick-to-itiveness necessary to rebuild another nation by ourselves.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by LukeT


I am not opposed to the war because lives would be lost. If that were the case, I would have to oppose our involvement in every war we've ever been in.

And I think Hussein has already killed more Iraqis than we ever would.

Well, thanks for clarifying that. :)

I'm not quite convinced about Hussein killing more Iraqis than we would. We are implicitly involved in killing and starving children due to our participation in the sanctions.

But , I digress... As I've said before in another thread, there is going to be a huge amount of destruction thrown at Iraq as part of this "shock and awe" strategy. I'm having a hard time believing that a lot of people won't get killed because of that.

G6

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LukeT

And it worked because we had the whole world behind it. Not just us acting alone.

But, there is a difference between having world support for invading Iraq, and having world support for rebuilding it afterwards. Many countries who are either neutral, or against the war, may be willing to step up and help out (after all the hard work is done and the danger has passed).

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by LukeT
And it worked because we had the whole world behind it. Not just us acting alone.Well... In 1945, half of Europe was rubble, Japan was starving, and Russia was grabbing everything within reach. The initial rebuilding of Europe and Japan was done by the U.S. Once the ball got rolling, they took on the job themselves. But nearly 60 years later, there are still U.S. troops deployed in those countries. (Excluding France, of course.)Alone, we are a fickle nation. We don't have the stick-to-itiveness necessary to rebuild another nation by ourselves. I think you sell your country short. The U.S. does go through periods when it is inward-looking, but I think history shows that it can follow through on its commitments. I truly hope that this time the U.S. - along with its allies - does make the commitment and does follow through.

If this doesn't happen, I don't think I'm going to like the 21st century very much.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Girl 6

I'm not quite convinced about Hussein killing more Iraqis than we would. We are implicitly involved in killing and starving children due to our participation in the sanctions.

In that case, do you think the sanctions should be lifted?

One of the 'problems' with the anti-war movement is the contradition: Don't attack because Saddam is not a threat to his neighbours (but this is because of the sanctions), and don't attack Iraq because civilians will die (but they are dying because of sanctions to keep Saddam from becoming a threat again.)

It should also be noted that while Iraqis are starving, Saddam is spending money to fund terrorist groups in the world. If he has money to fund terrorists, why are children starving in Iraq?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I'm not quite convinced about Hussein killing more Iraqis than we would. We are implicitly involved in killing and starving children due to our participation in the sanctions.The sanctions provide for food to feed all those starving children - if Saddam Hussein allowed the food to get to them. And his record before the sanctions was even worse.But, I digress... As I've said before in another thread, there is going to be a huge amount of destruction thrown at Iraq as part of this "shock and awe" strategy. I'm having a hard time believing that a lot of people won't get killed because of that.The "shock and awe" strategy is designed so you don't have to kill people. The idea is to scare them enough so that they surrender. From what I've read, this is hardly necessary; the Iraqi troops are for the most part, ready to surrender - except that they may be shot for doing so.

People will die. It's a war. But it seems to be the only way to put things right. What we have to do when the war is over (and there are signs that it is already under way) is make sure that the commitment to rebuild is made and kept.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Girl 6


Well, thanks for clarifying that. :)

I'm not quite convinced about Hussein killing more Iraqis than we would. We are implicitly involved in killing and starving children due to our participation in the sanctions.

But , I digress... As I've said before in another thread, there is going to be a huge amount of destruction thrown at Iraq as part of this "shock and awe" strategy. I'm having a hard time believing that a lot of people won't get killed because of that.

G6

Trouble is, we have no way to know what's really happening in Iraq. Our news is filtered through layers of editorial beaurocracy, dumbed-down for mass consumption, slanted one way or the other, and delivered in small portions.

Until governments choose to set aside the competition for power, wars will always be with us. I am convinced that it is human nature to oppress, and nothing short of a global catastrophe will change it -- if that's even possible. Humans have never been content with their own places in the world, and have always sought to take what someone else has. It will never change until the human race is extinct.

Earth is Hell. We might as well get used to it.

LukeT,

Mind if I comment on your original post?

I thought I'd ask first this time.

Last time I almost got smited by the skeptical gods!

:D :D :(

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

In that case, do you think the sanctions should be lifted?

One of the 'problems' with the anti-war movement is the contradition: Don't attack because Saddam is not a threat to his neighbours (but this is because of the sanctions), and don't attack Iraq because civilians will die (but they are dying because of sanctions to keep Saddam from becoming a threat again.)

It should also be noted that while Iraqis are starving, Saddam is spending money to fund terrorist groups in the world. If he has money to fund terrorists, why are children starving in Iraq?

Yes, and why hasn't someone thought of some creative way to deprive him of that money? This is what I'm talking about when I say there hasn't been enough out-of-box thinking regarding the problem of Saddam Hussein.

G6

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Whodini
LukeT,

Mind if I comment on your original post?

I thought I'd ask first this time.

Last time I almost got smited by the skeptical gods!

:D :D :(

Whodini, I give you the power to comment on LukeT's post! :D

G6

Originally posted by Whodini
LukeT,

Mind if I comment on your original post?

:D :D :(

Please do, Whodini.

Originally posted by Girl 6


Yes, and why hasn't someone thought of some creative way to deprive him of that money? This is what I'm talking about when I say there hasn't been enough out-of-box thinking regarding the problem of Saddam Hussein.

G6

I think Hussein is getting his money by circumventing the sanctions and selling oil "under the table." I think one of his biggest customers for this illicit oil is France. But I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But, there is a difference between having world support for invading Iraq, and having world support for rebuilding it afterwards. Many countries who are either neutral, or against the war, may be willing to step up and help out (after all the hard work is done and the danger has passed).

Yes, they might. But the key difference between now and WWII is that no one who later helped out opposed our involvement in the first place.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a pisser all right. I'm getting a little Vietnam smell.

~~ Paul

[shanek]

Luke: Do you mind if I share your story with the guys at TruthAboutWar.org? I'm sure they'd love to see such a wonderfully reasoned opinion from someone who has just changed his mind.

Originally posted by shanek
Luke: Do you mind if I share your story with the guys at TruthAboutWar.org? I'm sure they'd love to see such a wonderfully reasoned opinion from someone who has just changed his mind.

Give me a minute to check out the site, shanek. Then I'll let you know.

[DanishDynamite]

Very couragous and thoughtprovoking post, Luke.

It's a funny thing, but I recently changed my stance from "anti-war" to "neutral-leaning towards pro-war". My reasoning is, of course, very different from yours.

I've tried to seperate all the side issues and look just at the "legal" side of the issue. I came to the conclusion that there was enough evidence that UN resolution 1441 had been breached (if only technically).

I then looked at possible consequences agreed by the Security Council regarding a breach of 1441. It referred to "serious consequences".

That was the "legitimate" side of it.

The moral side was that I found it ultimately in the best interest of the Iraqi people that dictatorial rule was abolished and that they re-entered the world economy (without crippling sanctions).

Anyway, I understand your decision. It is hardly a clear cut topic.

Thanks, DD. I also believe that Hussein is in violation of U.N. resolutions, and always has been, and always will resist them as long as he is in power.

I often see the question asked, "Why now, after 12 years?" The answer is the same as to why I am glad Al Gore wasn't elected. Hussein got away with violating the resolutions because we let him for at least 8 of those 12 years. We were more interested in containment than adherence.

The other reason is the one I mentioned above. We are stinging from 9/11. And in the heat of our pain we cast our eye not only to the people who committed the WTC atrocity, but to all those we felt to be evil. Thus, the "evil axis."

I do not disagree with the President's stance on these things. I am just beginning to disagree with the necessary solution to these things.

shanek, I am uncomfortable with TruthAboutWar.org. They are a little too strident for my liking. Sorry.

I am honored you asked, though. Taken aback, actually.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

The biggest problem right now is that we have moved to slow, and are too wishy washy. If the U.N. doesn't back us, (One of Luke's reasons for not procceding on our current course) the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. It has already proven itself to be non-relevent. It's stupid for them to pretend like they have the power to make rules and law, and then not enforce them. I for one believe Saddam has WMD, just becuase we can't put them on a table and say, "look!" doesn't mean jack. Come to my work, I'll hide a few quaters in the building. We'll let you look for them, have people follow you, and other people move the quaters before you get to their locations :P

If the United States backs down at this point. Saddam will claim victory. He will have bloddied the U.S.'s nose and those M.E. countries who "dislike" the U.S. will follow his example. Why pretend to be the U.S.'s friend when you can support it's downfall without opposition.

If we do back down, we should pull out of the area. We would of course continue our support of Isreal, as they have supported us.(as far as I know) The United States should discontinue all efforts to enforce sanctions. Let Saddam do whatever the F**K he wants to do. :)

Backing down now, and staying part of the U.N. just proves us to be as unrelevant as the U.N. iteself.

This is why we won't back down. Hopefully Bush realises that once we go in without support, we HAVE to rebuild Iraq, becuase that is how we prove ourselves.

SSR

SSR, I don't disagree with a single point you made. Those things are pretty much what I meant about us having too much momentum to turn back now.

The one and only thing that can stop it is if we decide to keep our forces camped out on his doorstep and compel Hussein to continue to disarm. But as in the past, our will won't hold out as long as his. And he has the advantage of total power over every action his country makes.

So, yeah. I believe the war is inevitable. Probably within the next 7 days. The time for us to stop it has passed, I think.

shanek, I was being unkind when I said TruthAboutWar.org is too strident.

Thinking about it more, I guess I am just not in agreement with most of their positions. That doesn't make them strident. Sorry about that.

[Girl 6]

I find this whole discussion about how we can't back down very depressing.

Are we more concerned about saving face and proving some ridiculous point to the world about our resolve than anything else? If so, that is truly discouraging and it proves my point about the fact that it IS all about face.

G6

Originally posted by Girl 6
I find this whole discussion about how we can't back down very depressing.

Are we more concerned about saving face and proving some ridiculous point to the world about our resolve than anything else? If so, that is truly discouraging and it proves my point about the fact that it IS all about face.

G6

It's a harsh reality, Girl6. We accomplish more good when we are respected than when we are not.

And in terms of face, I think we will lose a lot of it if/when we go to war in Iraq. And we will pay the price somewhere down the line. Who knows where. Korea, maybe.

Speaking of face, why do you think Hussein stands up to us when he knows he will get his ass kicked every time? Because it gives him face all over the Middle East. And it makes him a household name all over the world.

SSR, I have mixed feelings about the U.N. and our participation in it. But I don't think we should leave over this incident alone just because they won't play along with what we want.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by LukeT

Speaking of face, why do you think Hussein stands up to us when he knows he will get his ass kicked every time? Because it gives him face all over the Middle East. And it makes him a household name all over the world.

Eh, men... ;)

I'll tell you why Hussein stands up to us. It's the same reason you'd stand up against someone who was posturing and threatening to blow you up. Admit the fact that you wouldn't for one minute let someone just take your house, your wife and your children away from you without a fight and without some MAJOR face time.

G6

Hussein is a criminal, not a homeowner. And criminals get upset and in your face, too, when you stop them from running wild in the streets.

Geez, here I am all against the war and stuff, and I'm arguing with another person against the war. The pro-war people must be eating this up! :D

[Pyrrho]

Sigh...political leaders do not care about home and family. They care about power, and about keeping power. Saddam Hussein "stands up to" the United States because it serves his purposes to do so. If it served his purposes to kiss President Bush's butt he'd do it. Hussein does not give a damn how many people die in Iraq as long as it serves his purposes. The same goes for any other political leader who uses war as a means to an end.

Propaganda for war with Iraq began soon after our war in Afghanistan started. I could see this coming months and months ago. The U.S. news media and public opinion has pretty much fallen in line, and only after it became too late did the protests begin in earnest. Why? Because in our apathy we just didn't give a damn.

I do not believe for a moment that Hussein would be allowing inspections to continue if the overwhelming force of our military wasn't positioned and ready to remove him from power. I also do not believe for a moment that President Bush really gives a damn how many of our soldiers die in Iraq. Oh, he might shed a tear or two, but no leader can afford sentiment and remain in power.

Excuse me, I'm supposed to go start hating Osama bin Laden again...or is it North Korea? I forget which 15 minutes it is, sometimes.

Heh.

Pop quiz. Without looking, what nation is the third nation in the "evil axis?"

[Pyrrho]

Iran

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by LukeT
Heh.

Pop quiz. Without looking, what nation is the third nation in the "evil axis?"

You mean the "axis of evil." :mad:

:D

Let's get our propoganda straight, okay? ;)

G6

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Iran

Agh! You are too quick. I was wondering how many people would be stumped.

Originally posted by Girl 6


You mean the "axis of evil." :mad:

:D

Let's get our propoganda straight, okay? ;)

G6

Dang! I guess I don't get to play Final Jeopardy.

[HarryKeogh]

Luke, i respectfully disagree with your opinion on not going to war. And i do mean respectfully, obviously you are very sincere and wish the best for mankind.

[Patricio Elicer]

War is the most terrible thing humans can inflict to themselves. I can imagine the struggle and suffering of thousands of young military men and the agony of their families. And even worse, the sufferings of countless inocent civilians.

I'm not very well into the American politics or its external relations, I don't mean to justify or promote a war between the US and Irak, but I understand that sometimes, sadly, war is the only way out.

That was the case of Hitler's fascist movement. Making war against him was the only option, with all the sad consequences for millions of people. A pacifist attitude then would've been meaningless and unfruitfull before the intentions of such a mad man.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

G6:

The reason we are trying to "save face" is becuase if we give the appearance of weakness, people will attack. The reason 9/11 was the first time foreign powers have attacked on our own soil since what? 1812(Since some people consider Pearl Harbor non-US soil at the time of that attack), is because the U.S. is strong, and shows it.

Face it, force is the only universaly accepted negotiation tactic. Osama would never debate with us, he will never listen to reason, he can never be bought, all we can do is use force to protect ourself. As much as it would be great if everyone believed in peace and hope that we could all live in a world where force is unnessasary, it only take 1 person to not believe this way. And, I hate to say it, but we are a LOOOOOONG way from World peace. the only thing we can hope for is to protect ourselves, our friends, and our beliefs.

And for the record, our sanctions have nothing to do with any deaths in Iraq. There is plenty of money in Iraq, but Saddam has it all, and won't use it for anything as enlightened as feeding people. If we lifted our sanctions, what makes you think those people WE are starving would see any of the benifits. Saddam just uses the sanctions to throw more "evidence" to the world of how evil we are.

In fact, according to a resent CNN story, Saddam ordered US and UK uniforms so he could have his soldiers dress up as our military and commit atrocietes on his own people, and blame it on us.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/sprj.irq.uniforms/index.html

Dictators always need a fall guy to blame the troubles of their society on. They also keep their people under-educated. And usually instill a government controled faith to further control the populous...

While the US is powerful, free, and contains all the religions, dictators will use us as the fall guy, we're a great big easy target, who has already been targeted and hence draws support from others in similar boats.

SSR

SSR

SSR, we set ourselves up. We initiated action against Iraq, and have come too far to back down. And we are now trapped in a face-saving mess.

If the U.S. was so sure that Hussein was developing WMD, and I seem to recall at one time we said he was mere months away from developing nuclear weapons, then that would seem to me we must have known exactly where those WMD were.

I hope to God that we didn't make these claims based solely on rumors and statements by Iraqi expatriots. I hope to God that we had hard data.

I am hearing less and less play by the government about WMD, and even less about nuclear weapons. And that disturbs me.

If we were so sure, we should have done what Israel did, and bombed the nuclear weapons making sites.

Something isn't right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
I often see the question asked, "Why now, after 12 years?" The answer is the same as to why I am glad Al Gore wasn't elected. Hussein got away with violating the resolutions because we let him for at least 8 of those 12 years. We were more interested in containment than adherence.

