Let's settle this with a vote: Should we go to War with Iraq?

[wonderfly]

Of course, we'll never settle the debate. People on both sides are sticking to their guns, and many will never come to an agreement, but it's fun to debate, so I like these type of threads.

The thing is, in 4 or 5 months that I've seen debates about Iraq here, I never once saw a poll. And as everyone knows, Voting in a poll is one of the great things about Democracy! Everyone gets a vote!

So take the poll and let your voice be heard! Me, I'm interested in what way the majority of Toonzone members will vote. :)

[Outlander00]

Each sides case can be made with all the validity in the world, and both are right.

Should we go to war in the region now? No... Too many long term risk to us diplomatically as well as short term risk of man power and spending a lot of money that we do not have. Couple with the fact that, as of right now, we are stepping on a lot of toes and uprooting a lot of aggression of fundamentalists in the region.

My quam has never been the message. Saddam will, eventually, will be threatened to a point where he would use the weapons he has on other nations. He has proven to be paranoid, ruthless and capable of using chemical weapons... even against the Kurds (they are not technically his people... long explanation and not enough time to go into it). He is an individual that needs just enough rope to hang himself by. The international community will need to bring him down eventually. Personally, I'd like to see Hussein brought to the International War Crimes Tribunal and stand trial, but this would never happen without some time of military force.


The messanger, however, is the source of my concern. My family, personally, have never accepted nor liked the Bush clan and that is stemming back from W.'s grandfather and great grandfather when the family was in Connecticut (all stemming from a conversation my grandfather overheard). Based on that, I'll keep my stance on why not to go to war as unbiased as possible (which will be hard).

Going in now is a mistake because of so many factors. First, the administration is rushing and impeeding a process of which we need to stand behind, if only for the US's self preservation within the UN. All this talk, egging on, threatening, and other actions have done nothing but make us look like bad guys as well. You want hussein out of power? You follow the proceedure and cooperate with the UN and let the weapons inspectors do their job. Let the UN prove Iraq wrong and sanction occupation. You get what you want and at the same time look respectable in the eyes of the international community and gain more help in the occupation.

Secondly, you have a lot of resentment in the surrounding countries and going in now would add to it. try to do whatever we can in order gain popular support of the people there as well. It may be easier said than done, but it will be worth it.

Only then would we be prepared to go into the region.

With all this talk and energy focused on war, however, the administration could have come up with a more extensive way to help the economy... and sooner. I feel that this all started because the administration wanted the people to forget about how bad it is and take focuses off our "cracked" heads of the Treasury.

[Parallax]

First of all I'm going to say yes. BUT, I think we need to end the war with Al-Quida first, 'cause if we don't and if they strike again we have two wars on our hands instead of one. Untill we beat Al-Quida I say no, but when we do, yes.

[Brainatra]

I say no; the whole thing strikes me as mostly Bush administration's obsession with warmongering/their hawkish tendencies, a distraction from the country's economic problems, the administrations' close ties to the energy company scandals, caring mostly about the oil in the region, and/or "finishing dad's job". That, and apparently finding it too hard to find Osama bin Ladin (remember *him*? The guy that Americans want to see brought in much much more than Saddam??). The lack of evidence the administration has to justify war on/lack of evidence for connections with al-Queida (sp?) also doesn't sway my views much...

-B.

[The Detective]

Every side has at least semi-valid arguement and I'm undecided. I just can't figure out the mess.

[ccffan01]

They only reason the world hates the US is because we are sticking our noses in other countries affairs. If we didn't do this all could be avoided.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by ssjgogeta4
First of all I'm going to say yes. BUT, I think we need to end the war with Al-Quida first, 'cause if we don't and if they strike again we have two wars on our hands instead of one. Untill we beat Al-Quida I say no, but when we do, yes.


We'll never be able to "end" the war on Al Quada - they are too many, spread over too great of a geography, with too many varying methods and an ever fresh supply of fundamentalists that are going to be willing to join their ranks. The "war" with Al Quada is much like the war on drugs, and the war on gangs, and several other "wars": they are continuous, they are ongoing, and will not end with a single, final clear-cut victory or defeat. But, its "war" that doesn't tie up so much of our resources that we can't take on Saddam as well. And, the argument can be made that going after Saddam is part of the war on terrorism, so its all part of the same goal.


Originally posted by ccffan01
They only reason the world hates the US is because we are sticking our noses in other countries affairs. If we didn't do this all could be avoided.


If only it were that easy, but its not that cut and dry. "The US sticks its nose in our business" is the excuse some use now. If we didn't have any involvement with them, they'd still hate us, and still find another reason to come after us. Fundamentalists like al Quada don't just hate our involvement in world affairs, they hate us - our way of life, our way of thinking, everything about us. Whether we "stick our nose" in or not, they'll still hate us, and still want to kill us.

As far as the poll, I've chosen the first option - Saddam needs to go. The UN is not doing its job, and if they're not going to do it, I don't see a reason why someone else (namely the US and its allies) shouldn't step up to the plate and get the job done.

[Lucky Bob]

Bring on the SEALS!

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Bring on the SEALS!

*waps LuckyBob* Oh shush! :p

[TimTwoFace]

If we do, so be it. I wouldn't cry over it.

Thing is, I don't think war is NECESSARY until acts of agression on Iraq's part happen. Saddam is a truly evil man, no question - if only he could be eliminated and the rest of the country spared. That'd be the best option, of there were such an option available.

-Tim

[DJ Raza]

Thing is, I don't think war is NECESSARY until acts of agression on Iraq's part happen.

Yeah, but what kind of agression and to what level?

[ccffan01]

It's funny that we would attack Iraq when North Korea is a much larger threat.