The other reason is the one I mentioned above. We are stinging from 9/11. And in the heat of our pain we cast our eye not only to the people who committed the WTC atrocity, but to all those we felt to be evil. Thus, the "evil axis."


(I'm responding to both of these apragraphs at the same time, because I feel they're related.) Clinton's strategy towards Iraq (and presumably Gore's had he been elected) was apparently no different than Bush's before 9/11: Wanting to do something but not being able to justify it or get the support. 9/11, I'm convinced, gave him the perfect reason/excuse/whatever you want to call it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
shanek, I am uncomfortable with TruthAboutWar.org. They are a little too strident for my liking. Sorry.

I am honored you asked, though. Taken aback, actually.

It's all right. Although I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed opinion of the site if you wouldn't mind.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Speaking of face, why do you think Hussein stands up to us

I'm curious...in what way does Saddam "stand up to us"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by pyrrho2000
Sigh...political leaders do not care about home and family. They care about power, and about keeping power.

As long as people realize that's just as true of George W. Bush as it is of Saddam Hussein.

[flannery]

Originally posted by shanek


It's all right. Although I'd be interested in hearing a more detailed opinion of the site if you wouldn't mind.

From an animated cartoon on the site: "The United States, the nation that supplies a fashion-conscious world with blue jeans, also supplies the Israeli military."

That is meant as something bad.

The site bashes the U.S. in every paragraph in tabloid style. It's a big turnoff. I don't wish to be any part of it.

[flannery]

Originally posted by shanek


As long as people realize that's just as true of George W. Bush as it is of Saddam Hussein.

That kind of attempt at moral equivalence makes me sick to my stomach, shanek.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion? Where do you get that from?

Once again, I have come home and started posting without checking to see if my wife (flannery) was logged on earlier. The last two posts under her name are actually mine.

Maybe I should turn of the default log-in function....

[espritch]

I was listening to NPR yesterday when they had a story about Turkey and the opposition there to war with Iraq. According to poles, about 95% of Turks oppose war. However, the situation is more complicated than it seems. They don’t necessarily oppose war because they don’t want to see Iraqis killed. They oppose the war because they don’t want to see a Kurdish state formed in Northern Iraq bordering Turkey. The no fly zones maintained by the US and Britain have allowed Kurds in Northern Iraq to live pretty much autonomously of Saddam’s control (that’s why there haven’t been any recent gassings). If Saddam fell, I doubt that the Kurds would want to be a part of the new Iraq. They would probably want an independent state (and I can’t really blame them). This is a problem for Turkey since they have a large Kurdish minority in areas near Iraq. And the Turks and the Kurds do not play well together.

Some Turks have started to reconsider supporting the US war because they think it is inevitable and they want an opportunity to send Turkish troops into Northern Iraq and “tear the place up.” The words in quotes were spoken by a Turk being interviewed in the NPR story I mentioned above.

I bring this up to make two points. The first is that if we do topple Saddam, the consequences will be rather sticky. The peoples of the Middle East may love to hate us, but they love to hate each other even more. I really don’t know if we can create a peaceful democracy in Iraq, even if Bush’s intentions are sincere.

My second point is that we really don’t have allies in the Middle East. I’ve known for a long time that we can’t trust Saudi Arabia farther than we can spit it. After hearing the item on NPR, I’m not sure even Turkey is really trustworthy. As for Isreal, it is ultimately a Zionist state. Zionism is a religious concept. Although Isreal is more democratic than most of the Islamic states of the region, it’s democracy is ultimately marred by it’s religious origin. Our support of Isreal is primarily a result of a coalition of the Christian right and pro Zionist Jewish groups in the US, who together have a lot of political clout. This alliance has never directly benefited the US that I can see and has certainly made us a target for terrorists. The problem with the Isreal situation is that it is essentially a religious feud, and we as a secular state (despite claims by Bush and others to the contrary) would best be served by staying as far away from the whole mess as possible. As long as I’ve been alive, the US has been trying to produce “peace in the middle east” to no avail. This is because we are trying to find a political solution to a religion problem.

The entire Middle East is a snake pit of oppressive states, oppressive religions, and tribal hatreds. Since we insist on wading into it again and again, we really should not be surprised that we keep getting bit.

[Mocker Wall]

Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion?

There are lots of dictators in the world with lots of oppressed people. Why are the Iraqi people so important to us all of the sudden and not any other oppressed country?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall


There are lots of dictators in the world with lots of oppressed people. Why are the Iraqi people so important to us all of the sudden and not any other oppressed country?

I think it would be a good idea to clean up the world a bit. However, it would need to be done using some form of legal framework, not be opportunistic, and with the backing of the majority of free nations. Just going out and professing to be doing this to help the Kurds and Sunnis Muslims, when you have been quite happy to turn you back on them previously, and indications are that you will do exactly the same again, doesn't present a convincing picture of a morally driven entity.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by flannery


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek


As long as people realize that's just as true of George W. Bush as it is of Saddam Hussein.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That kind of attempt at moral equivalence makes me sick to my stomach, shanek.

GWB has been quite happy to sign the death warrants of possibly innocent people for political gain.

While nowhere in the league of outright evil as Saddam, GWB is not above using murder to achieve his aim of power.

[Douglas]

Sheesh. Luke T, you are suffering from the pre-war jitters is all, nervousness, second thoughts, the whole "Are we doing the right thing?" nine yards. Once the festivities get under way you'll settle down and get back to normal. Steadfast conviction, straight and strong. Remember, waffles are for breakfast and it's already close to dinnertime.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by RichardR
Where do you get that from?

From the results of a covert survey published in Britian. (Well, that's where I saw it at least.) While the majority of Iraqis don't like the idea of war, they like the idea of having Saddam around less, and are willing to have an invasion, as long as the U.S. and whomever helps, is actually willing to see things to the end.

See: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=362281

Plus, how many Iraqi refugees do you see at those peace marches?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall


There are lots of dictators in the world with lots of oppressed people. Why are the Iraqi people so important to us all of the sudden and not any other oppressed country?

Ah, back to the old "other countries do it too" argument.

A number of reasons why Iraq makes a better target:

- They have existing UN resolutions against them. They are also under a cease fire (which they have broken the terms of). This give a legal foundation for a war. Saudi Arabia is a place that has a bad human rights record, but they aren't subject to the terms of a cease fire or UN resolutions. (Yes, its unfair to the people who live in other 'bad' countries, but the world has to start somewhere)

- The U.S. can probably easily win. North Korea and China abuse human rights. But, the fact that they already have nuclear weapons (plus big armies) makes taking them on much more difficult. The U.S. and its allied forces have to pick their battles carefully

- Iraq is relatively secular compared to other countries (like Iran and Saudi Arabia). So, it stands a chance at becoming a democracy (well, at least more of a chance than Saudi Arabia)

- It has attacked neighbouring countries in the recent past (Iran and Kuwait); if allowed to rearm they may do so again. Many of the other dictatorships in the world oppress their own people (which is bad), but they have not tried to expand.

I do want to see more democracies throughout the world. But, the free world has to start somewhere. For better or worse, Iraq is the 'best' choice.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

I'm curious...in what way does Saddam "stand up to us"?
By ignoring U.N. resolutions, and terms of the cease fire that were negotiated at the end of the last gulf war. (By having items he should not have, and impeding the weapons inspectors.)

Why does he do it? Because he knows that until now, the West hasn't had the nerve to stand up to him. And in doing so, he becomes a hero to the middle east. (The man who stood up to America.)

[Charlie in Dayton]

My brother emailed me the other day, about some ideas he'd had on just when we were going to invade Iraq. From Gulf War I, he determined that it would be April 1 +/-, because it was the full moon, and the date has some significance.
My reply included the following ideas. I'm rewording things, because the tone of this thread is somewhat different than we used between ourselves...
* * * * * * * * * *
Your speculations are based firmly in reality, and have much merit. This same scenario has been spoken of by numerous people in and out of both the media and the military.
Let us posit Baghdad, 33 degrees north 44 degrees east, 0400 local time, 0700UTC. Studies have shown that the human being is at their lowest ebb at approximately this time (~0400 local, based on solar position). At this time, the Moon's phase is new moon, and it doesn't rise until just before 0600 local, when the Sun rises. The Moon will provide no real useful night lighting until ~first quarter, which is April 10.
Based on these elements, I tend to agree with little brother, that sometime around 0700UTC +/- a couple of hours, Saddam Hussein&Co are gonna get one heck of a wakeup call.
* * * * * * * * * *

The politics of this situation still are somewhat unsettling to me. This conflict will not be over once the military victory has been won. For years and years, this will be made out to be an attack on a religion. We may very well be looking over our shoulders for decades, wondering when and where the next religious fundamentalist will decide to claim his bowl of dates and pack of virgins in the afterlife. It's going to take massive levels of education and exposure to outside cultures to change people's minds on this, and those in religious power are not going to take these efforts lightly. We are in for the long haul -- and the first shot was fired long ago. We're just upping the ante here.

I have all the respect in the world for the line grunts in this conflict. I can claim some kinship with those about to go in harm's way, as it was my turn 30 years ago. With the luck of the draw, while I wore the funny green suit, I never fired a shot in anger, or was in a position to have to. It's my sincerest hope that this thing gets resolved so that no blood is shed, and that all of our fellow Forum denizens are back here real soon telling us stories about warm beer and sand fleas.

That being said, my arguments are with the politicians and policy makers who are running this thing. What arguments I have are few. There are times when negotiation and diplomacy just don't work any more. Then, like TR said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Iraq apparently has decided not to listen. Time for the stick.

As unpleasant as this is going to be for us as well as them, I believe it is necessary.

Commentary is welcome.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LukeT


Yes, they might. But the key difference between now and WWII is that no one who later helped out opposed our involvement in the first place.
Ah, but another key difference... After WW2, we couldn't get any help from the Soviet Union. In fact, if anything, they would do their best to cause problems.

Also, many of the countries that were at one time 'war torn' after world war 2 (France, Germany, Japan), now are doing better and have the resources to help out.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Girl 6

Yes, and why hasn't someone thought of some creative way to deprive him of that money? This is what I'm talking about when I say there hasn't been enough out-of-box thinking regarding the problem of Saddam Hussein.

I have no idea.

If anyone in the anti-war group could suggest a reasonable possiblility, I would drop my support of an invasion of Iraq. You figure with the large number of people opposing the war, someone should have come up with something. Instead, the only suggests involve continued inspections (despite the fact that they won't work without Iraqi coopeation), or somehow magically solving the problems in Palestine. Neither of which will immediately help the starving in Iraq in the near future.

Perhaps we have to look at the possibility that, with the millions of people opposed to the war but unable to suggest reasonable alternatives both save Iraqi lives and prevent Saddam from gaining more power, military force is the only option. (And sometimes thinking 'outside the box' doesn't always work.)

The problem is, Saddam is still the leader of Iraq, and as long as he is the leader, we are limited as to what we can do for the Iraqi people.

[subgenius]

Didn't read all the posts yet. But based on Luke's, let it remind us that opinions can differ, without calling the (what the Brits call) Loyal Opposition traitors.
Just as some can reasonably disagree with the administration's other policies.
As that great philosopher said: "Why can't we all just get along?"

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Girl 6


LOL!! :D

No. It's just that before this thread appeared, I felt like the lone protestor on this board.

G6

:D No G6, you're just the only one (so far) that won't say she supports a US victory over Saddam if war unfortunately happens.

Many people on the forum have spoken out against the war. I respect Luke, Foodbunny and everyone else's feelings on this war, even if I disagree. Feelings against war are understandable.

So, I've tried very hard not to get into a pro-war debate with anyone, as I understand the other sides feelings.

No, I'm not stalking you... ;)

[DrBenway]

I'm still trying to make up my mind about the war. When I hear arguments which link the plan to oust Saddam to a larger plan of fighting global terrorism, I can see the merit in the idea. But I worry "the big plan" is just too big for us to pull off.

check out this analysis:
http://www.marzeporgohar.org/news.php?l=e&id=248&m=&d=&y=
quote:
"The war on terror is not simply about destroying the Taliban and taking down Saddam; it is a far more complex operation. The President has carefully set about action in ascending order of difficulty. First the Taliban. Then Saddam. Then the next step, Iran - the world's leading financier of terror. North Korea will be left to China to deal with, with Mr Bush making clear to China that, if it does not take its responsibilities seriously, Japan will be given nuclear weapons."

"Well-connected advisers tell me that if, as now seems likely, the UN refuses to back action against terror, Mr Bush will announce a "temporary" suspension of America's membership, to be accompanied by an offer: if the UN gets its act together and carries out long-overdue reforms, America (and its money) will return. But if there is no reform, the temporary withdrawal will, de facto, become permanent.

"But although British support would be valued, the real need is far more practical. The battle against Iran will not be military. It will be intelligence-led, and will build on existing forces within Iran. After 20 years spent trying to isolate Iran, however, American intelligence is lamentable. MI6, on the other hand, has spent that time rebuilding its links and recruiting highly placed agents. America needs Britain if it is to deal with Iran. And that means it needs Mr Blair to remain in office."

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by RichardR
Where do you get that from? Segnosaur provided one link. I'll dig up some others if you like - interviews with Iraqi refugees, interviews with Iraqis in Syria, interviews with Iraqis in Iraq.

Basically it seems that the people there have much the same opinion of Saddam Hussein that I do.

Here's one link interviewing Iraqis in Syria: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/5266354.htm

[Supercharts]

Sent to me by a friend. It seems to be a true extract.

A very interesting editorial - Just a word of background for those of you who are not familiar with the Daily Mirror newspaper which is published in England. It is a notorious, left-wing daily and is usually very anti-American. It's kind of hard to believe that they published this editorial. The author is Tony Parsons.
It follows:



September 11, 2002
ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the mass
murder of thousands,live on television. As a lesson in the pitiless
cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol Pot's!
mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked like garbage
in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so cruel, so calculated
and so utterly merciless that surely the world could agree on one thing -
nobody deserves this fate.


Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the
perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is
increasingly seen asAmerica's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism
has increased over the last year.

There has always been asimmering resentment to the USA in this country -
too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than
Europeans - but it hasbecome an epidemic.

And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach. America
is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We are bonded to
the US by culture,language and blood.

A little over half acentury ago, around half a million Americans died for
our freedoms, as well astheir own. Have we forgotten so soon? And exactly
a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not just
Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small group
of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on the
planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers, somebody's
son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And children. Some unborn.
And these people brought it on themselves? And their nation is to blame for
their meticulously planned slaughter?


These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or
Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The
anti-American allianceis made up of self-loathing liberals who blame the
Americans for every ill in the Third ! World, and conservatives suffering
from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can do what it
likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is thatAmerica has behaved with enormous restraint since
September 11. Remember,remember.

Re! member the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to say,
"I love you,"before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning
skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one of
the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for 9/11
in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray? Pass
the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired
their semi-automatics ina sky full of American planes? A shame, but maybe
next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being
raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many in
the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered
innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say that
the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving
Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that - and
didn't push the button.We should thank the stars that America is the most
powerful nation in theworld. I still find it incredible that 9/11 did not
provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell", if
America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of hell
like you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful nation
that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in Afghanistan may
have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq may be misconceived.


But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these wretched
countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East, or in the
Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand - assuming you
haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle.
But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh.

Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be -
rich, free, strong,open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or
religion, or some castes ystem.

America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start
remembering that. Or doyou really think the USA is the root of all evil?

Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death
from the burning towers.! Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands died
on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing
skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands
worked for the New YorkFire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets a
worse press than Saddam Hussein.

Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people and
set up rape-camps inKuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality Street. Save
me the orange centre, ohmighty one!

Remember, remember,September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in human
history was committed against America.

No, do more thanremember. Never forget.

[Skeptical Greg]

Good post Supercharts.. It deserves a thread of it's own...

Thanks for presenting another view...

Where to begin? So many well-thought arguments with which I respectfully disagree.

Douglas, I'm not waffling. What I fear the most is waffling on the part of the U.S. The lack of "follow-through."

Segnosaur, the U.S. has made the situation such that there is no alternative but war now. That is why you won't hear me offering alternatives. The time for doable alternatives is gone. We have painted ourselves into a corner.

The Iraqi people need to be liberated. But we will be the ones to do the job? Or will their liberation only be a temporary thing? Will someone else come along and put yet another yoke on them? I see nothing which guarantees this won't happen.

We will have increased the already substantial antagonism against us in the Middle East, and will find no sympathy from our former friends and allies. Some will take this as a go-ahead to increase hostilities with Israel.

Korea will have no fear in spitting in our face. And they are much longer practiced at messing with us than Iraq. They will make Hussein look like a rank amateur by the time its all over. And no one will listen or care.

I agree with whoever said we must pick our battles carefully. Unfortunately, we were careless instead.

When this is all said and done, we must not forget that the President made some claims. As good skeptics, we must all expect him to provide the evidence for those claims at the end.

[shanek]

Originally posted by flannery
That kind of attempt at moral equivalence makes me sick to my stomach, shanek.

It's not "moral equivalence," it's just the truth. It's obvious that Bush cares about power and keeping power, and we should judge his actions in that light just as we judge Saddam's.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
GWB has been quite happy to sign the death warrants of possibly innocent people for political gain.

Not to mention arresting and detaining US Citizens indefinitely without charge, denying them the right of legal counsel. That is illegal, according to our Constitution.

[hammegk]

Hmm, I scanned through and saw maybe a half-dozen anti-war types.

I believe there are openings for human shields if you feel that strongly about it. :rolleyes:


If we begin combat ops will you at least support our troops, or are they all evil too? :mad:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Plus, how many Iraqi refugees do you see at those peace marches?

One could certainly find it reasonable to conclude that the opinions of political refugees are not indicative of the overall opinions of the rest of their native population.

Douglas, just to be clear on where I stand, I stated (in effect) in Andalyn's topic that if we go to war, I want a complete and swift U.S. victory. And if I were still on active duty, I would put forth my greatest effort to aid in that victory.

Girl6, even though I think your position is misguided, I have to say I hold your views in the highest esteem out of everyone on the anti-war side here. Your beliefs and motives are the purest.
I should have taken the time to engage you in conversation at the Amazing Meeting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

By ignoring U.N. resolutions, and terms of the cease fire that were negotiated at the end of the last gulf war. (By having items he should not have, and impeding the weapons inspectors.)

Impeding the weapons inspectors? I know that's the official line given by George III, but that's not what chief weapons inspector Blix says:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6083935%255E2,00.html

He says they could have been cooperating more than they have, and that they're more cooperative now than they have been in the past, but in no way can the inspectors be said to have been "impeded."

Originally posted by shanek


It's not "moral equivalence," it's just the truth. It's obvious that Bush cares about power and keeping power, and we should judge his actions in that light just as we judge Saddam's.

Is Bush willing to hold onto power to the point that he walks into Congress and has potential opponents dragged out, tortured, and shot?

Come on, shanek. You can't possibly believe they are cast in the same light.

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmm, I scanned through and saw maybe a half-dozen anti-war types.

I believe there are openings for human shields if you feel that strongly about it. :rolleyes:


If we begin combat ops will you at least support our troops, or are they all evil too? :mad:

I support our troops 100% hammegk. I support a U.S. victory 100%. I can't make it any clearer.

I just think we are making the wrong choice. I think we are making a big mistake. I think we are going to pay a heavy price for it, too.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Segnosaur, the U.S. has made the situation such that there is no alternative but war now. That is why you won't hear me offering alternatives. The time for doable alternatives is gone. We have painted ourselves into a corner.

I'm afraid you may be right. I certainly think that war is inevitable now, no matter what Blix's report today says. The only people who could stop it would lose face if they did so.

The Iraqi people need to be liberated. But we will be the ones to do the job? Or will their liberation only be a temporary thing? Will someone else come along and put yet another yoke on them? I see nothing which guarantees this won't happen.

In fact, if recent history is any indication (Somalia, Bosnia, etc.) it almost certainly won't happen.

Korea will have no fear in spitting in our face. And they are much longer practiced at messing with us than Iraq. They will make Hussein look like a rank amateur by the time its all over. And no one will listen or care.

I don't think we aren't going to mess with Korea. We don't attack people who can actually fight back.

When this is all said and done, we must not forget that the President made some claims. As good skeptics, we must all expect him to provide the evidence for those claims at the end.

Absolutely. And so have us anti-war people. At the end of all of this, we'll see which claims were right and which were bogus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by hammegk
If we begin combat ops will you at least support our troops, or are they all evil too? :mad:

Do I support the fighting men and women of the US Armed Forces? My answer is a 100%, unhesitant, unconditional, and unrestrained YES. Just because I disagree with the actions of their Commander-in-Chief does not mean I don't support and respect those who would put their lives on the line for their country.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Is Bush willing to hold onto power to the point that he walks into Congress and has potential opponents dragged out, tortured, and shot?

Well, he doesn't seem to have any problems detaining US citizens indefinitely without the benefit of counsel.

Come on, shanek. You can't possibly believe they are cast in the same light.

I didn't say they were cast in the same light. I just said they both had a desire to gain and keep power.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
I support our troops 100% hammegk. I support a U.S. victory 100%. I can't make it any clearer.

I think supporting a US victory is irrelevant, since victory for us is pretty much certain.

I just think we are making the wrong choice. I think we are making a big mistake. I think we are going to pay a heavy price for it, too.

I agree that we're making a mistake, but I don't see us paying a heavy price for it. (Although that might be a good thing if it deters future Presidents from making similar mistakes.)

So, what heavy price do you think the US will pay and why?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


I support our troops 100% hammegk. I support a U.S. victory 100%. I can't make it any clearer.


Probably not going to be able to find anyone of any stripe who doesn't feel this way. Perhaps more so for the people that feel this issue isn't worth the lives that may be lost.
Pretty lousy to suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by shanek


So, what heavy price do you think the US will pay and why?

I've pretty much outlined that elsewhere in this topic. I see a lot of trouble for Israel in the near future. But I gather from what I saw at TruthAboutWar that that doesn't bother you too much.

I also believe that we are going to target Korea next, although I see you don't. I think we will have a difficult time getting our now alienated friends to support us there, when we otherwise would not have.

And then there are an infinite number of unseen eventualities.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LukeT




I also believe that we are going to target Korea next, although I see you don't. I think we will have a difficult time getting our now alienated friends to support us there, when we otherwise would not have.



I think it will be interesting to see how Korea's near neighbors, particularly Japan, deal with that situation...


As far as the 'support of our alienated friends' goes.. I think we are on the verge of clearing up, any misunderstanding,
with regard to our need for such support..

Originally posted by Diogenes


As far as the 'support of our alienated friends' goes.. I think we are on the verge of clearing up, any misunderstanding,
with regard to our need for such support..

Could be. I think that is Cheney's forte.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by shanek

He says they could have been cooperating more than they have, and that they're more cooperative now than they have been in the past, but in no way can the inspectors be said to have been "impeded."

How can you accept the statement that " ... but in no way can the inspectors be said to have been "impeded." .."


makes sense, in the same sentence with ..

" ..they could have been cooperating more " and " ... they're more cooperative now .." ?


I can't blame Blix for being concerned, about being out of work..

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by subgenius

Probably not going to be able to find anyone of any stripe who doesn't feel this way. Perhaps more so for the people that feel this issue isn't worth the lives that may be lost.
Pretty lousy to suggest otherwise.

(Ehem...)

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14874

I feel like I am in a gray zone. It is a very lonely feeling.

I do not like the tone of a lot of the anti-war protestors. And that is because many of them seem more anti-U.S. than anti-war.

I also do not like the way they presume to know what is in the mind of our President. Or the way they presume to know his motives.

At this juncture, I am giving Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt, and I presume he has honest and well-intentioned motives. But I am also aware that good intentions make great pavement, if you catch my drift.

I just cannot abide any bashing of my country. This is a big button hardwired inside of me, and it sure does seem to get pushed a lot lately.

I have never been against a war before. It sure is a strange perspective for me to find myself in. It is especially strange because I am mostly gut feelings right now, and I am mostly an empirical man.

I am feeling sadder than I have in a very, very long time.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Andalyn


(Ehem...)

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14874

Needle.....haystack.
Could you give me a better clue?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hmm, I scanned through and saw maybe a half-dozen anti-war types.

I believe there are openings for human shields if you feel that strongly about it. :rolleyes:


If we begin combat ops will you at least support our troops, or are they all evil too? :mad:

I am not rich. I'm not a millionaire.

I don't have the means right now to fly to Iraq. But, if I did, I would be a human shield.

I DO support the troops because they have as much right as anyone else to live. Why should we decide that they be OUR human shields? They will most likely give their lives for what they believe in. If I could be a human shield to STOP them from going, I'd do that too.

I have nothing further to say about this to you for the moment. I'll get over it. Thank you for bringing up your concern about how committed the protestors may be. I know that I don't represent all of the protestors, so it's okay for you NOT to assume that they all feel this way.

But, it's NOT okay for you to assume that some of us DON'T feel this way. You should not apply a broad brush to a class of people EVER.

G6

Originally posted by subgenius


Needle.....haystack.
Could you give me a better clue?

I believe he wants you to read the first post in his topic, and then his dialogue with Girl6 in that topic, all the while keeping in mind your post in this topic in response to hammegk's post. Sure is getting confusing in here.

Just a hunch.

Originally posted by Girl 6


I am not rich. I'm not a millionaire.

I don't have the means right now to fly to Iraq. But, if I did, I would be a human shield.

G6

I think hammegk likes to get a rise out of people, Girl6. Take it easy.

What good would it do to be a human shield? Hussein would sit you on the roof of a power plant and then our bombs would fall, you would die, and we have lost enough moderators around here already!

You would become the "America Is Evil" poster child.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by LukeT
I feel like I am in a gray zone. It is a very lonely feeling.

I do not like the tone of a lot of the anti-war protestors. And that is because many of them seem more anti-U.S. than anti-war.

I also do not like the way they presume to know what is in the mind of our President. Or the way they presume to know his motives.

At this juncture, I am giving Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt, and I presume he has honest and well-intentioned motives. But I am also aware that good intentions make great pavement, if you catch my drift.

I just cannot abide any bashing of my country. This is a big button hardwired inside of me, and it sure does seem to get pushed a lot lately.

I have never been against a war before. It sure is a strange perspective for me to find myself in. It is especially strange because I am mostly gut feelings right now, and I am mostly an empirical man.

I am feeling sadder than I have in a very, very long time.

Well, Luke, I'm sad too. I've been VERY sad since it became apparent to me that this war may be inevitable. That's because there's so much momentum going into it right now.

Every day, I read about the killings in the Middle East--the Israelis, the Palestinians, etc, etc... I really shouldn't do it. The whole thing tears me up inside. Then, I think about how lucky I am to live in a country where the occurrence of such events are rare despite the 9/11 attack.

It has ALWAYS been hard for me to be a protestor regarding war and other issues. People seem to think that because I am, I have no feelings of support for the country that I was born in.

I am a first generation American. My parents fled a dictatroship from the country they were born in to come to this country. I love this country. I would DIE for this country. But, I'm not going to compromise myself.

I believe in exercising my right to dissension. It's what this country was built on. I also believe in my right to support the things that are in alignment with who I am.

Please, please, do not misunderstand me in this matter. I'm against the war, but I'm not against the troops. I'm quite conflicted about the question regarding victory, as well.

Anyway, I just want you to know that I understand completely how you feel, LukeT.

G6

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LukeT
Segnosaur, the U.S. has made the situation such that there is no alternative but war now. That is why you won't hear me offering alternatives. The time for doable alternatives is gone. We have painted ourselves into a corner.

Ok then, what WOULD you have done, had you been in charge 12 years ago after the gulf war? (I think Saddam should have been taken care of back then, but he wasn't, and we have to play with the cards we were dealt.) Remember, Saddam has no interest in cooperating.

Originally posted by LukeT

The Iraqi people need to be liberated. But we will be the ones to do the job? Or will their liberation only be a temporary thing? Will someone else come along and put yet another yoke on them? I see nothing which guarantees this won't happen.

The U.S./U.K. and the coalition they have built seem to be the only ones willing to do the job. As for ensuring they stay free and democratic, I agree it is a problem. But the Iraqis are relatively secular (compared to other places in the middle east) and are tired of constant war. Combined with the fact that we don't have a communist Soviet Union that we have to worry about, means that we have a good shot at keeping them free.

A failure to act just because there are no guarantees would leave the western world paralyzed.
Originally posted by LukeT

We will have increased the already substantial antagonism against us in the Middle East, and will find no sympathy from our former friends and allies. Some will take this as a go-ahead to increase hostilities with Israel.

As if other countries need an excuse to increase hostilities with Israel.

Frankly, I don't think any country in the middle east (apart from Turkey and Israel) deserves to be friends of the U.S. All are brutal dictatorships. I remeber a quote someone mentioned: "It doesn't matter if they like us, as long as they fear us". If the western world doesn't stand up to dictators, they will never fear or respect us.
Originally posted by LukeT

Korea will have no fear in spitting in our face. And they are much longer practiced at messing with us than Iraq. They will make Hussein look like a rank amateur by the time its all over. And no one will listen or care.

A lack of fear of 'spitting in our face' comes from the knowledge that we fail to act when presented with tough choices.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Girl 6

I am not rich. I'm not a millionaire.

I don't have the means right now to fly to Iraq. But, if I did, I would be a human shield.


You understand that in Iraq you would used to protect Iraqi military targets, or that military equipment and personel would be moved to you for protection? That is the latest we are getting from the returning and disallusioned human shields.

If you did protect military targets in Iraq, I would suppose you would be tried in a military tribunal or at least charged with sedition. I would not have a problem with that either, if in fact you protected the Iraqi military (which conversely allows them to be safe so they can attack our troops).

Being a "human shield" is another idealistic fantasy. I'm all for the concept if you'd actually be allowed to protect a non-military hospital or orphanage etc. However, Saddam is quick to exploit these idealisitic people. Those that are left are likely surrounded by Iraqi Tank Regiments.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Girl 6

I don't have the means right now to fly to Iraq. But, if I did, I would be a human shield.

Ummm.... I respect you a little too much to really believe you'd actually do that.

Do you have any idea what's been happening with the human shields over there?

They arrived in Iraq (to much fanfare by the Iraqi government.) However, the people were upset to learn that they weren't going to be stationed in hospitals and orphanages, but instead the Iraqis wanted them in places like power plants. (Ok, who in their right mind would really believe the U.S. would target hospitals and orphanages to begin with?)

One group was upset because the power plant they were stationed in was right beside an army base.

Most have said that they would leave if war started. (Ok, what is the point of being a human sheild?)

A bunch of human sheilds have already left. (Theay came in on a double decker bus). Now, the bus is stranded in Lebanon, because they didn't budget enough money to get it back to Europe. (Ok, what brainiac would organize a trip like that without an idea of the return voyage?)

Whether you agree with the war or not, the 'human shields' should be considered an embarasment to the anti-war movement.

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Ok then, what WOULD you have done, had you been in charge 12 years ago after the gulf war? (I think Saddam should have been taken care of back then, but he wasn't, and we have to play with the cards we were dealt.) Remember, Saddam has no interest in cooperating.

My feelings at the time was that we should have gone all the way to Bahgdad and deposed Hussein then. Like you, I see.