[The Slayer]

Originally posted by ccffan01
They only reason the world hates the US is because we are sticking our noses in other countries affairs. If we didn't do this all could be avoided.

There are a couple of reasons why the world hates the U.S.A. The first being the fact that we are the only super power in the world and nobody likes the top dog. The seconded being the fact we the American people allowed W to manipulate his why to the presidency and now we have unleashed him on the world. Couple that with the fact that Bush is shall we say "friendly" with the oil companies, other countries now see a conflict of interested with the possible war with Iraq and what our "true" motives are(oil or "justice"). Also in the past some of our policies towards other countries have been pretty frelling messed up.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by ccffan01
It's funny that we would attack Iraq when North Korea is a much larger threat.

North Korea is willing to cooperate. They're not too much of a threat; they won't use their nuclear weapons against us. If they do, that whole country will be burned down - not only will they lose China's support, but the whole UN will not hesitate to declare war on them. A small country like them against the world - not a good idea, even if they have nuclear weapons. It's not the U.S. vs. North Korea like in the Korean Crisis, it will be UN vs. North Korea. EDIT: Similarly, if we attack North Korea, China would probably side with North Korea we will lose diplomatic relations with China. There's a fine line when dealing with China.

I believe we need to do something about Iraq. Those answers in the poll do not support my decision, although I do believe we should go to war. Saddam is definately hiding something and he uses all his political ploys to make the UN think otherwise. The guy has 50 houses and probably have some kind of underground hideaway in Iraq, there's no way the inspectors will be able to find the NBC weapons.

I think President Bush is being a little careless in his decisions; he's calling for ground troops when he should be calling for aviators and Air Force troops - we have never been successful in any ground troop warfare. And I do believe he is hasty in his decision; I do believe he could wait a year or two - the likeliness of Saddam attacking any country in the near future is low. I understand that he wants to get troops out there as soon as possible to avoid the summer heat, but this couldn't have waited until next year? Ok, I may have answered my question. He wants this to go through before his term ends. That could be why he's rushing things so quickly.

Something I'm hesitant about going into war is what will happen when we take Saddam out. Who's going to take over? His son? I've heard his son is 10x worse than Saddam. Is the US going to help rebuild the country? If we do, then it's kind of useless because the US doesn't have a good track record in rebuilding a democratic country after destroying dictatorship.

But, eventually we will have to attack Iraq. Either they hit us first or we hit them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Phillipines - they're terrorist hot spots and terrorists don't leave a nice note saying when they're going to strike. While we can't stop terrorist networks around the world, in my wierd and twisted opinion, this might be Bush's way of showing the State's "superpower".

They only reason the world hates the US is because we are sticking our noses in other countries affairs. If we didn't do this all could be avoided.

The U.S. is at a loss no matter what we decide. When Iraq does attack the States, its citizens will cry out in anger that the government didn't do enough to stop the attack (take 9/11 for example). When the government is doing something to prevent future attacks from happening, its masses cry out that the country is wrong for going to war.

Same goes for other countries. When they need help, it's a cry for the US to help. When things get settled and are going well, they decide the US is butting in. Then things go wrong again, and it's "US! Help us!" and we go in and help. It's a no-win situation.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by ccffan01
It's funny that we would attack Iraq when North Korea is a much larger threat.

Which is worse, a country that is lying to you about their illegal weapons, or a country that's being honest about it?

[The Detective]

Originally posted by TimTwoFace
If we do, so be it. I wouldn't cry over it.

Thing is, I don't think war is NECESSARY until acts of agression on Iraq's part happen. Saddam is a truly evil man, no question - if only he could be eliminated and the rest of the country spared. That'd be the best option, of there were such an option available.

-Tim
I've thought of that. Why can't we just assasinate the guy? Unofficially of course. I'm begining to lean towards the first option, but I'm still not sure.

[jeffrey 228]

Yes, Saddam's a threat, but only if we get the U.N.'s approval first.

I think this vote comes close because we Do not want a war starting all of a sudden, but only if the inspecters end up threatening the UN it would be conceidered a war.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by The DarkKnight
I've thought of that. Why can't we just assasinate the guy? Unofficially of course. I'm begining to lean towards the first option, but I'm still not sure.


The problem with that is that we then don't have any control of who takes over after he's gone. If we assassinate him, then someone like his son (who is just as bad) will take over, and nothing will have changed. If we want regime change, unfortunately, we have to do it openly.

[James]

My god, I think Clayface has hit the concerns and philosophies that have been bothering me right on the head! My view sits on his line on thinking but I feel lands just the other side of the fence.

I think war should be avoided, but then the whole scenerio from Iraq of co-operating at the right opportunity does mock the whole system.

I am concerned about the wish to break away from the UN for both our countries. Not because I don't want to see Saddam removed, but because I fear the further implications of such a move. To break up the UN, or the principles of it will be a step back. We may be slow moving together, but we are at least an international community. In the end, peace can only be attained if people all share a common belief. The more countries that remain united therefore, the better.

I'm not sure where I stand as what to do. I don't think the 'Old Europe' solution really tackles the entire problem. I like the idea of containment, but the proposed enforcement does quite cut the requirements.

But then I fear going in, against the international community will cause bigger international rifts, will increase terrorist activity towards the US and the UK, may even dis-stabilise the Middle East (I know people feel that the ME want to see Iraq removed, but there is an ethos here that will worry them... are they next..?) or even centralise a unity in that region. The outcome may not even be conclusive.

I'm not sure about the Al-Quada links to Saddam either. There is a side to the argument that says that Saddam has no interest in the movement - simply as he is such a despot will not have any other potential organisations which he does not run on his own turf. So we may not even be fighting a war on terrorism.