Barring that, I would have presented Hussein with a list of sites that were to be inspected under the U.N. guidelines, and if he resisted in any way, I would have bombed those sites into nonexistence.

We had a lot more support back then, and such actions would have been tolerated, if not applauded, by our allies.

The U.S./U.K. and the coalition they have built seem to be the only ones willing to do the job. As for ensuring they stay free and democratic, I agree it is a problem. But the Iraqis are relatively secular (compared to other places in the middle east) and are tired of constant war. Combined with the fact that we don't have a communist Soviet Union that we have to worry about, means that we have a good shot at keeping them free.


Not entirely secular. Don't forget the Kurds. There are strong religious divisive issues in Iraq.

A failure to act just because there are no guarantees would leave the western world paralyzed.

I'll address this farther down, after the last comment in your post.

As if other countries need an excuse to increase hostilities with Israel.

They don't need an excuse, but they have deterrents. Those deterrents are being eroded.

Frankly, I don't think any country in the middle east (apart from Turkey and Israel) deserves to be friends of the U.S. All are brutal dictatorships. I remeber a quote someone mentioned: "It doesn't matter if they like us, as long as they fear us". If the western world doesn't stand up to dictators, they will never fear or respect us.

A lack of fear of 'spitting in our face' comes from the knowledge that we fail to act when presented with tough choices.

I agree in principle. I just don't think the attitude that we can "go it alone" is healthy or safe in the long run.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

He says they could have been cooperating more than they have, and that they're more cooperative now than they have been in the past, but in no way can the inspectors be said to have been "impeded."

You missed the following quote from the article: "But the chief weapons inspector stopped short of saying Iraq had met Security Council demands."

So Blix does not believe Iraq is fully complying. (Despite the resolution that says they must FULLY comply.)

And, although most people here don't believe the U.S. side of things, we have this quote: "We have received further intelligence from multiple sources showing that Iraq is continuing in its efforts to deceive the inspectors," Powell told a meeting of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies near Washington.

Iraq has been playing this game for years. Hide and decieve, then when things get tight, give in a little, then hide and decieve some more.

Remember, the same weapons inspection program was unable to find anything in the first round of inspections, until a defector from Iraq showed them just wear to look. I don't have that much faith in the inspectors to totally disarm Iraq.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

I've been wondering....

Since all these countries hate us, or at least think we're loud proud and crude :P

Why is the U.N. in the USA? Why not move it to one of the other member Nation's country? ;)

SSR

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LukeT

Barring that, I would have presented Hussein with a list of sites that were to be inspected under the U.N. guidelines, and if he resisted in any way, I would have bombed those sites into nonexistence.

I'm not sure how long that would have worked. It may have been effective the first couple of times, however, I'm sure people would start to question why we were targeting "innocent Iraqis" after the first few times. And what if the target of the inspections was a hospital where the U.N. suspected Iraq was working on biological weapons? Would you bomb it?

Another problem is how you define "resisted"? A 5 minute delay in getting into the building? A 1 hour delay?

And who would be the one to say "Ok, they're resisting. Launch the attack". If it were an American in charge, they would assume it was "imperialist agression". If it were someone from the U.N., they may never attack.

Look at the way people are debating now, claiming Iraq is in "full compliance" and is "increasing its efforts to comply" (notice the conflict). Shanek posted a link to an article which he claimed Iraq wasn't impeding inspections, but the second line in the article quotes Blix in saying that they aren't living up to resolutions.

[SFB]

Does anyone here seriously believe the US has evidence which we cannot share (for whatever reason) of WMD? Evidence we will share with the world at some point in time? Cannot GWB share an iota in support of his intentions?

Sorry if this has been brought up already.

BTW, I'm on the fence on the issue (still).

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by SFB
Does anyone here seriously believe the US has evidence which we cannot share (for whatever reason) of WMD? Evidence we will share with the world at some point in time? Cannot GWB share an iota in support of his intentions?

Sorry if this has been brought up already.

BTW, I'm on the fence on the issue (still).

I'm guessing he has shared evidence with other nations. Why in the world would all these (seldom named) nations be in support of taking out Saddam?

Again, only a guess.

Originally posted by SFB
Does anyone here seriously believe the US has evidence which we cannot share (for whatever reason) of WMD? Evidence we will share with the world at some point in time? Cannot GWB share an iota in support of his intentions?

Sorry if this has been brought up already.

BTW, I'm on the fence on the issue (still).

I have stated this concern a couple of time earlier in the topic, SFB. But it doesn't hurt to raise it again.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'm not sure how long that would have worked. It may have been effective the first couple of times, however, I'm sure people would start to question why we were targeting "innocent Iraqis" after the first few times. And what if the target of the inspections was a hospital where the U.N. suspected Iraq was working on biological weapons? Would you bomb it?

Yes. I would bomb it. I would give warning to evacuate it, inspect any large vehicles which participate in the evacuation. And then bomb it into nonexistence.

Another problem is how you define "resisted"? A 5 minute delay in getting into the building? A 1 hour delay?

Knock knock.

Who is it?

U.N. weapons inspectors. Open up.

Just a minute.

That's all you've got.


And who would be the one to say "Ok, they're resisting. Launch the attack". If it were an American in charge, they would assume it was "imperialist agression". If it were someone from the U.N., they may never attack.

Like I said, we had a lot more support back then. I don't care if people would get the impression that the U.S. was in charge instead of the U.N. There was no mistake who was in charge during the war, so what's the difference? We still had a strong coalition.

Look at the way people are debating now, claiming Iraq is in "full compliance" and is "increasing its efforts to comply" (notice the conflict). Shanek posted a link to an article which he claimed Iraq wasn't impeding inspections, but the second line in the article quotes Blix in saying that they aren't living up to resolutions.

Yep. That annoys me, too.

[Andalyn]

Let's try to remember what the UN Weapons Inspectors primary role was: To inspect and observe Iraq's own voluntary and agreed upon destruction of WMD. To assist, when possible and prudent.

They weren't supposed to play hide and seek, nor were they equipped to do so. This whole deal has "morphed" into a detective game. Most people lose sight of that, or are comfortable with it.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Andalyn
Let's try to remember what the UN Weapons Inspectors primary role was: To inspect and observe Iraq's own voluntary and agreed upon destruction of WMD. To assist, when possible and prudent.

They weren't supposed to play hide and seek, nor were they equipped to do so. This whole deal has "morphed" into a detective game. Most people lose sight of that, or are comfortable with it.

This is not the only "morphed" aspect of this issue. (SFB stays on fence.)

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by LukeT


I have stated this concern a couple of time earlier in the topic, SFB. But it doesn't hurt to raise it again.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Unfortunately, intelligence agents could be put at serious risk if conclusive evidence is presented to the public. As an ex-miltary man you must acknowledge that the American public does not have the right to know everything that its government does, particularly when the nondisclosure of those acts serve to protect the American public.

America is damned either way. People are suffering under a dangerous leader, and we have been sitting idly by for too long. Like you said, I think action is the only option at this point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
I've pretty much outlined that elsewhere in this topic. I see a lot of trouble for Israel in the near future. But I gather from what I saw at TruthAboutWar that that doesn't bother you too much.

It's not that it doesn't bother me, it's that I don't really see us being able to change the situation. It's something I think they're going to have to work out on their own.

I also believe that we are going to target Korea next, although I see you don't. I think we will have a difficult time getting our now alienated friends to support us there, when we otherwise would not have.

Time will tell, but I agree if we do move for Korea we will have an even harder time getting support.

And then there are an infinite number of unseen eventualities.

Of course.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by LukeT

Yes. I would bomb it. I would give warning to evacuate it, inspect any large vehicles which participate in the evacuation. And then bomb it into nonexistence.

This is where i would respectfully have to disagree. I don't have any examples to back this up, but bombing a hospital (even an empty one) would be a public relations nightmare for the U.N., and give all sorts of amunition to the dictators in the middle east. "See? they're bombing our hospitals, and now our sick people are dying."

Even now, if there is a war, the U.S. will go through great pains to avoid hitting civilian targets.
Originally posted by LukeT

Knock knock.

Who is it?

U.N. weapons inspectors. Open up.

Just a minute.

That's all you've got.

I hope you noticed a contradition between "Just a minute" and "Giving warning" (as you stated in the hospital example).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diogenes
How can you accept the statement that " ... but in no way can the inspectors be said to have been "impeded." .."

makes sense, in the same sentence with ..

" ..they could have been cooperating more " and " ... they're more cooperative now .." ?

Not being cooperative is not the same thing as impeding.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Girl 6
I am not rich. I'm not a millionaire.

You're not??? In that case, I withdraw the marriage proposal!!! :D

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Andalyn


You understand that in Iraq you would used to protect Iraqi military targets, or that military equipment and personel would be moved to you for protection? That is the latest we are getting from the returning and disallusioned human shields.

If you did protect military targets in Iraq, I would suppose you would be tried in a military tribunal or at least charged with sedition. I would not have a problem with that either, if in fact you protected the Iraqi military (which conversely allows them to be safe so they can attack our troops).

Being a "human shield" is another idealistic fantasy. I'm all for the concept if you'd actually be allowed to protect a non-military hospital or orphanage etc. However, Saddam is quick to exploit these idealisitic people. Those that are left are likely surrounded by Iraqi Tank Regiments.

Oh yeah... I'm idealistic. :)

Thanks for giving me a reality check. I think I needed it. I was just a little incensed with hamm's response. Of course, I would never do this without checking with you guys. :) I value your skeptical input.

Thanks for grounding me.

G6

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


Not being cooperative is not the same thing as impeding.
In this case it is.

The weapons inspectors are not 'detectives'. It is their job to verify what has (or hasn't) been done by the Iraqis. To do that, they need to have the Iraqis cooperate.

If the Iraqis don't cooperate, they are impeding the process.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by shanek


Not being cooperative is not the same thing as impeding.

I believe the original post in this thread about not cooperating was speaking of the episode in the 90s when Saddam refused to allow inspectors anywhere. The inspectors themselves said their jobs were worthless because they could not be performed.

Then Clinton said, "OK, whatever." And the whole inspection thing was dropped. Now Bush is trying to uphold the original resolution and he is failing because Saddam is stalling for time.

Saddam keeps giving inspectors just enough support to garner hope with everyone who still thinks inspections will help, but not enough to actually make a difference.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
You missed the following quote from the article: "But the chief weapons inspector stopped short of saying Iraq had met Security Council demands."

So Blix does not believe Iraq is fully complying.

Sure. He isn't fully complying. But how is he IMPEDING???

Remember, the same weapons inspection program was unable to find anything in the first round of inspections, until a defector from Iraq showed them just wear to look.

And if it's the same defector I'm thinking of, they didn't find anything because the defector turned out to be lying (putting the "defect" in "defector," I would say).

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Girl 6


Oh yeah... I'm idealistic. :)

Thanks for giving me a reality check. I think I needed it. I was just a little incensed with hamm's response. Of course, I would never do this without checking with you guys. :) I value your skeptical input.

Thanks for grounding me.

G6

Not a problem my dear. I'd probably travel to California to stop you. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Look at the way people are debating now, claiming Iraq is in "full compliance" and is "increasing its efforts to comply" (notice the conflict). Shanek posted a link to an article which he claimed Iraq wasn't impeding inspections, but the second line in the article quotes Blix in saying that they aren't living up to resolutions.

Hey, come on! I NEVER said Iraq was in full compliance of the UN Resolution! In fact, if you'll reread the post, I SAID IRAQ WASN'T FULLY COOPERATING!!!

Geez...

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


GWB has been quite happy to sign the death warrants of possibly innocent people for political gain.

While nowhere in the league of outright evil as Saddam, GWB is not above using murder to achieve his aim of power.


Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

[shanek]

Originally posted by tjwojo
People are suffering under a dangerous leader,

And the Iraqis have it even worse!!! (Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist saying it...)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Baker

Originally posted by a_unique_person


GWB has been quite happy to sign the death warrants of possibly innocent people for political gain.

While nowhere in the league of outright evil as Saddam, GWB is not above using murder to achieve his aim of power.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that aup was referring to the number of people killed in texas under the death penalty.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

In this case it is.

The weapons inspectors are not 'detectives'. It is their job to verify what has (or hasn't) been done by the Iraqis. To do that, they need to have the Iraqis cooperate.

If the Iraqis don't cooperate, they are impeding the process.

Then you're redefining the word "impede." If the Iraqis do absolutely nothing, then they're not cooperating with the inspectors, but they're not impeding them, either. So it's even less so if they're partially cooperating, and expecially if they're mostly cooperating as Blix says they are. To define "impede" as "not giving someone 100% cooperation" is to distort the word beyond all usability.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tjwojo
I believe the original post in this thread about not cooperating was speaking of the episode in the 90s when Saddam refused to allow inspectors anywhere. The inspectors themselves said their jobs were worthless because they could not be performed.

If that's the case then it may be true; I was under the impression we were talking about the current inspections under Blix.

But according to Scott Ritter, the previous head of UN inspections in Iraq, they did eventually get 100% access.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek


Then you're redefining the word "impede." If the Iraqis do absolutely nothing, then they're not cooperating with the inspectors, but they're not impeding them, either. So it's even less so if they're partially cooperating, and expecially if they're mostly cooperating as Blix says they are. To define "impede" as "not giving someone 100% cooperation" is to distort the word beyond all usability.
If you want to go by the dictionary definition, they yes, assuming impede is the same as non-cooperation is wrong.

This is a specific case, dealing with weapons inspections, where the inspections require Iraqi cooperation. (I'm not suggestiong an update to Websters dictionary or anything.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by shanek

But according to Scott Ritter, the previous head of UN inspections in Iraq, they did eventually get 100% access.
He may have said that. I don't know. (I don't have any reason to doubt you.)

But, if he said that, he was wrong.

I remember reading an account written by a weapons inspector, where she found a document that mentioned biological warfare during an inspection tour. She wanted to take the document with her, but the Iraqi guards said she couldn't.

Then she wanted to make a photocopy, which the guards said she could, but then later said the photocopier was magically broken.

So, they agreed to put the document into a plastic bag, put a UN seal on it, and have it inspected later. The document disappeared.

Now, this was one incident. But the fact that there is a document out there that may uncover Iraqi bioweapons programs that was hidden by inspectors shows that they were not getting 100% access. Maybe 99%, but not 100%

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by shanek


Then you're redefining the word "impede." If the Iraqis do absolutely nothing, then they're not cooperating with the inspectors, but they're not impeding them, either. So it's even less so if they're partially cooperating, and expecially if they're mostly cooperating as Blix says they are. To define "impede" as "not giving someone 100% cooperation" is to distort the word beyond all usability.


It is the inspection process (and peace process, for that matter) to which Saddam is an impediment. Blix et al are in the process of confirmation; non-cooperation is impeding the confirmation process.

Is he actively impeding them (movements, monitors and such) as he was under the Clinton presidency? No, to do so now would only hasten his removal (read as demise), if such a thing is possible.

Segnosaur, my "just a minute" and giving a warning were not contradictory. The warning was in response to what I believe would be an extreme case, i.e. hospitals.

The "just a minute" applies to Saddam's palaces and weapons making plants.

In 1991, we basically had a mandate. A strong coalition. We surrendered that mandate. The U.N. completely capitulated to Hussein in 1998. And we surrendered, too. We "settled" for containment, rather than adherence. The time for enforcement slipped away a long time ago.

It required serious resolve to do what needed to be done. The very lack of which is what leads me to believe we won't follow through on rebuilding Iraq and establishing a democracy either. Who can say what will happen if we have a change in Administration, or a majority change in Congress, in 2004? 2008?

I see nothing but chaos in Iraq's future.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that aup was referring to the number of people killed in texas under the death penalty.