Yes there are ideals here. There is the belief we need to liberate, the fact that he has ignored the UN for so long. but there is a bigger picture and if by taking him on, we destroy the UN community that holds together our belief in international democracy over this - Saddam will have won, regardless of the outcome.

[JohnCrichton]

The Onion Says It For Me..... (http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/wdyt_3904.html)

I just don't like the idea of the US attacking first.... I know it's a bleeding heart point of view, but it's how I feel.

Is there really no other way than taking the whole world to war?

My opinion's not going to stop Bush, so I really hope he's actually doing the right thing and for the right reason.

[DJ Raza]

I say no; the whole thing strikes me as mostly Bush administration's obsession with warmongering/their hawkish tendencies, a distraction from the country's economic problems, the administrations' close ties to the energy company scandals, caring mostly about the oil in the region, and/or "finishing dad's job".

On an off-topic rant, I think that the whole "fuel cell technology" is a "distraction" from the country's economic problems more than us dealing with Iraq. We're dealing with Iraq because we declared a war on terrorism, and we believe they're harbouring terrorists.

I say the "fuel cell technology" is a distraction because the idea is ridiclous, EXTREMELY expensive and totally illogical. Not to mention... way the hell off in the future.

And, the argument can be made that going after Saddam is part of the war on terrorism, so its all part of the same goal.

Exactly.

I just don't like the idea of the US attacking first.... I know it's a bleeding heart point of view, but it's how I feel.

I'm not trying to make ludicrous assumptions here, but basically you're saying they should attack us first?

How is this not saying innocent people have to die before we attack/retaliate?

Is there really no other way than taking the whole world to war?

This is not World War III. Where are you getting the idea that the whole world is going to war?

[JohnCrichton]

I'm not trying to make ludicrous assumptions here, but basically you're saying they should attack us first?


How is this not saying innocent people have to die before we attack/retaliate?


That is a pretty ludicrous assumption if you actually think I'd ever answer, "Yeah, we should have innocents die first!"

Why not fortify the home front here instead and respect the wishes of the UN? Be ready for attack and stop it cold, then use the information from that to strike more strategically and with definate purpose. At least if the world were a movie where everything went right that's what I'd like to see happen.

I'm not exactally sure what need to be done. Just know how I feel. Wouldn't innocents over there be dying as a result of us launching a preemptive strike?


This is not World War III. Where are you getting the idea that the whole world is going to war?

:rolleyes: Seems to me the whole world could feel the affects of this war for some time to come. That's what I'm saying.

US now goes out looking to whup-ass instead of sitting back in defence and doesn't listen to the UN anymore.... Koreans are getting surely and other nations are beginning to give us a thumbs down.

I'm not even trying to debate with ya on what needs to be done... I just gotta trust that the right thing is being done and hope for the best outcome.

[DJ Raza]

That is a pretty ludicrous assumption if you actually think I'd ever answer, "Yeah, we should have innocents die first!"

That's what it looked like.

Why not fortify the home front here instead and respect the wishes of the UN? Be ready for attack and stop it cold, then use the information from that to strike more strategically and with definate purpose. At least if the world were a movie where everything went right that's what I'd like to see happen.

Well... unfortunately... the world is not some sort of movie. You're saying we should just "stop it cold". Hello? Sept. 11 was an attack and we didn't "stop it cold". I don't feel that is was our fault that we didn't, but it still happened.

Basically you just said we'll just have to wait and see when they try to do something, then stop it, then retaliate. Which if the government ever decided to do that, they'd have to tell the UN. Which then the UN tells everyone openly, meaning Iraq would find out.

Thus Iraq would know what we're doing, and work around it to make an attack.

I'm not exactally sure what need to be done. Just know how I feel. Wouldn't innocents over there be dying as a result of us launching a preemptive strike?

Well, I have a feeling what you're trying to say is you just don't want us to go to war. Which there is nothing wrong with that. War isn't this friendly and fun thing, and I know that.

But... to the contrary... it looks like we're going to war one way or another, and Saddam needs to be taken out of power anyway. More importantly though, we need to keep the Middle East from being a threat to the whole entire planet with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In war, innocent people always die. Its a fact. If we move in swiftly though and attack Iraq, it reduces the chance of Americans dying on our soil.

Seems to me the whole world could feel the affects of this war for some time to come. That's what I'm saying.

Well, I know what you're getting at, but all they're doing right now is pretty much commenting.

Just because countries aren't backing us, doesn't make them against us.

US now goes out looking to whup-ass instead of sitting back in defence and doesn't listen to the UN anymore.... Koreans are getting surely and other nations are beginning to give us a thumbs down.

Yeah, they're giving us "thumbs down", but does that mean we should just let Iraq make weapons of mass destruction? I mean, they've constantly been saying they want to kill us and we're their enemy, you think we should just sit around until they attack us?

I'm not even trying to debate with ya on what needs to be done... I just gotta trust that the right thing is being done and hope for the best outcome.

Ok.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by SJJ

I'm not sure about the Al-Quada links to Saddam either. There is a side to the argument that says that Saddam has no interest in the movement - simply as he is such a despot will not have any other potential organisations which he does not run on his own turf. So we may not even be fighting a war on terrorism.



Well, if this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/11/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html) turns out to be true, it looks like the link may be out in the open very soon.

[wonderfly]

Good Ol' Bin Laden...always there to help us when we need a reason to attack. The idiot!

We will capture Bin Laden...maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but he's not escaped justice. The War on Terror continues...and Iraq is just a foothill along the way.

[Joe Wagner]

JohnCrichton - while I respect your opinion I have to disagree with you regarding the course of action in Iraq. While I think you make a good point regarding our own security (yes our borders with Mexico and Canada need to be secured - esp when President Fox doesn't find anything wrong with millions of Mexican immigrants illegally entering the country).

However, with Iraq we have a nation that has repeatedly ignored the resolutions that they were to follow after they surrendered and ended the Persian Gulf War. Unfortunately the disarmament of Iraq never occurred and Saddam has broken the cease-fire agreement. The fact that the UN has failed to enforce these resolutions has made the entire organization appear weak - esp in regards to nations that have no desire to obey the UN. By acting with a coalition of countries the US is ensuring our own safety - primarily because we have tracked numerous biological and chemical weapons to Iraq - weapons that could easily be brought to our own borders. Saddam's continuing support of Palestinian homocide bombers and ties to the bombing of the Oklahoma City bombing makes his threat doubly dangerous.

Our intelligence has revealed that the nuclear weapon program Saddam denies having has been working under ground ever since the Israeli military was able to take out his nuclear plant in the early 1980's. According to a new report by a former intelligence head with the IDF it's highly possible that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks of 1991. While war is a terrible, terrible thing it sometimes becomes the only solution. During World War II we had to fight against the Nazi threat - today that threat has become terrorists and the nations that harbor them.

The case has often been made that thousands or millions of innocents will die if we invade Iraq but this requires two questions - 1) How many will die if we do nothing - either through starvation, sickness or through Saddam's orders of execution? and 2) Didn't our operation in Afghanistan prove how careful the US has been in these situations? Our record there was amazingly good and very few innocent citiznes died in the many battles between the US and the terrorist organizations in Afghanistan. Today their society is increasing leaps and bounds when compared to two years ago and their society is begining to incorporate all of their members - both male and female alike.

The links between Iraq, terrorism and the threat they pose is to large to ignore and one that cannot be ignored in favor of allowing Saddam to complete his quest for weapons of mass destruction.

-Joe!

[JohnCrichton]

Once again, Mr. Wagner knocks my pitch out of the park. And remarkably without twisting my words to mean absurd ideas I never intended in the first place.

Again... much credit to ya.

You make an argument that's hard to refute. As a common man, the way I see Bush speaking about it and all the dirt I hear about him I can't help but not want to back him. From what I've seen of Colin Powell, the way he speaks on the situation he doesn't seem gung-ho, but just infact wants to do what needs to be done.

Most friends I have won't stand by War With Iraq for a nano. Bottom like I agree with is that "war is bad." My naivate shines through in that I can't wrap my mind around what people's problems are and why by now we still haven't found a way to talk things out. There are smart nobel prize winning people in this world and the only way anybody in the world can figure out how to solve a problem like this is a good old fashioned ass-whuppin'.

If it has to be done, it has to be done, but I don't like the idea of the US(defenders of freedom) rushing out to take someone down before they do something.....

I know, that gets into the huge philosphical debate on if you have a strong suspicion that some jerk's got a gun behind his back, ready to shoot your mother, do you cap him in the head before he can draw and make for certain later that he actually had a gun intended to shoot your mohter or do you wait for him to move first, putting your mother in danger then act.

Honor dictates me to feel one way, "Never escalate a situation," but there's no way I'd risk my mother's life for my honor.

So... if it has to be done and they got good reason, sure... but I don't like the idea.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Good Ol' Bin Laden...always there to help us when we need a reason to attack. The idiot!



Yeah. If it is true, it does raise some interesting questions though. Is bin Laden truely teamed up with Iraq and Saddam, and just trying to rally the troops? Or is he just saying that he is, and is just throwing that out there to try and egg on the war between America and Iraq?

Hmmmmm. Interesting times indeed.

[Magentabeams]

I am totally agianst war. I guess it is my hippie side showing. :p I would love to go protest against this war. I really think Bush is trying everything to get most of the country to agree with him, like streching the truth a little. I have no proof of it. But that is how he makes me feel. I really want to leave this country right now. I don't like our goveremnt.

Sarahanne

[DJ Raza]

I really want to leave this country right now. I don't like our goveremnt.

Who's holding you back?

[Magentabeams]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
Who's holding you back? I am 17 and I have 11 months til I can (legally). :p

Sarahanne

[DJ Raza]

I am 17 and I have 11 months til I can (legally).

Then you're going to leave the country?

You are sure of this?

You're ready to leave this whole country because you don't like the government anymore?

[Magentabeams]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
Then you're going to leave the country?

You are sure of this?

You're ready to leave this whole country because you don't like the government anymore?

I really don't feel all the that safe here. Yeah, I live in West Virginia and it seems like a very un-likely target. And I know that it proably isn't that much safer anywhere else. But, I am kind of scared to stay in this country.

Sarahanne

[DJ Raza]

I really don't feel all the that safe here. Yeah, I live in West Virginia and it seems like a very un-likely target. And I know that it proably isn't that much safer anywhere else. But, I am kind of scared to stay in this country.

But where else will you go?

Are you planning on going some place close (i.e. Mexico or Canada)?

Or do you plan on going some place far (i.e. England, France, etc.)?

I'm just curious that if you have actually planned this out, or don't realize how illogical what you're saying is. Because to move to a whole other country which costs lots of money (which you would probably be have to start saving months ago), you'd have to leave ALL your family and friends behind, and more than likely you'll have to learn another language and a complete different form of government and laws.

You're only 17 and have lived in the US your whole life I presume?

Moving when your 18 to a different country doesn't seem like a logical idea, even to some place close like Canada or Mexico. It would probably be a terrible financial decision and you'd be all alone.

Also, if you're only leaving the country because you feel there is that much of a lack in National security, I find it quite drastic and ridiclous.

[Magentabeams]

Originally posted by DJ Raza
But where else will you go?