If that is the case then it would be an argument on capital punishment.
Instead of calling Bush a murder.
I’m not familiar with the cases Bush dealt with as governor but it’s usually just him overturning a punishment or not that has already been made.

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Who cares is Saddam impeded the inspectiosn, that's not the wording of the resolution.

"Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, "immediately, unconditionally and actively,"

Iraq has not done this:

"However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes."

Of course Iraq backed down, but why deny the fly-overs in the first place? Saving face? Or to give you a bit more time to move what you need to move?

Further, even when Iraq cooperates, it does nothing more than highlight the other areas in which they are decieving the UN.


"Mr. President, Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programs. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.

This provision of names prompts two reflections. The first is that with such detailed information existing regarding those who took part in the unilateral destruction, surely there must also remain records regarding the quantities and other data concerning the various items destroyed.""

And Sure Saddam has destroyed some missles:

"However, I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break."

Oh sure, you know, it a holiday, can't destroy missles today!

And proof that Iraq still has some chem weapons. When I think of the words destroyed, disposed of, I don't think burried intact.


"To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs, comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs."

Does anyone here really think Saddam is doing anything more than thumbing his nose at the U.N. He's standing up for every country that doesn't want the U.N. to have power. He's shown time and time again, that U.N. officials, such as Mr. Blix here will stare directly at a violation of thier own rules and pretend not to see it. All Blix said was, Saddam is doing the bare minimum nessarary to appear to be complying while continuing to not comply in fact, and well I think if we had more time he might come around.

Asking for more time is just another way of saying, we are powerless, but perhapse if we wait long enough his goals and our will be the same and we can claim victory. Wow, kinda sounds like pschics, keep guessing and eventually you'll get a hit that you can claim as a victory...

SSR

All quotes are from a CNN transcript found at: Blix's speech (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

If you want to go by the dictionary definition, they yes, assuming impede is the same as non-cooperation is wrong.

This is a specific case, dealing with weapons inspections, where the inspections require Iraqi cooperation. (I'm not suggestiong an update to Websters dictionary or anything.)

I don't care. Words have meaning. Politicians have twisted the meanings of too many words too many times. That's what newspeak is about. And "impede" is a strong word intended to imply something that just isn't going on.

[shanek]

Originally posted by no one in particular
It is the inspection process

Oh! It's the inspection process!!! Silly me. Pray tell, what is the difference between an inspection and an inspection process?

Especially given that EVERYTHING is a process! :rolleyes:

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh! It's the inspection process!!! Silly me. Pray tell, what is the difference between an inspection and an inspection process?

Especially given that EVERYTHING is a process! :rolleyes:

LOL!! :D

I could even hear your voice when I read this! :D

Sorry that I'm not rich or a millionaire! ;)

G6

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Segnosaur, my "just a minute" and giving a warning were not contradictory. The warning was in response to what I believe would be an extreme case, i.e. hospitals.

Okay, so you would let people evacuate a hospital...to where? And what if they were in intensive care units and it was too dangerous to move them?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh! It's the inspection process!!! Silly me. Pray tell, what is the difference between an inspection and an inspection process?


Were exactly did I type, or even imply, that the inspections were not a process?

The whole point of the current round of inspections, as described by 1441, is to confirm disarmament. My wild arse guess is that you have read the resolution and understand the point of the inspectors, but maybe not.

You asked several times how Saddam Hussein was impeding the inspections, please, refute the following statements:

It is the inspection process (and peace process, for that matter) to which Saddam is an impediment. Blix et al are in the process of confirmation; non-cooperation is impeding the confirmation process.

If you think that the inspectors are supposed to be looking for wmd, then you would be correct in your assertion that they have no impediment (or maybe not considering stories of set-up traffic jams and threatened scientist, the former being a stretch and the latter being probable). If you understand that the inspectors are only confirmation cooperation then non-cooperation constitutes an impediment to that process. Especially since the terms cooperate and impede are directly opposing concepts.

edited fer spellin' -n- grammur

[RichardR]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Segnosaur provided one link. I'll dig up some others if you like - interviews with Iraqi refugees, interviews with Iraqis in Syria, interviews with Iraqis in Iraq.

Basically it seems that the people there have much the same opinion of Saddam Hussein that I do.

Here's one link interviewing Iraqis in Syria: http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/5266354.htm Pixy, you said:

“Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion?”

Yes, but to quote shanek (above), who put it very well:

“One could certainly find it reasonable to conclude that the opinions of political refugees are not indicative of the overall opinions of the rest of their native population.”

The Iraqi people in iraq may well support an invasion, I don’t really know. I think it is an assumption, though.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by RichardR
The Iraqi people in iraq may well support an invasion, I don’t really know. I think it is an assumption, though.

According to this report by the ICG (http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837):

The overwhelming sentiment among those interviewed was one of frustration and impatience with the status quo. Perhaps most widespread is a desire to return to "normalcy" and put an end to the abnormal domestic and international situation they have been living through. A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it.

Now, can we trust the International Crisis Group? Two things that I think I know about them is that international peace is their goal and they do not even list the U.S. as one of their supporting nations. Therefore I do not think they are just pandering to the U.S. They seem as balanced as a group can get and I am unable to find anything negative about them, except the extremist groups that support them (ANSWER, Ford and such).

[fishbob]

Shanek sez: So, what heavy price do you think the US will pay and why?

Canadians don't trust us, Mexico feels betrayed by us, France hates us, Germany likes us less and less. A good percentage of the British citizens don't trust us. So Blair's days are numbered. We are pissing off our allies just as fast as we can.

No support from Russia. Japan has remained pretty quiet about this. The Islamic nations hate us, and most of the rest of the world thinks we are a bunch of ignorant cowboys. I'm not saying we should or should not invade Iraq. I am saying that the preparations and methods our leaders used were bungling and inept. I am also saying we have to support our folks in harms way. I have 2 nephews over there already or on the way.

Luke is right - we are painted into a corner and have no choice but to invade. We will have terrorist suicide bombers after us for the next 50 years if we invade. We will have terrorist suicide bombers after us for the next 50 years if we do not. Or maniacs with anthrax or some other damn thing. If my nephews make it home OK, they will not have peace and prosperity to greet them.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by no one in particular


According to this report by the ICG (http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837):



Now, can we trust the International Crisis Group? Two things that I think I know about them is that international peace is their goal and they do not even list the U.S. as one of their supporting nations. Therefore I do not think they are just pandering to the U.S. They seem as balanced as a group can get and I am unable to find anything negative about them, except the extremist groups that support them (ANSWER, Ford and such). An interesting article. Thanks.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by RichardR
Pixy, you said:

“Might one point out that apparently the Iraqi people support an invasion?”

Yes, but to quote shanek (above), who put it very well:

“One could certainly find it reasonable to conclude that the opinions of political refugees are not indicative of the overall opinions of the rest of their native population.”

The Iraqi people in iraq may well support an invasion, I don’t really know. I think it is an assumption, though. Did you actually read the article I provided a link for?

It's not talking about refugees, but about Iraqis who are in Syria on business or for religious reasons (certain Islamic religious festivals are banned in Iraq).
"We want the Americans to come, and if they come tomorrow it will not be too soon," said an unemployed 23-year old visiting from the southern Iraqi city of Basra. "People are nervous, people are afraid, we don't want war. But do we want to change the government and we will welcome anyone who comes to get rid of Saddam."Pretty straightforward, I'd say.

And if you want to dismiss the opinions of the political refugess, remember that we're talking about a country of 24 million that has generated 4 million refugees. I'd suggest that this indicates there's a problem.

[espritch]

I've had mixed feeling about this war since Bush first started pushing it. I don't like Bush. I don't like war. And I immensely dislike the idea of preemptive war as an official policy. But after thinking about this awhile, I have come to the conclusion that we really don’t have any other option.

I see nothing but chaos in Iraq's future.

Perhaps. But if the US does not act, what exactly do you see in Iraq’s future?

Before Desert Storm, Iraq was in the hands of a vicious dictator who used his own people as cannon fodder to extend his power. After Desert Storm, thanks to Bush Senior's failure to form a coalition willing to follow through and take Saddam out, Iraq was in the hands of this same dictator and, on top of it, burdened with international sanctions (imposed as a response to the Iraqi government’s persistent impediment of efforts of the original weapons inspectors) that have impoverished everyone in the country except Saddam and his friends. The US and Britain have, for the last 12 years, maintained no fly zones to protect the Kurds. The Iraqis have repeatedly fired on our planes. So we have been spending money and risking the lives of our pilots for the last 12 years to maintain this lousy excuse for a status quo.

So what are the options? Maintain the present status quo and hope he dies or gets overthrown? If he hasn’t been overthrown by now it isn’t going to happen. His likely successor would be his eldest son, a man who is, among other things, a serial rapist (or so I have heard). Of course, I don’t think at this point that this is really an option anymore.

Keep playing the inspection game? Saddam is quite willing to play this indefinitely. He’s been playing it for the last 12 years and it has cost him nothing (it has been costly for the average Iraqi, but we all know Saddam doesn’t care much about the average Iraqi). This is really just a variation on the status quo.

Drop sanctions and the no fly zones and leave Saddam to his own devices? We might as well nuke Tel Aviv ourselves and save him the trouble (and maybe New York while we’re at it). I really don’t see this option as viable.

The remaining option is war. It would be expensive. It would certainly be costly in lives (Iraqi if not American). And if we are unwilling or unable to follow up afterwards to create a stable democracy, it could certainly lead to chaos. But of all the options mentioned, this is the only one that I see offering any real hope of a positive resolution of this situation for either the US or Iraq.

In the long run, I suspect the US will be judged not on the war but on the peace. War is the easy part. The peace will be a lot harder and require a bigger and much longer commitment. If we are willing to see it through (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) and actually succeed in establishing prosperous and functional democracies in these countries, then this could turn out well in the end. Although I’m not sure how this can be done (and have serious doubts that Bush is the man to do it), there is precedence: look at Germany and Japan.

In any event, I can’t really see one less Saddam in the world as a bad thing.

[Tesserat]

I don’t think that Canadians distrust the US. I think that they distrust Bush, something that I think they have in common with a lot of Americans. The position of the Canadian government is that they’d support a US invasion of Iraq if santioned by the UN. I agree with this position, not because I think that the US needs the approval of the rest of the world, but because I think that these actions are more effective with the support of the world community. By all means, let’s start cleaning up the world. There are a few nations in Africa who desperately need their dictatorship regimes overthrown. I agree with the idea of going after the small fry first; if you do that consistantly, some of the larger concerns will quietly start to clean up their act enough to avoid conflict.

I agree that the US has a right to protect their citizens. If they don’t agree with the rest of the world that enough evidence has been shown that Iraq is a danger to the US, then they shouldn’t be surprised that they don’t get much support.
But if they truly believe that Iraq is a danger to the citizens of the US, then I believe that the US government has the right (and the mandate) to neutralize the threat.

Luke, I'm also nervous about the US's willingness to follow through if they overthrow the Iraqi dictatorship.

If the US Gov. is going to war to liberate the Iraqi people, then I think that they MUST have the support of the world community. Anytime a nation is willing to kill a lot of people, they better have a damn good reason.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tesserat
The position of the Canadian government is that they’d support a US invasion of Iraq if santioned by the UN.Which is a safe position to take because this is clearly not going to happen.If the US Gov. is going to war to liberate the Iraqi people, then I think that they MUST have the support of the world community.The world has a say in whether Iraq poses a threat to world peace or not. But they have no say in whether the Iraqi people should be liberated. That's the right of the Iraqi people to decide.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by PixyMisa


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tesserat
The position of the Canadian government is that they’d support a US invasion of Iraq if santioned by the UN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is a safe position to take because this is clearly not going to happen.


I agree, it is safe. From what I've heard of the Canadian position, they would vote with the Americans for going in, and if the vote didn't pass, they'd abide by the UN vote. It's kinda like putting your support in the legal system, even if it produces less than stellar results. And it'll probably get everyone pissed off at us, the US because we don't back them all the way, and the UN because we'll vote with the Americans.



Originally posted by PixyMisa

The world has a say in whether Iraq poses a threat to world peace or not. But they have no say in whether the Iraqi people should be liberated. That's the right of the Iraqi people to decide.


Agreed, I was writing sloppy. How will they let the world know when they decide?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Agreed, I was writing sloppy. How will they let the world know when they decide? Check no one in particular's post further up this thread.

Of course, the Iraqis are working under the slight handicap that if they come out publically against Saddam Hussein they will be imprisoned, tortured or killed. Or set on fire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/07/wagon07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/07/ixnewstop.html) if they're Kurds.

Originally posted by shanek


Okay, so you would let people evacuate a hospital...to where? And what if they were in intensive care units and it was too dangerous to move them?

So, we are in the minutae now, eh? ;)

This exemplifies where we went wrong 12 years ago. We ran a half-war, not a total war. I mean, since when does the victor ask permission to inspect a site? Since when does the victor need to ask for cooperation?

The first time we allowed the Iraqis to give us the runaround during the inpsections is the day we started to surrender our mandate, and is the day when we started paving the road to the present circumstances.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by fishbob
Canadians don't trust usThis is news?Mexico feels betrayed by usHmm. But the Mexicans still want to move to the U.S. France hates usThis comes as a suprise? France hates everyone, including France.Germany likes us less and less.Pay no attention to the German chancellor; he's just trying to shore up support for his party (fast evaporating) and distract people from Germany's economic problems. I'm not sure, though, exactly how the "German street" feels.A good percentage of the British citizens don't trust us.As has been true for over 200 years.So Blair's days are numbered.I half-expect him to become the Tory PM at the next election.We are pissing off our allies just as fast as we can.Hey, I still like America. Except when Americans whine about no-one liking them.No support from Russia.Well, no. Russia is run by thugs. At least they're honest thugs, though, and admit that they're only looking out for themselves.Japan has remained pretty quiet about this.Well, that's Japan. I think they're more concerned with North Korea right now.The Islamic nations hate usWell, duh. The Islamic nations hate freedom, women, and civilisation in general. Of course they hate America.and most of the rest of the world thinks we are a bunch of ignorant cowboys.Most of Europe - apart from France, Germany, and something called "Belgium" - has come out in support of America. China and India are involved in their own affairs. Africa is too mired in its own problems to care one way or another. I haven't heard much from South America. Pakistan is actually working with America, which is something of a surprise. Kuwait and Israel are vocal fans. New Zealand has come out vaguely in sort of wishy-washy support. And Antarctica wants more fish, if that's OK.I'm not saying we should or should not invade Iraq. I am saying that the preparations and methods our leaders used were bungling and inept.But the recent "diplomacy" has at least been honest, whereas diplomacy is normally bungling, inept, and two-faced.I am also saying we have to support our folks in harms way. I have 2 nephews over there already or on the way.I truly hope they come back safely, and soon.Luke is right - we are painted into a corner and have no choice but to invade. We will have terrorist suicide bombers after us for the next 50 years if we invade. We will have terrorist suicide bombers after us for the next 50 years if we do not. Or maniacs with anthrax or some other damn thing.I think President Bush has done something very necessary: he has called the bluff. He has called Saddam's bluff, and Chirac's, and the U.N's. He has exposed them for what they are - hollow - for those who hadn't already realised.If my nephews make it home OK, they will not have peace and prosperity to greet them. Peace? When has there been peace in the world?

As for prosperity - you make that yourself.

Looks like St. Patrick's Day is go day. Hope Saddam likes green beer.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
Before Desert Storm, Iraq was in the hands of a vicious dictator who used his own people as cannon fodder to extend his power.

With American support. Up until Desert Storm, Iraq was an ally of the US. Amazing how many people forget that.

Keep playing the inspection game? Saddam is quite willing to play this indefinitely.

I'm sorry, but it's not Saddam who's playing games here. When Saddam showed them the remnants of missiles that had been destroyed, and Blix said that they had already been destroyed, George III said, "See? There's some missiles they were hiding!" Every time Saddam opens up an area and the inspectors go in and find no weapons, that just proves that the weapons are somewhere else or he moved them. Nothing will ever satisfy him that the weapons are gone.

Not that Iraq is completely blameless in this, but with King George they can't win for losing.

Although I’m not sure how this can be done (and have serious doubts that Bush is the man to do it), there is precedence: look at Germany and Japan.

Germany is hardly a good example. Think Berlin Wall. As for Japan, it was really the fact that we didn't lump on the same kind of sanctions like we did Germany after WWI (there's a failure for you) and their economy allowed them to grow into what they are today.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
Germany is hardly a good example. Think Berlin Wall.Nonsense.

Germany is a perfect example. On the Allied side, economic boom that lasts for decades. Wealth and freedom. On the Soviet side, forty years of depression and opression.

Who's responsible for the success of West Germany? America.As for Japan, it was really the fact that we didn't lump on the same kind of sanctions like we did Germany after WWI (there's a failure for you) and their economy allowed them to grow into what they are today.Nope. Japan was a starving train-wreck by the end of WWII, and still under the rule of armed thugs. Under American protection, they rewrote their constitution, rebuilt their government from top to bottom, and built an economy so successful that it became a cliche. Until it got dizzy and fell over a few years back, anyway.

Who's responsible for Pokemon and Playstations? America.

The war reparations following from WWI were mind-bogglingly stupid, though. But so was the whole of WWI, beginning to end.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
With American support. Up until Desert Storm, Iraq was an ally of the US. Amazing how many people forget that.
Yup. When Iraq used chemical warfare against Iran, we were cheering for them. (We were still pissed off about the hostages.) I guess WOMD's are only bad if they threaten YOU!

[PixyMisa]

The enemy of my enemy turns out to also be my enemy more often than not.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Tricky

I guess WOMD's are only bad if they threaten YOU!

Yup. Note we are not attacking Britain. I assume they still have quite an arsenal.

Point being, why take notice of weapons that pose no threat at that time?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
And if you want to dismiss the opinions of the political refugess, remember that we're talking about a country of 24 million that has generated 4 million refugees. I'd suggest that this indicates there's a problem. I never said there wasn't a problem. ;)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Tesserat
The position of the Canadian government is that they?d support a US invasion of Iraq if santioned by the UN.
Actually, Canada has been sitting on the fence so long, that they are going to change our national symbol from the Maple Leaf to the Hemmoroid.

Officially, we say we want UN backing. (And we've even tried to put a resolution through the UN for an actual deadline, which failed.) But, we've also sent another ship to the gulf region. (Well, ok, its helicopter crashed on deck and it had to turn around, but we had good intentions.)

When asked whether we would allow are ships there to be used in the event of a war, they gave a firm "Maybe".

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

When asked whether we would allow are ships there to be used in the event of a war, they gave a firm "Maybe".

:D LOL! Well, it's better than others, maybe.

[Mel]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm curious...in what way does Saddam "stand up to us"?

I believe it was for Saddam's previous birthday jubilee that he 'opened' a new mosque. For the life of me, I can't remember the NAME of this mosque but I do recall it was largely dedicated to honoring Iraq's victory against the USA in the Gulf War.

The entranceway to the mosque includes a lovely floor mosaic of former President George Bush. Real subtle, huh?

----

I agree with everything Luke has said.

It's not that there are NOT excellent reasons for ridding the world of Saddam OR liberating the Iraqi citizens..... the real question is whether THIS is the war we should be fighting at THIS TIME.

Bush has totally bungled things since we "won" in Afghanistan. Won what? Scattered Al Qaeda into Pakistan & who knows where else? Slowly but surely, we see the Warlords regaining some nasty old tactics and so they are fitted with new arms.

Bush allowed the easy victory in Kabul to cloud his reasoning. Iraq shouldn't be much harder to overrun than Afghanistan was.

Almost without exception, Muslim & Arab voices have declared that the "reason" for 9/11 was an intense hatred for America's refusal to REALLY use its weight to resolve the Palestinian problem.

Bush's neverending wishy-washyness over TERRORISM in Israel only serves to provide more fuel for the fire. The Muslims/Arabs are more convinced than ever that America will continue to play favorites when it comes to the Jews. More & more terrorists will take the place of each ONE killed by an Israeli soldier. The backlash finally affected Americans in an "in your face" way on 9/11.

Will 'saving' the Muslim/Arab world from Saddam REALLY resolve the reason for their hatred of us? After Iraq..... we go after Iran. Perhaps, we'll point our laser at Saudi Arabia after that????

Will we EVER have the stomach to address the ROOT CAUSE of terrorism in the Middle East/Persian Gulf? Hopefully we will...... BEFORE it's too costly.

I am NOT anti-war..... I just happen to feel THIS is not the war we need to be fighting at this time. And the clock ticks closer & closer to March 17. What a treacherous can of worms we are about to open.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Mel
It's not that there are NOT excellent reasons for ridding the world of Saddam OR liberating the Iraqi citizens..... the real question is whether THIS is the war we should be fighting at THIS TIME.Why is that the real question?Bush has totally bungled things since we "won" in Afghanistan. Won what? Scattered Al Qaeda into Pakistan & who knows where else? Slowly but surely, we see the Warlords regaining some nasty old tactics and so they are fitted with new arms.Well, Afghanistan is a heck of a lot better off than it was under the Taliban. Not that that is hard.Bush allowed the easy victory in Kabul to cloud his reasoning. Iraq shouldn't be much harder to overrun than Afghanistan was.True.Almost without exception, Muslim & Arab voices have declared that the "reason" for 9/11 was an intense hatred for America's refusal to REALLY use its weight to resolve the Palestinian problem.

Bush's neverending wishy-washyness over TERRORISM in Israel only serves to provide more fuel for the fire. The Muslims/Arabs are more convinced than ever that America will continue to play favorites when it comes to the Jews. More & more terrorists will take the place of each ONE killed by an Israeli soldier. The backlash finally affected Americans in an "in your face" way on 9/11.Huh? So what are you suggesting? Shoot all the Palestinians?Will 'saving' the Muslim/Arab world from Saddam REALLY resolve the reason for their hatred of us?Of course not. It will merely give 24 million people trapped under the rule of a brutal tyrant the chance for a better life. And those peaceful middle-east nations like Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE some relief.After Iraq..... we go after Iran. Perhaps, we'll point our laser at Saudi Arabia after that?There are problems with the governments of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, but nothing as pressing as with Iraq.Will we EVER have the stomach to address the ROOT CAUSE of terrorism in the Middle East/Persian Gulf? Hopefully we will...... BEFORE it's too costly.The root causes of terrorism are ignorance and hatred. How were you planning to address these?I am NOT anti-war..... I just happen to feel THIS is not the war we need to be fighting at this time. And the clock ticks closer & closer to March 17.Well, yes. And after March 17, the clock will tick away from it.What a treacherous can of worms we are about to open.Worms? Like this one?

[Mel]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Why is that the real question?

Because at this point I don't believe there's ANY question whether there WILL be a war in Iraq.


Well, Afghanistan is a heck of a lot better off than it was under the Taliban. Not that that is hard.

Better, yes. The fact of the matter is that up until 9/12/2001 the oppression in Afghanistan by the Taliban was NOT cause for much concern amongst the civilized world. Sure, there was a little outrage over them blowing up the Buddha statues, but the world was pretty happy to mind its own business otherwise.


Huh? So what are you suggesting? Shoot all the Palestinians?

Give me a break.... is that any ANSWER??? After over 50 years of terrible loses on BOTH sides, that country NEEDS someone to go in and "force" both sides to reach a peace settlement. It's inexcusable for the USA to keep walking away and letting them work things out when they're ready.


Of course not. It will merely give 24 million people trapped under the rule of a brutal tyrant the chance for a better life. And those peaceful middle-east nations like Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE some relief.

Has Saddam threatened Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE recently that I haven't heard about?


There are problems with the governments of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, but nothing as pressing as with Iraq.

I diasagree. I believe Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR exporter of terrorists, and they gladly fund terrorism against their favorite scapegoat targets..... Israel and America.


The root causes of terrorism are ignorance and hatred. How were you planning to address these?

Ignorance & hatred is nutured by groups that directly benefit. To combat THAT, you must address the reason groups create these scapegoats.

Why WOULD any group be willing or eager to breed malcontents??? TO shift the focus away from their OWN shortcomings and from having to take personal repsonsibilty for their people's anger.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Mel
Because at this point I don't believe there's ANY question whether there WILL be a war in Iraq.Well, yes. Unless Saddam suddenly makes a run for the door, and Iraq essentially surrenders in his absence. But I think the real question is rather: What are we going to do after the war? The war is the easy bit. We have to work out how to deal with the peace.Better, yes. The fact of the matter is that up until 9/12/2001 the oppression in Afghanistan by the Taliban was NOT cause for much concern amongst the civilized world. Sure, there was a little outrage over them blowing up the Buddha statues, but the world was pretty happy to mind its own business otherwise.But that's not a good thing. Why the heck should countries be allowed to enslave, rape, starve, torture and murder their own people? Isn't the U.N. supposed to, like, stop that sort of thing?Give me a break.... is that any ANSWER?No, obviously not.After over 50 years of terrible loses on BOTH sides, that country NEEDS someone to go in and "force" both sides to reach a peace settlement. It's inexcusable for the USA to keep walking away and letting them work things out when they're ready.Well, that's nice and all, but how do you propose to talk things out? Israel is prepared to ignore the Palestinians, but the Palestinians want to kill the Israelis. Whenever they start in on this, of course, the Israelis get ticked off and retaliate. Downward spiral...Has Saddam threatened Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE recently that I haven't heard about?Well, you might have noticed that we've been enforcing sanctions and a no-fly zone since his last escapade.I diasagree. I believe Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR exporter of terrorists, and they gladly fund terrorism against their favorite scapegoat targets..... Israel and America. Yes. The evidence is very strong that Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism. But Saudi Arabia isn't run by a single murderous psychopath who has to be kept bottled up to stop him launching wars on his neighbours. I'm not sure what the answer is to Saudi Arabia, but invasion and occupation of Iraq will serve to put them on notice.Ignorance & hatred is nutured by groups that directly benefit. To combat THAT, you must address the reason groups create these scapegoats.Well, let's look at some of the reasons. Not all of them, since I don't know all the reasons:

- Distracting people from the miserable conditions at home. That's always popular. Also a two-edged sword - if you need to stir up your people against America to distract them from the real problems, and your economy depends on American oil purchases and American investments, you've pretty much painted yourself into a corner.
- Religious fundamentalism. If your religion has promised you that your people will rule the world, and instead you're starving in a middle-east refugee camp, then something's wrong. The answer is clearly that America and/or Israel is the hand of Satan. It's hard to back down from this position without abandoning your religion, and we know how easy it is to persuade people to do that.
- Personal power. Can't get into power legitimately? Blow people up instead.Why WOULD any group be willing or eager to breed malcontents??? TO shift the focus away from their OWN shortcomings and from having to take personal repsonsibilty for their people's anger. Yup. But how do you solve that?

One big reason we should be liberating Iraq: they want us to. They know what the problem is, and they want rid of him.

Would we have the people's support if we went to war with Saudi Arabia?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Yes. The evidence is very strong that Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism. But Saudi Arabia isn't run by a single murderous psychopath who has to be kept bottled up to stop him launching wars on his neighbours. I'm not sure what the answer is to Saudi Arabia, but invasion and occupation of Iraq will serve to put them on notice.
Not likely, Misa. The US has made nary a peep about the repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In fact, we are best buddies. Why? Because they keep the oil flowing. The fact that so many anti-American terrorists come from a country that is firmly allied with America should serve as evidence that the people of SA do not agree with their government.

The US has a LONG history of turning a blind eye towards countries that play ball with us. Does anybody remember the brutal regeimes of the Shah of Iran, or of Ferdinand Marcos? Sadly, we are a country of hypocrites.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Tricky
Sadly, we are a country of hypocrites. Or at least many of your elected officials are cynical pragmatists. I don't think this is true of the American people as a whole.

My position is this: liberating Iraq is the right thing to do. If you are worried about what happens afterwards, that is where you should focus your attention. The protest marches should be calling for democracy in Iraq. Instead they're effectively giving support to a tyrant.

As for the Saudis - with Iraq an American protectorate, Saudi Arabia doesn't matter any more. When you can get the oil cheaper elsewhere, they're just another nasty country. Stop buying from them and their economy will fold up overnight.

[kittynh]

Well, I actually know an Iraqi refuge. My daughter has him for a prof, and I went up to see an Arabic film that focused on the rise of fundamentalism and its causes. A real eye opener.

My daughters class had a special dinner for their prof, as he's not looking so good, and they wanted to cheer him up. On the one hand, he's scared stiff as all his family live in Baghdad and no one is being allowed to move out. But, he hasn't been able to see his family in 12 years, and he really misses his home. I think what he was trying to show in the film -that Saddam isn't the cause of the religious fundamentalism that breeds terrorism, it's a combination of things, much of which the US has no control over. He isn't sure what he wants to happen, but certainly most of all he wants an END to what has been a period of abject misery for most Iraqi citizens. And a sense that America let Iraq down by not following through in the first Gulf War (which he refers to as the second Gulf War, since there was another war already called the first Gulf War). It's just all very sad.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by LukeT
I feel like I am in a gray zone. It is a very lonely feeling.I know the feeling. I'm in the same gray zone. Most of the time I have been neutral about the war. Just about the time that many things were turning me pro-war was the same time a became concerned with the sentiments of others towards the US in this action.

What is weird is I come across most of the time as pro-war. Most of the friends that I talk politics with are anti-war in the extreme, and so I spend a lot of time defending the war which I am not sure I want. I rarely if ever have the opportunity to argue against pro-war people because there are simply not that many.

Walt

[PixyMisa]

Here's an interesting quote I've now run into twice:A Thai lawmaker warned a war would create a "great likelihood of terrorist retaliation," but said he would side with Washington if it decides to act against Iraq.

"There really is no other viable option," said Kobsak Chutikul, the deputy leader in one of the parties in Thailand's coalition government. "For all its flaws, I would feel safer to have my children grow up in a world dominated by the United States than by any other country."

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Nonsense.

Germany is a perfect example. On the Allied side, economic boom that lasts for decades. Wealth and freedom. On the Soviet side, forty years of depression and opression.

Whereas Japan, working on their own, gained economic wealth for the whole country.

Under American protection, they rewrote their constitution, rebuilt their government from top to bottom, and built an economy so successful that it became a cliche.

Note the emphasized word there.

The war reparations following from WWI were mind-bogglingly stupid, though. But so was the whole of WWI, beginning to end.

100% agreed...right down to and including the cause of the war.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
Whereas Japan, working on their own, gained economic wealth for the whole country.Well, yes, because (guess who) didn't let the Soviets invade.Note the emphasized word there.Well, yes. But who defended Japan ever since WWII?100% agreed...right down to and including the cause of the war.Yup. Just about every aspect of WWI should be printed up in a book called "Do Not Do This".

The Allied withdrawal from Gallipoli went smoothly. (Note: Only the withdrawal, not any other aspect of that campaign.) I'm sure if I spent some time I could find some other event in WWI that wasn't a total screw-up. Well, fairly sure.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Or at least many of your elected officials are cynical pragmatists. I don't think this is true of the American people as a whole.
Aparently not Tricky, anyway.

My position is this: liberating Iraq is the right thing to do. If you are worried about what happens afterwards, that is where you should focus your attention. The protest marches should be calling for democracy in Iraq. Instead they're effectively giving support to a tyrant.
And here I thought we would never find something we agreed on fully!