Are you planning on going some place close (i.e. Mexico or Canada)?

Or do you plan on going some place far (i.e. England, France, etc.)?

I'm just curious that if you have actually planned this out, or don't realize how illogical what you're saying is. Because to move to a whole other country which costs lots of money (which you would probably be have to start saving months ago), you'd have to leave ALL your family and friends behind, and more than likely you'll have to learn another language and a complete different form of government and laws.

You're only 17 and have lived in the US your whole life I presume?

Moving when your 18 to a different country doesn't seem like a logical idea, even to some place close like Canada or Mexico. It would probably be a terrible financial decision and you'd be all alone.

Also, if you're only leaving the country because you feel there is that much of a lack in National security, I find it quite drastic and ridiclous. I know I am not thinking very logical. I am very paranoid like, I am going to wake up one day and find that they took out the middle of the counrty and half the population and there is mass chaos all around. I am not really planning on moving out of the country extaclly when I am 18. I want to get (hopefully) get my 2 years of the Art Insitute finish and see what kind money I can get into. I am not too worried about leaving my family behind. I don't know mist of them because they live in the Westren half of the US, and I don't really get along with my sister. In other words I am just kind of dreaming of getting away from all these threats of terrorism and going somewhere a little more peaceful.

Sarahanne

[JohnCrichton]

Lay off her DJ and just let her say how she feels... :rolleyes:

[gristl24]

What about Osama calling Saddam an "infidel"? To shine a little light on the whole terrorist connection you need to know a little history. There are two branches of Islam, just like there are branches of Christianity and Judaism, and the two don't really get along all that well. The Ba'ath party which is the ruling party of Iraq is of one branch and the majority of Iraq, as well as the majority of other muslims are of another (I really can't remember the names off the top of my head, sorry). Therefore of course Osama supports the majority population of Iraq, he wants Saddam out. Now I am definitely against Saddam, the guys a nut and he's bad for the world, BUT, I think Osama is undoubtedly worse and more dangerous. There is no terrorist link and personally I'd like to see some actual results in the war on terrorism before we fight somewhere else.

[DJ Raza]

Lay off her DJ and just let her say how she feels...

When was I laying into her?

You're laying into me and getting into business that doesn't pertain to you in the least. You keep acting totally immature throughout this whole entire thread.

First you questioned everything in my first reply, then said you wouldn't debate it. Then you come in and glorify Joe Wagner's post, which there is nothing wrong with that, but then make this sly little remark of "And remarkably without twisting my words to mean absurd ideas I never intended in the first place."

Who in the hell did that?

Is it too much to "ludicrously assume" (you obviously can't even pick up on sarcasm) you meant me?

Now you're in here trying to tell me what to do?

Please, you're not a mod or admin here, nor was I even hassling her. I was explaining how her idea was illogical and I in no way insulted her. Mind your own business, or report me to a mod if you feel like it.

And for the record, I didn't lay into her or lay into you... until now.

[Clayface]

OK folks, let's calm down and get back on track. DJ Raza and JohnCrichton: if you've got a problem with each other, take it to PMs - this isn't the place to do it.

[Catlover]

I belive that we need to get saddom(and his family) out of iraq by any means posible, I'm even for the use of an A-bomb. The only thing that sacres me is that Bush will start playing politcs and keep us in there for a long time. We need to get in there and get it finshed fast. I'm not worried about n.korea either, the first ones they'll bomb will be s.korea & japan. Also,like stardust said,if we get into a war with n.korea china will be aginst us also, and china is not a country I wont to fight right now.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by gristl24
What about Osama calling Saddam an "infidel"? To shine a little light on the whole terrorist connection you need to know a little history. There are two branches of Islam, just like there are branches of Christianity and Judaism, and the two don't really get along all that well. The Ba'ath party which is the ruling party of Iraq is of one branch and the majority of Iraq, as well as the majority of other muslims are of another (I really can't remember the names off the top of my head, sorry). Therefore of course Osama supports the majority population of Iraq, he wants Saddam out. Now I am definitely against Saddam, the guys a nut and he's bad for the world, BUT, I think Osama is undoubtedly worse and more dangerous. There is no terrorist link and personally I'd like to see some actual results in the war on terrorism before we fight somewhere else.

While there has often been the mention of how Saddam and Bin Laden don't like each other we have to remember that a common enemy can lead to some very strange bedfellows. Perhaps the perfect illustration of this would be World War II when the United States and Great Britain found themselves aligned with the Soviet Union. The moral and phylosophical differences between the western nations and the communist controled government would eventually lead to a series of events that has been called the Cold War. However, during that time the US and the other nations of the Allied forces sent supplies to the USSR forces in an effort to take out the greater evil - in this case the Nazis.

Today the militant factions of terrorism have focused their forces upon the establishments of Western civilization - striking the US, Germany, Australia and Israel in their attempts to bring the end of the western way of life. Not only that but there have been a couple of ties between Iraq and al Queda.

In 1998 bin Laden created an organization called the "World Islamic Front" - a propaganda machine that made claims of American genocide within Iraq and urged people of Islam to support their kin in their battle against "the Great Satan". While this link shows the lengths that bin Laden is willing to go to to increase hatred against America we are merely at the tip of the iceburg. Currently an organization called Ansar al-Islam, an al Queda affiliate that was created by al Queda seed money, is operating in Northern Iraq and is receiving Iraqi and Iranian support in fighting against the Kurdistan government. According to this (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/wiraq21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/21/ixnewstop.html) article from the UK Telegraph, published in April 2002, the group is believed to have received surface-to-air missiles from the Iraqi Republican Guard and also received other weapons - including machine guns, mines and C4 plastic explosives. The direct link to the al Queda organization is more than enough to link Iraq to the terrorist organization and given our policy of tracking al Queda down it gives us yet another reason to remove Saddam.