As for the Saudis - with Iraq an American protectorate, Saudi Arabia doesn't matter any more. When you can get the oil cheaper elsewhere, they're just another nasty country. Stop buying from them and their economy will fold up overnight.
I wish it would be that simple, but Saudi's role as swing producer is not going to diminish until some economic replacement energy source becomes a reality (cold fusion, where are you?).

BTW, "cheapness" has -zilch- to do with geo-politics & strategic (especially military) importance of a source for the oil at any cost. The citizenry? Who cares; let 'em ffffreeze in the dark.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by hammegk
I wish it would be that simple, but Saudi's role as swing producer is not going to diminish until some economic replacement energy source becomes a reality (cold fusion, where are you?).

BTW, "cheapness" has -zilch- to do with geo-politics & strategic (especially military) importance of a source for the oil at any cost.Well, my point could have been better stated. The guaranteed availability of Iraqi oil (which has a very low extraction cost) would allow a political decision to stop buying Saudi oil. This is clearly not something that could last indefinitely, but the Iraqi oilfields would hold out longer than the Saudi economy. And the Saudis would know this.

It's not a solution in itself, but it does provide leverage.

[espritch]

Shanek:
With American support. Up until Desert Storm, Iraq was an ally of the US. Amazing how many people forget that.

Well, not really. For the most part, during the course of the Iran Iraq war, the US played neutral (except that stupid Iran-Contra crap which was about financing the Contras by selling weapons to Iran). We already knew at that point that Saddam wasn’t our friend and we were not supporting him. Earlier, when we were supporting him, it was really about support of the Bath party as an alternative to the communists. Saddam took over the Bath party and subverted it for his own purposes. Critics of the US have somewhat oversold the coziness of our relationship with Saddam.

Shanek:
Germany is hardly a good example. Think Berlin Wall. As for Japan, it was really the fact that we didn't lump on the same kind of sanctions like we did Germany after WWI (there's a failure for you) and their economy allowed them to grow into what they are today.

I’m not an expert on the subject, but as I recall it, President Wilson was opposed to heavy sanctions against Germany after WW I. It was Britain and France that pushed for these. I’m also absolutely certain that it wasn’t the US that constructed the Berlin wall. I think PixyMisa has adequately addressed the rest of this issue.

Mel:
After over 50 years of terrible loses on BOTH sides, that country NEEDS someone to go in and "force" both sides to reach a peace settlement. It's inexcusable for the USA to keep walking away and letting them work things out when they're ready.

As I already noted in an earlier post, the US has been trying to negotiate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians for as long as I can remember. Every time an accord is signed, some Palestinian with a bomb blows himself and some Israelis up or the Israelis build another settlement in the West Bank and it all goes to hell. I don’t think the US can force these people to make peace because neither side really wants it. That would require that they learn to live together and there is way to much hate and religion between them for that.

Of course, I’ve seen very little effort on the part of any Arab country to work for a peaceful solution to this problem. In fact, a lot of them actively contribute to the problem (Saudi Arabia leaps to mind). Since most are dictatorships with small wealthy ruling classes and vast poor subject populations, they find Israel (and the US) to be a very convenient scapegoat to deflect criticism of their own internal policies.

I personally don’t agree with the heavily pro Israel slant of US foreign policies, but the stances taken by most Arab states are pure hypocrisy.

Mel:
Has Saddam threatened Kuwait, Qatar or the UAE recently that I haven't heard about?

Of course not. We’ve been keeping him bottled up. Most of the Arab countries that were part of the Desert Storm alliance did not support the removal of Saddam then which is a big part of the reason he is still in power. I’ve already mentioned why Turkey did not want this (see my first post). The reason the rest didn’t want it is because they are dictatorships and were worried that the US might establish a democracy in Iraq if we removed Saddam. Saddam safely bottled up by the US is no threat to them (and no cost either) so they are quite happy with the status quo regardless of the cost to the Iraqi people. A functional democracy in Iraq worries them because it would shine an unflattering light on there own tyrannical regimes. Again, it’s pure self serving hypocrisy.

Mel:
I diasagree. I believe Saudi Arabia is a MAJOR exporter of terrorists, and they gladly fund terrorism against their favorite scapegoat targets..... Israel and America.

I actually agree with you there. I also think the best way to deal with the Saudis is to create a real Arabic democracy right at their doorstep. This is not a simple task, but worth the attempt.

I am concerned that Bush is biting off more than he can chew. We still haven't really resolved things with Afghanistan and I think that should have been our first priority. I could see us getting vastly overstretched trying to deal with both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time (maybe we could get the French to help out...or something). So I have some problems with the timing of this as well, but I think that horse has already left the barn.

[espritch]

Tricky:
Not likely, Misa. The US has made nary a peep about the repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia. In fact, we are best buddies. Why? Because they keep the oil flowing. The fact that so many anti-American terrorists come from a country that is firmly allied with America should serve as evidence that the people of SA do not agree with their government.

In addition to oil, Saudi Arabia is the site of Mecca, holiest city of Islam. And the Saudis play up their role as protectors of Mecca to the hilt. If the US were to try to remove the Saudi goverment from power, regardless of the reason, it would be cast as a direct attack on Islam and we never would see the end of it. For the House of Saud to fall, the people of Saudi Arabia will have to remove them. Establishing a democracy in Iraq, right across the border, might be just the thing to cause the Saudi citizenry to start taking a closer look at their own rulers and to ask why they are putting up with their crap.

[Yahzi]

Pyrro2000
Until governments choose to set aside the competition for power, wars will always be with us. I am convinced that it is human nature to oppress, and nothing short of a global catastrophe will change it -- if that's even possible.
There has never been a war between two secular democracies.

Turning all the governments on the planet into secular democracies would put a stop to war, and it doesn't sound like a global catastrophe to me.

LukeT
He's your president. If you've lost faith in him, I don't know what to tell you. I never had faith in him.

However, in all the nations that we have actually, physically invaded (as opposed to supported from the outside), we have a good record. When American troops hoist the American flag over the capital, they tend to leave behind democracies.

I agree that we might fail to construct a democracy in Iraq. It's not just about us; the people of Iraq have a pretty big say in whether it happens too. And they just might choose tribalism or religious facism instead.

Still, we have to try. If we can't make a democracy here and now, then we might as well give up on the Arab world and start dropping the nukes. Iraq is not only our best hope; it's our only hope.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
I’m not an expert on the subject, but as I recall it, President Wilson was opposed to heavy sanctions against Germany after WW I.

Not the case. Wilson was a heavy proponent of the Treaty of Versailles and tried (unsuccessfully) to sell it to Congress.

I’m also absolutely certain that it wasn’t the US that constructed the Berlin wall.

It was the result of the treaty that the US agreed to. They may not have constructed the wall, but they set up the conditions for it.

As I already noted in an earlier post, the US has been trying to negotiate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians for as long as I can remember. Every time an accord is signed, some Palestinian with a bomb blows himself and some Israelis up or the Israelis build another settlement in the West Bank and it all goes to hell. I don’t think the US can force these people to make peace because neither side really wants it. That would require that they learn to live together and there is way to much hate and religion between them for that.

Yeah, as much as I am against war, I think the best solution might be to just let them fight it out. Anything else will just prolong the hostilities (and foster more hostility against us). And if it weren't for the oil, I think we'd just let them do exactly that.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
It was the result of the treaty that the US agreed to. They may not have constructed the wall, but they set up the conditions for it.No. I'm not going to let you blame the U.S. for the Berlin Wall. The Soviet Union did that. The alternative to that treaty was an immediate war between the U.S. and the S.U. And this is because the S.U. was a brutal dictatorship.Yeah, as much as I am against war, I think the best solution might be to just let them fight it out. Anything else will just prolong the hostilities (and foster more hostility against us). And if it weren't for the oil, I think we'd just let them do exactly that. See Africa for the success of that policy. Not that I know the answer, though. I often want to subscribe to the "build a wall around them" school of global politics myself.

[PixyMisa]

I shouldn't laugh. I know I shouldn't laugh. But:TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.

The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.

The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.

The drama unfolded last Monday as the Para batallion tested mortars and artillery weapons to make sure they were working properly.

The Iraqis found a way across the fortified border, which is sealed off with barbed-wire fencing, watchtowers and huge trenches.More here. (http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694)

[demon]

Andolyn:

"Being a "human shield" is another idealistic fantasy. I'm all for the concept if you'd actually be allowed to protect a non-military hospital or orphanage etc. However, Saddam is quick to exploit these idealisitic people. Those that are left are likely surrounded by Iraqi Tank Regiments."

Girl6:

"I don't have the means right now to fly to Iraq. But, if I did, I would be a human shield. "

Admirable and courageous Girl 6 but just remember even if you were to be a human shield over a non-military or civilain site you wouldn`t be safe from the pilots who target just those sites.
Don`t forget the Amiria Shelter where 1186 civilian victims were "liberated" or the illegal "no fly zones" where the same boys have been picking off shepherds and other unfortunates for the past decade.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/AmericanBritishTerrorism.html

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

That`s "the easy part" though if you consider a turkey shoot fun and don`t mind accepting "evidence" that in any other area of debate on these forums would be laughed out of court.

[PixyMisa]

Admirable and courageous?

Woolly-headed at best.

You think the allies are going to deliberately target hospitals and orphanages? Orphanages already have human shields. They're called orphans.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
No. I'm not going to let you blame the U.S. for the Berlin Wall.

Why is it that whenever someone points out a particularly stupid thing the US did that allowed others to take advantage of it to the detriment of others, they're accused of "blaming" the US? :rolleyes:

The US carved up Germany with the Soviet Union. It may have been more politically expedient, but as far as creating a democracy is concerned, that was a really really bad idea.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
Why is it that whenever someone points out a particularly stupid thing the US did that allowed others to take advantage of it to the detriment of others, they're accused of "blaming" the US? :rolleyes:

The US carved up Germany with the Soviet Union. It may have been more politically expedient, but as far as creating a democracy is concerned, that was a really really bad idea. Faced with partitioning Europe or war with the Soviet Union, what would you have done - in 1945, knowing only what was known then? Why do you think the course taken was particularly stupid - even in hindsight? Noting, of course, that the Soviet army was already in Germany.

[PixyMisa]

As to my point about blaming the U.S. You saidIt was the result of the treaty that the US agreed to.This is not true. The Berlin Wall was built by the Soviet Union to prevent their people leaving. The people wanted to leave because the Soviet leadership were brutal thugs. They could have chosen not to build the wall. The could have chosen not to be brutal thugs. They may not have constructed the wall, but they set up the conditions for it.The same way the Peleponnesian War set up conditions for Microsoft's domination of the market, and we should blame Windows XP on the Greeks?

[espritch]

Shanek:
Not the case. Wilson was a heavy proponent of the Treaty of Versailles and tried (unsuccessfully) to sell it to Congress.

Wilson did try to sell the Treaty of Versailles to Congress. But his reason wasn’t to support war reparations, but rather to support the formation of the League of Nation and our membership in it.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/content.php?page=learn_more&doc=62

From the site:
When the Allies met in Versailles to formulate the treaty to end World War I with Germany and Austria-Hungary, most of Wilson’s 14 Points were scuttled by the leaders of England and France. To his dismay, Wilson discovered that England, France, and Italy were mostly interested in regaining what they had lost and gaining more by punishing Germany. Germany quickly found out that Wilson’s blueprint for world peace would not apply to them. However, Wilson’s capstone point calling for a world organization that would provide some system of collective security was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles. This organization would later be known as the League of Nations. Though Wilson launched a tireless missionary campaign to overcome opposition in the U.S. Senate to the adoption of the treaty and membership in the League, the treaty was never adopted by the Senate, and the United States never joined the League of Nations. Wilson would later suggest that without American participation in the League, there would be another world war within a generation.

The parts I bolded explain why Wilson supported the Treaty of Versailles. He got very little of what he wanted from Versailles except the formation of the League of Nations. His support of the treaty was an attempt to salvage the only thing from his 14 points that our allies were willing to agree to, and the Republican controlled congress scuttled even that. Wilson’s own view on treatment of Germany after WWI was pretty clearly expressed in the 14 Points speech itself:

We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

You can read the whole text here:
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/14points.html

Wilson was quite prescient in predicting that our failure to participate in the League of Nations would result in another World War within a generation. If Wilson's ideas as outlined in his 14 Points had actually been implemented, the world would be a different and better place today. Wilson’s mistake was that he ultimately conceded to the “superior wisdom” of our allies and allowed them to set the terms of the peace and so set the stage for the bloodiest war in history.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Faced with partitioning Europe or war with the Soviet Union, what would you have done - in 1945, knowing only what was known then?

Most of us would repeat a mistake knowing only what we knew then. That doesn't excuse us from trying to learn from them.

Why do you think the course taken was particularly stupid - even in hindsight? Noting, of course, that the Soviet army was already in Germany.

And so were we. Why should the Soviets have pulled out when we didn't?

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
As to my point about blaming the U.S. You saidThis is not true. The Berlin Wall was built by the Soviet Union to prevent their people leaving.

And the Soviet Union had the power to do that why? [tick, tock, tick, tock...]

[espritch]

Shanek:
And the Soviet Union had the power to do that why? [tick, tock, tick, tock...]

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/World/YaltaConf.html

With the immense size of Stalin's army, Russia would take Berlin and control the eastern half of Germany upon its surrender.

It didn’t help that Roosevelt’s health was failing at the time of the Yalta conference and he wasn’t really up to dealing with Stalin. It is also relevant that the US after WWII wanted to return to the isolationist stance that it had held up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was Churchill with his “Iron Curtain” speech that ultimately convinced us that we had to remain involved in Europe.

There were leaders in the US military that thought we should go ahead and take on Russia after we finished with Germany, but we were tired of War and so we ended up with a cold war instead. Luckily, Stalin did the world a favor and died before he could fully start up his purges again, so fewer Russians died as a result of this decision than might have.

[Yahzi]

Admirable and courageous?

Woolly-headed at best.

You think the allies are going to deliberately target hospitals and orphanages? Orphanages already have human shields. They're called orphans.


Pixymesa is completely right. The Human Shield idea is deeply, deeply stupid.

1. We aren't going to target civilian places.

2. If we do, we aren't going to be dissuaded by the fact that people with white skin decided to go there. Oddly enough, the American military is not particularly racist during the operation of a war. If they decide that a civilian target has to be destroyed for military reasons, they won't suddenly change their decision because the target happens to have white people instead of brown people.

3. Saddam will just use you to protect military targets. As I understand it, this has already happened, and many of the human shields have gone home in disgust.

4. Doing so would probably be an act of treason.

5. If you really, really want to help... go over there AFTER the war and help put things back together. The Iraqis have already been through plenty of wars. They don't need help surviving a war. What they need is help rebuilding after a war, since that's something they have never done.

[Yahzi]

Shanek
And the Soviet Union had the power to do that why?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the ONE HUNDRED DIVISIONS PARKED IN GERMANY.

Shanek, your stupidity is amazing. You seem unaware of the fact that the Russians did not sit idly by while we defeated the Germans. You seem unaware of the fact that the Russians fought their way from Moscow to Berlin with only a little help from us in the form of supplies. You seem unable to accept the fact that Stalin had A GIGANTIC ARMY which had just crushed the Germans and quite possibly could have defeated the entire US/British/French army. They had BETTER TANKS. They had MORE OF THEM. They had hardend combat troops. They had MORE OF THEM.

People always ask, why didn't we crush the commies then, when the real question is, why didn't they just take all of Europe? Is it possible that after 4 years of bloody combat, the various armies might just have been tired of fighting? Do you suppose that commies and soldiers have emotions like that?

I can't decide if it's history or reality you are unfamliar with.

Before this devolves into a debate on the Cold War, let me back up for a minute.

I will try to outline a couple problems I am having.

First, my memory seems to recall that when this whole Iraq situation with the current President started, there were claims of a substantial quantity of chemical and biological weapons, and another claim that Hussein was mere months away from completely nuclear weapons manufacturing.

These were given as the primary reasons to invade Iraq.

Second, the idea of invading Iraq was legitimized and justified under the umbrella of "violating UN resolutions." The biggest violations mentioned being WMD.

I think if we go back and look at every argument about Iraq on this forum, you will see the "violation of UN resolutions" as the principle argument which made attacking Iraq legitimate.

It looks like the UN is having trouble agreeing that there is enough going on in Iraq to justify an invasion. The Security Council just might veto us.

So now we are talking about not only invading Iraq anyway, but leaving the UN as well.

So much for legitimacy.

We would be setting a dangerous precedent for any other nation to follow our lead.

Think about it.


(edited for spelling)

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
Most of us would repeat a mistake knowing only what we knew then. That doesn't excuse us from trying to learn from them.Nor does it give you an excuse to criticise what they did then.And so were we. Why should the Soviets have pulled out when we didn't? Well, yes. The point remains that they established a regime of brutal thuggery in East Germany and we - principally America - established a democracy in West Germany.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
And the Soviet Union had the power to do that why? [tick, tock, tick, tock...] Because they had nuclear weapons by that point. Because in 1945 they had a huge army already in Germany that they were not going to remove without a war.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by LukeT
I will try to outline a couple problems I am having.

First, my memory seems to recall that when this whole Iraq situation with the current President started, there were claims of a substantial quantity of chemical and biological weapons, and another claim that Hussein was mere months away from completely nuclear weapons manufacturing.Yes. Those claims were certainly made.These were given as the primary reasons to invade Iraq.Well, quite a few reasons were given, those among them. But they were cerrtainly high on the list.Second, the idea of invading Iraq was legitimized and justified under the umbrella of "violating UN resolutions." The biggest violations mentioned being WMD.Like, for example, the 120 missiles that are now being destroyed.I think if we go back and look at every argument about Iraq on this forum, you will see the "violation of UN resolutions" as the principle argument which made attacking Iraq legitimate.Legitimate within the structure of the U.N.It looks like the UN is having trouble agreeing that there is enough going on in Iraq to justify an invasion. The Security Council just might veto us.Might? There is little doubt of that.So now we are talking about not only invading Iraq anyway, but leaving the UN as well.Yes.So much for legitimacy.Yes. If the Security Council vetos the latest resolution, the U.N. has lost its last chance to show that it has a legitimate function. The latest resolution is merely a re-statement of 1441, which was passed unanimously. This time it is going to be vetoed, because President Bush has made it clear that "severe consequences" actually means something. He has also made it clear that he will not let the matter drop, but will force a vote in the security council. Thus all 15 nations must either state for the record that they are they believe that Iraq has been in full compliance with resolution 1441 - which is what was required - or support the "serious consequences" that were threatened in that resolution. Since Iraq has not been in compliance with 1441, or even close, this puts France in an awkward position which they are desperate to wriggle out of.We would be setting a dangerous precedent for any other nation to follow our lead.So, for example, if the people of Zimbabwe cry out for someone to come and help them, someone might actually do so?Think about it.I have. And my conclusion is that the U.N. has failed in its purpose and needs to be replaced.

[DanishDynamite]

PixyMisa:And my conclusion is that the U.N. has failed in its purpose and needs to be replaced. With what?

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
PixyMisa: With what? Cut it out with the difficult questions, OK? I'm pontificating here!

Seriously, I don't know. Something that works? Third time lucky, maybe?

[DanishDynamite]

PixyMisa:Cut it out with the difficult questions, OK? I'm pontificating here!

Seriously, I don't know. Something that works? Third time lucky, maybe?Okay.

In regard to failed systems, I also think that the democratic system has failed, because it doesn't always lead to the decisions and results that I would like to see. I think it should be replaced.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
PixyMisa:Okay.

In regard to failed systems, I also think that the democratic system has failed, because it doesn't always lead to the decisions and results that I would like to see. I think it should be replaced. Does your democracy allow convicted felons to hold office?

[DanishDynamite]

PixyMisa:Does your democracy allow convicted felons to hold office? I'm not sure. Why?

[PixyMisa]

Quite a few of the nations in the U.N. are just that. That all nations should be represented is reasonable enough, but to have Syria in the Security Council or to make Libya chair of the Human Rights Commission is just a touch questionable.

To quote a guy in a wig:That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...That was Thomas Jefferson, by the way. And he's still right.

The only valid thing you can replace a democracy with is another democracy. It may be that the exact form of the democracy hasn't worked out, and needs to be changed.

If, in the U.N., countries are represented by people who do not in fact represent their country's people but brutally supress them, and this is not just allowed to continue but actually considered as normal, then things are not working. If the permanent members of the security council deliberately act to preseve this status quo of failure, then the oranisation itself has failed and must be replaced.

But I still don't know what to replace it with.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Oh, I don't know, maybe it had something to do with the ONE HUNDRED DIVISIONS PARKED IN GERMANY.

Or the fact that we agreed to it. We were allies during the war, you know.

[mindless and unfounded ad hominems that have absolutely nothing to do with what I've claimed deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Nor does it give you an excuse to criticise what they did then.

I'm not criticizing it. I'm refuting the point that was made above: that we successfully set up a democracy in Germany after WWII.

Well, yes. The point remains that they established a regime of brutal thuggery in East Germany and we - principally America - established a democracy in West Germany.

That's a much better claim.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not criticizing it. I'm refuting the point that was made above: that we successfully set up a democracy in Germany after WWII.

That's a much better claim. Oh, you were picking a nit. When you are picking a nit, please use the nit picking smiley so that I don't have to run around in circles trying to work out what the heck you're talking about. Yes, I said Germany when I should have said West Germany. You could have pointed this out, you know.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
Or the fact that we agreed to it.You think we should have disagreed when that necessarily meant war against the Soviet Union right then and there? Or is your sole purpose here to pick nits?We were allies during the war, you know.Not really. We were both against the Nazis. America and Britain were allies; the Soviets were just the enemy of our enemy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Oh, you were picking a nit.

I don't see it as picking a nit; I think it's an important distinction. The Soviet Union was such a powerful ally in WWII that there was no way we couldn't give them a piece of the German pie. Just one more example of the entanglements that can arise from such agreements (entanglements like that turned an assassination of Archduke Ferdinand into the greatest war the world up to that time had ever seen).

Saying that we did all right with the piece we were given doesn't really seem like all that stellar a point to me when you look at what was done with the other piece.

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Not really. We were both against the Nazis. America and Britain were allies; the Soviets were just the enemy of our enemy.

Now you're picking at nits. The Soviet Union was part of what in WWII was called "The Allies" and their forces were part of the "allied forces." By any definition I'm aware of, we were allies, at least for that one brief period.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't see it as picking a nit; I think it's an important distinction. The Soviet Union was such a powerful ally in WWII that there was no way we couldn't give them a piece of the German pie.They had an entire army parked on their piece of pie. An army that was not going to back off.Saying that we did all right with the piece we were given doesn't really seem like all that stellar a point to me when you look at what was done with the other piece.What was done to the other piece was done by the Soviet Union, who had already occupied that piece by the end of the war. Do you think that the U.S. should have gone to war with the Soviets in 1945 over this issue?

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
They had an entire army parked on their piece of pie.

And the reason why they had an entire army there was because they were allied with us during the war.

Do you think that the U.S. should have gone to war with the Soviets in 1945 over this issue?

No, so cut the strawmen. I'm saying that this is the kind of thing such alliances lead to. By 1945, it was already too late.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by shanek
And the reason why they had an entire army there was because they were allied with us during the war.

No, so cut the strawmen. I'm saying that this is the kind of thing such alliances lead to. By 1945, it was already too late.So we shouldn't make alliances with nasty countries even when we are both fighting even nastier countries? Is that your point?

[shanek]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
So we shouldn't make alliances with nasty countries even when we are both fighting even nastier countries? Is that your point?

I'm saying more thought should be given to the kinds of alliances we make.

[espritch]

And the reason why they had an entire army there was because they were allied with us during the war.


No. The reason they had an entire army there was because they had been engaged in bloody combat with the Germans for several years (well before we even joined the war), and had fought their way all the way to Berlin. That had nothing at all to do with any alliance between them and us. We agreed to split up Germany because otherwise the Russian would probably have taken the whole place or we would have had to fight them to prevent it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
No.

Okay, if you're going to be pedantic, we had allied with them. Same diff.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by espritch


No. The reason they had an entire army there was because they had been engaged in bloody combat with the Germans for several years (well before we even joined the war), and had fought their way all the way to Berlin. That had nothing at all to do with any alliance between them and us. We agreed to split up Germany because otherwise the Russian would probably have taken the whole place or we would have had to fight them to prevent it.

Do you think the Russians would have got that far if the British and Americans had not opened up a second front by invading France?

[espritch]

Dragon:
Do you think the Russians would have got that far if the British and Americans had not opened up a second front by invading France?

That’s an interesting if somewhat irrelevant question.

In the winter of 1941/1942, the German advance on Moscow bogged down and was halted by a combination of the Red Army and the Russian winter. The battle of Stalingrad, the bloodiest battle of the entire war, ended in Febuary of 1943. It was the last German offensive on the Russian front. All of this occurred prior to the US/British invasion of Sicily in July of 1943. The invasion of Normandy did not occur until 1944 and even then the Red Army inflicted far greater casualties on the Germans than we did.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battles/russia/russia_5.shtml

Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944. More destructive by far than the D-Day landings, Stalin's Operation Bagration in Belorussia eliminated more than three times as many German army divisions than the Allies did in Normandy.

Based on this, I’d say it is quite reasonable to believe that the Russians would have defeated Germany even without the Allied invasion of Normandy. Of course, the Normandy invasion hastened the end, and it is possible that had the end been delayed sufficiently, Germany might have succeeded in creating an atomic bomb, in which case they might have turned things around. But baring that possibility, I’d say the writing was on the wall for the Third Reich even before the invasion of Normandy.

Shanek:
Okay, if you're going to be pedantic, we had allied with them. Same diff.

Ummm…I’m being pedantic? You are the one trying to argue that the fact that Russia was “somewhat” involved in the war against Nazi Germany somehow invalidates the fact that the US successfully converted the part of Germany we controlled after the war from a military dictatorship to a prosperous democracy.

P.S. Luke T, I apologize if I’ve high jacked this thread away from the initial issue. It wasn’t my intention. I do think the issues related to WWI and WWII do bare some relevance to the current situation with Iraq, albeit somewhat peripherally.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
Ummm…I’m being pedantic? You are the one trying to argue that the fact that Russia was “somewhat” involved in the war against Nazi Germany somehow invalidates the fact that the US successfully converted the part of Germany we controlled after the war from a military dictatorship to a prosperous democracy.

I am trying to argue no such thing. Please quit with the strawman.

[espritch]

Shanek:

Originally posted by espritch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ummm…I’m being pedantic? You are the one trying to argue that the fact that Russia was “somewhat” involved in the war against Nazi Germany somehow invalidates the fact that the US successfully converted the part of Germany we controlled after the war from a military dictatorship to a prosperous democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am trying to argue no such thing. Please quit with the strawman.

And earlier in this same thread:

quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor does it give you an excuse to criticise what they did then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not criticizing it. I'm refuting the point that was made above: that we successfully set up a democracy in Germany after WWII.

If you are arguing that we did not successfully set up a democracy in Germany after the war, then you have to be making one of three claims (as far as I can see):

1. West Germany was not a successfully democracy. This is of course directly refuted by history so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not your argument.
2. Because East Germany was not a democracy, the successful establishment of democracy in West Germany was irrelevant. This was the gist of my post above and you have labeled it as a straw man, so I guess that’s not what you are arguing either.
3. The US was to blame for the lack of democracy in East Germany because there was some alternate course of action that we could have taken that would have prevented Russia from taking control of East Germany. If this is your point, you have not presented any evidence or even a working theory to support your assertion. I, on the other hand, have presented a number of valid reasons as to why we didn’t have a practical alternative and you have offered no refutations of these. Nor have you shown how this would be in any way relevant to the situation in Iraq (the original point of this whole discussion). I should also note that the second quote above, you state that you aren’t criticizing how we handled the situation in Europe, so I guess this isn’t your point either.

OK. I give up. I have no clue what the point is that you think you are making. And I’m beginning to suspect that you don’t either.

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
1. West Germany was not a successfully democracy. This is of course directly refuted by history so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was not your argument.

How about reading what i wrote? If you had, you wouldn't have to assume anything; you'd know it because I stated it flat out!

I mean geez, people!!! Is it really to much to ask that you ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS before you go jumping all over them??? :rolleyes:

2. Because East Germany was not a democracy, the successful establishment of democracy in West Germany was irrelevant. This was the gist of my post above and you have labeled it as a straw man, so I guess that’s not what you are arguing either.

If you'll reread the posts of mine that YOU QUOTED ABOVE, you'll see that the original claim was that Germany had been set up as a democracy after WWII. Not West Germany, Germany.

OK. I give up. I have no clue what the point is that you think you are making. And I’m beginning to suspect that you don’t either.

Try reading my posts. I've said it three times already! :mad:

[espritch]

OK. Deep breath and one more try. I argued that our success establishing a prosperous democracy in Germany after WWII represented a precedence for the possibility of establishing a democracy in Iraq. You claimed that this could not be seen a valid precedence based solely on the semantic argument that the democracy was only established in part of Germany.

From a purely semantic viewpoint, your argument is wrong. We established a successful democracy in West Germany. West Germany is in Germany. Therefore we established a successful democracy in Germany.

From a relevance viewpoint, your argument is still wrong. The split up of Germany was a result of our having to deal with a powerful rival nation. No such powerful rival exists in the current situation with Iraq. Russia and China may oppose the war, but if it happens, neither is likely to become involved or try to take control of part of Iraq and establish a dictatorship there. And no one else has enough power to even try.

You could have made a valid argument by pointing out that the culture and history of Germany differs a great deal from that of Iraq. Both Germany and Japan were nations dominated by a single ethnic culture (especially since the Fascist governments in both nations has worked so hard to eliminate any other ethnicities). Iraq, on the other hand, has a number of large ethnic minorities that tend to get along poorly. So it could be argued on that basis that what worked in Japan and Germany would not work in Iraq. However, that is not the argument you made. The one you made is both irrelevant and wrong.

[Yahzi]

Shanek
Saying that we did all right with the piece we were given doesn't really seem like all that stellar a point to me when you look at what was done with the other piece
:eek:

We should be held accountable for the piece we didn't have?

Next you'll be telling us that American democracy is a failure, because Stalin killed 20 million Russians.

Surely that must be our fault too!

Tell me... are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to try at it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by espritch
OK. Deep breath and one more try. I argued that our success establishing a prosperous democracy in Germany after WWII represented a precedence for the possibility of establishing a democracy in Iraq. You claimed that this could not be seen a valid precedence based solely on the semantic argument that the democracy was only established in part of Germany.

I argued that you could not claim the US had set up a democracy in Germany. Only part of Germany.

From a purely semantic viewpoint, your argument is wrong. We established a successful democracy in West Germany. West Germany is in Germany. Therefore we established a successful democracy in Germany.

:rolleyes:

From a relevance viewpoint, your argument is still wrong. The split up of Germany was a result of our having to deal with a powerful rival nation.

Hel-lo??? THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!!!!!

No such powerful rival exists in the current situation with Iraq.

When did I say it did?

No, you're still spouting strawmen.

[Yahzi]

Espirich
From a purely semantic viewpoint, your argument is wrong. We established a successful democracy in West Germany. West Germany is in Germany. Therefore we established a successful democracy in Germany.

Good one! :D