However, the information doesn't end there. According to another report (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5571) , published in January 2003, there is believed to be at least 120 al Queda operatives operating with Ansar al-Islam in an area refered to as "Little Tora Bora". In December of 2002 Jordan announced that al Queda operative Fazel Inzal al-Khalayleh (a.k.a. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) had sought refuge with the group (this being the man responsible for planning the assassination of U.S. Agency for International Development officer Laurence Foley in Amman in October of 2002).

Perhaps one of the strongest links between al Queda and Iraq though comes from Abu Wa'il - a man that is believed to be an al Queda operative that is also on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. Current intelligence has placed Abu as being a major player in acquiring weapons for Ansar from the Iraqi government.

Even with the information I have just presented here I have yet to hit the bulk of the iceburg of information and not even mentioning the recent tape from a man believed to be bin Laden that pledges support for Iraq and once again asks for support against the US in any war with Iraq (following the same policy he established in 1998 with the World Islamic Front). The ties between Iraq and terrorism are strong and can be proven through the financial records of Saddam as he continues to blatantly support the killing of Israeli citizens by providing the families of these murderers with cash rewards - this a violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 687 (gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4) article 32 that required Iraq to:

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;


The above evidence clearly makes the case about an al Queda/bin Laden/Saddam connection and also proves that once again Iraq has violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement by clearly backing terrorism around the globe.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Clayface

Yeah. If it is true, it does raise some interesting questions though. Is bin Laden truely teamed up with Iraq and Saddam, and just trying to rally the troops? Or is he just saying that he is, and is just throwing that out there to try and egg on the war between America and Iraq?

Hmmmmm. Interesting times indeed.



Joe and Clayface, (and yeah, anyone else, what the hell, right?): I found an interesting editorial online today. Here we were thinking yesterday that the new Osama Bin Ladin tape actually shows a link between Saddam and Bin Ladin. I knew that this new "supposed link" would end up torn apart in the editorials, and this is one of them.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'll reprint it here:

"Baghdad Back Flip
Colin Powell's cynical reversal.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 1:28 PM PT


If you want to know why people don't trust what the United States says about Iraq, get a load of what Secretary of State Colin Powell said this morning.

On Oct. 7, 2001, Arab TV superstation Al Jazeera aired a video in which Osama Bin Laden suggested that he was fighting for Iraq and Palestine. "One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong," Bin Laden protested. "Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine … and we hear no voices raised."

When Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that month, he dismissed Bin Laden's claims. "We cannot let Usama bin Laden pretend that he is doing it in the name of helping the Iraqi people or the Palestinian people," said Powell. "He doesn't care one whit about them. He has never given a dollar toward them. He has never spoken out for them."


That was then; this is now. Tuesday morning, Powell testified before the Senate Budget Committee. He warned that Al Jazeera would soon air a new Bin Laden statement in which "once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq. This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored."

You can write the next paragraph yourself. Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.

The punch line? Bin Laden was talking about hypocrisy."

[Captain Yurika]

I don't have time to read through all the posts, but I want to add my opinion that I think War is wrong. I don't see what it will solve. Especially going to war against a county who apparently has weapons of mass destruction. :p

Seriously though, people are so gung ho on fighting when they don't seem to think there are OTHER ways to solve this that killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. :( :( :(

[JohnCrichton]

Amen to that, Rika.

Not to say other people's posts in this thread haven't been of value, but if you wanna read the best of what "the other side" has to say, check out Joe Wagner's posts.

Raza, I've got nothing personal against you, despite what you might think. I just think this thread could be better utilized by expressing how each of us feel on the situation versus commenting one's opinion on the worth of other people's opinions.

If you weren't hassling Magneta then I was infact dipping in business not my own. Apologies.

Anyway, Rika.... check out what Wagner says. He puts it in a pretty good way that doesn't really actually sound..... "Republican."

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Captain Yurika
I don't have time to read through all the posts, but I want to add my opinion that I think War is wrong. I don't see what it will solve. Especially going to war against a county who apparently has weapons of mass destruction. :p

Seriously though, people are so gung ho on fighting when they don't seem to think there are OTHER ways to solve this that killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people. :( :( :(


One question: what other ways?

No one wants a war - everyone's agreed its bad. The point is that many of us feel we've tried everything we can, and now we're running out of options. We've tried "diplomacy" for the past decade, and its gotten us nowhere but into a more dangerous position.

I don't beleive anyone would rush into war if there were other effective ways to eliminate the threat from Sadam. I see a lot of people protesting the war, but I don't see any of those people offering up any other real alternatives.

Joe Wagner's post above does a good job of addressing all of this as well.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Joe and Clayface, (and yeah, anyone else, what the hell, right?): I found an interesting editorial online today. Here we were thinking yesterday that the new Osama Bin Ladin tape actually shows a link between Saddam and Bin Ladin. I knew that this new "supposed link" would end up torn apart in the editorials, and this is one of them.

To play Devil's Advocate, I'll reprint it here:

"Baghdad Back Flip
Colin Powell's cynical reversal.
By William Saletan
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 1:28 PM PT


If you want to know why people don't trust what the United States says about Iraq, get a load of what Secretary of State Colin Powell said this morning.

On Oct. 7, 2001, Arab TV superstation Al Jazeera aired a video in which Osama Bin Laden suggested that he was fighting for Iraq and Palestine. "One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong," Bin Laden protested. "Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine … and we hear no voices raised."

When Powell testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that month, he dismissed Bin Laden's claims. "We cannot let Usama bin Laden pretend that he is doing it in the name of helping the Iraqi people or the Palestinian people," said Powell. "He doesn't care one whit about them. He has never given a dollar toward them. He has never spoken out for them."


That was then; this is now. Tuesday morning, Powell testified before the Senate Budget Committee. He warned that Al Jazeera would soon air a new Bin Laden statement in which "once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq. This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored."

You can write the next paragraph yourself. Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.

The punch line? Bin Laden was talking about hypocrisy."

An interesting article to say the least but the author seems to be very short on facts within the document. The number figure that Bin Laden gives in his statement is very inflated and presupposes that the US is to blame while ignoring the crimes of Saddam against his own people. Perhaps even more interesting though is the fact that in October 2001 the American public was still reeling from the attrocities of 9/11 - barely a month old at the time. The view that Powell had taken at the time was that there was no evidence to link Bin Laden and Saddam, even though evidence released today has shown the linkage between Baghdad and al Queda.

While the author makes the claim that Powell is being hypocritical he is failing to recognize any new evidence that has been presented since October 2001. The amount of information that we have found in Afghanistan and the information we have learned from prisioners in Camp X-Ray have proven that many of the links we didn't believe to be possible at the time have been active for years. In comparision this would be like the author calling the American public hypocritical by saying that the Concentration Camps existed after the information had been proven when they had previously stated that there was no way such a thing could happen (this of course being before the information was revealed to show otherwise).

Originally posted by Captain Yurika
I don't have time to read through all the posts, but I want to add my opinion that I think War is wrong. I don't see what it will solve. Especially going to war against a county who apparently has weapons of mass destruction.

Seriously though, people are so gung ho on fighting when they don't seem to think there are OTHER ways to solve this that killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

Prior to World War II this same sentiment was very pervasive on American soil. Coming directly off of World War I and facing a world wide depression people didn't want to be bothered by the problems of Europe, instead wanting to focus upon more domestic matters. The problem became that much of Europe also didn't want to confront Germany, a country that had begun re-arming its military forces and building an air force under the guidance of Hitler - this of course in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In an effort to prevent war the British, French and Italian governments meet with Hitler in Munich where these three nations adopted a policy of appeasement and ceeded Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Hitler in an effort to avert war - instead this only gave him a chance to further arm his military and create one of the strongest war machines on the planet.

With Iraq the situation is very similar - coming off a quick defeat during the Persian Gulf War Saddam has found himself in a position where his power was being undermined by a global authority but much like Hitler he began to find ways where he could ignore resolution after resolution without facing any consequences - playing off of the UN's inability to enforce the resolution much like Hitler played off of Britain and France's domestic problems in 1935. The past 12 years have given Saddam a chance to continue his weapons programs and amass thousands of tons of these deadly weapons - clearly in violation of Security Council Resolution 687, much like Hitlers re-armament was in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

While the point has been made that war should not be a first option there comes a time where treaties and agreements are not worth the paper they are printed on. In March of 1933 the first Concentration Camp was established in Dachau, Germany - it wouldn't be until April of 1945 that British forces would get the first clear revelation of the horrors these camps had committed when they liberate Bergen Belsen. For tweleve years Hitler and his Nazi military were able to murder millions of innocent people leaving the question not will the war kill innocents but how many innocents will die in Iraq, under the leadership of a murderer that has consistently attacked his own people and political opponents, if the world chooses to do nothing - like it has for the past 12 years? The recent battle in Afghanistan has shown how careful the US and our allies have been in preventing innocent civilians from dying in battle but the conditions of that country have improved dramatically since our November 2001 strikes. The same could be true of Iraq - we need only have the backbone to stand up for the Resolutions that have already been passed and show Saddam that the world will not tolerate a leader that is willing to kill his own citizens through the use of chemical weapons or supports terrorism on a global level. If the US had choosen not to involve themselves with World War II the landscape of the world today would be dramatically different from the one that we see today and one infinitely more dangerous to people that opposed the radical policies of the Nazi Regime, a sign that while war isn't pretty it is sometimes the only option available to re-establish any semblence of peace.

-Joe!

[JohnCrichton]

I think the Anti-War side needs a Joe Wagner, cuz this is totally unfair.

Okay..... Joe...... got all the answers, eh? Think you're pretty smart with all the who, what's and whatnots...... well, what about Korea?

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html) cracks a good joke that Korea's not the nicest place on Earth either and possibly presents a more obvious threat to the world.

Why rally the stars and stripes against Saddam and not Kim Jong Il?

What's up with that?

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
I think the Anti-War side needs a Joe Wagner, cuz this is totally unfair.

Okay..... Joe...... got all the answers, eh? Think you're pretty smart with all the who, what's and whatnots...... well, what about Korea?

The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html) cracks a good joke that Korea's not the nicest place on Earth either and possibly presents a more obvious threat to the world.

Why rally the stars and stripes against Saddam and not Kim Jong Il?

What's up with that?

Personally, I don't think that North Korea presents the threat that Iraq does and here's why: We have yet to exhaust our diplomatic efforts with North Korea whereas Iraq has ignored UN Resolutions for the past 12 years. Not only that but the last time that North Korea threatened the US with attempting to build a nuclear bomb the Clinton administration caved and developed a policy that was adopted to prevent the armament of North Korea with nuclear weapons by offering food, oil and nuclear power plants but this policy failed to establish any checks and balances over how the US would ensure that North Korea would stop attempting to build a nuclear weapon. In Clinton's agreement -the U.S. agreed to ship 500,000 metric tons of oil annually in response to the North's pretense that the energy-starved backwater had developed the nuclear facility to generate power. These shipments have cost taxpayers more than $800 million to date - a bargain compared with the $6 billion spent on constructing the nuclear reactors, which now empower North Korea to produce 100 nuclear bombs each year.

While North Korea and South Korea share the most militarized border on the planet the North Korean government has not posed the threat that Iraq has because they have not unleashed chemical or biological weapons upon their neighbors or their own citizens. Nor has North Korea supported the terrorist networks of al Queda or the Palestinian homocide bombers (at least given the information that we currently have none of these links have been established).

Perhaps the single greatest difference though is that North Korea would find it incredibly difficult to persue the creation of a nuclear weapon because of the immense Chinese pressure that would follow. The reasoning behind this is that if North Korea builds a nuclear weapon Japan would begin it's own nuclear weapons program - an idea that China is strongly opposed to and willing to prevent at almost all costs. While North Korea is a threat to South Korea and it's own people it is a threat that has the ability to be contained without having to go to war - unlike the threat of Iraq that has proven they are not willing to engage in talks and have enacted policies that are directly contradictory to the ceasefire agreement of UN Security Council Resolution 687 and disclosure resolution 1441.

The primary difference though is that Iraq has shown a willingness to attack other nations (Israel and Kuwait being prime examples) while North Korea has remained isolated to their country.

There are a couple of options still left for President Bush though, he could make Chinese pressure on North Korea the sole benchmark of the improved Sino-American relations that Beijing seeks. He could demand that China open its borders to North Korean refugees in the hope that an exodus would collapse the regime. He could use the arrival of a new South Korean President this month to build a harder diplomatic edge against the North. He could plan for pre-emptive military strikes against North Korea’s missile sites, as President Clinton did before abandoning the idea.

While I do think that any negotiations with North Korea must involve their disarmament of nuclear weapons and human rights violations I don't think that they have achieved the level of threat that Iraq has. Until the US has found that all avenues of averting a conflict have been exhausted I think that Iraq has to be the primary focus. After our military has removed the threat of Saddam though I think that we will focus on North Korea and ensure the safety of our troops in the region as well as the safety of our allies Japan and South Korea.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
I think the Anti-War side needs a Joe Wagner, cuz this is totally unfair.




Hehehe...that's exactly what some liberal pundits have been saying about Rush Limbaugh. They want a Liberal version of Rush Limbaugh to appear so they can better "get their point across to the American people".


Hey John Crichton, I tried to help your side by printing here an online editorial, but most of such editorials face the dilemma of repeating the same mantra of "It's all Bush's fault," or "there's not enough of a reason to go to war", they tend to fall short after a while.

Not that I have a problem with people having an "AntiWar" belief about this situation but many of the "Antiwar" people make their judgements on emotional or philosophical beliefs; beliefs which sometimes don't stand up to cold, hard, logic, (as I believe Joe has shown). Feel free to disagree with me, though.

[James]

Originally posted by wonderfly

Not that I have a problem with people having an "AntiWar" belief about this situation but many of the "Antiwar" people make their judgements on emotional or philosophical beliefs; beliefs which sometimes don't stand up to cold, hard, logic, (as I believe Joe has shown). Feel free to disagree with me, though.

I do. I find many in the pro war camp to be the very aggressive and often patronising speakers, basing all they've found from the same source (often Powell) repeatedly and showing disgust for countries or people who aren't 'strong' enough to agree with their opinion.

I find there cold logic holds no bounds with them as they seem disgusted at contemplating a 'liberal view'. Now I'm not addressing the forum but generally (saying that the previous war thread was full of such missives) and it's certainly not everyone. Just some. It's those few which unfortunately taint the many.

I'm not saying that the anti-war are any better, merely that this subject is so close to everyones heart and politic, that it's rare to hear a truely rational voice.

[gristl24]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner The recent battle in Afghanistan has shown how careful the US and our allies have been in preventing innocent civilians from dying in battle

Just like the U.S. was careful in preventing innocent civilians from dying in battle in Panama in 1989? Watch a little documentary called "The Panama Deception" might open your eyes a little to what urban combat is actually like.

Aside from that, the two articles you posted contradict themselves. In one article it claims that the "leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. Their intentions were echoed in a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house in Afghanistan vowing to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad, [and] rule every piece of land . . . with the Islamic Shari'a rule." Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $300,000 to $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, in addition to funds from Saudi Arabia." However in the next article you posted they said that the "enclave was seized by the Islamic militants from territory controlled by the anti-Saddam Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The Iraqi leader has reportedly dispatched some of his best troops to bolster Ansar al-Islam, despite a long-term hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, because the group is opposed to his enemies in the PUK." So now instead of the Kurds controlling Northern Iraq and fighting together against Saddam, they are fighting eachother? That really makes no sense. Even if it was true then that proves nothing, Saddam hates the Kurds and wants control of northern Iraq, as soon as the PUK is gotten rid of he would turn on Ansar al-Islam and get rid of them too. The man is not an idiot, (he may be insane but I see no indication that he is not quite intelligent).

Did it ever occur to anyone that Osama may be claiming links to Iraq in order to dispose himself of Saddam? Once Saddam is gone you get turmoil and turmoil leads to fundamentalism which is good for Osama.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by gristl24
Just like the U.S. was careful in preventing innocent civilians from dying in battle in Panama in 1989? Watch a little documentary called "The Panama Deception" might open your eyes a little to what urban combat is actually like.

You're talking about a conflict that occurred over a decade ago - in essence making a claim that strategies and policies of the military have remained stagnant for the last decade, the recent campaign in Afghanistan is more than enough to disprove this theory. Also, the massive improvements in technology and military planning the belief that we would engage in a similar manner is without merit. Currently the US is contemplating using weapons that would knock out electro-magnetic signals within a populated setting - making it extremely difficult for Iraqi forces to use their equipment within a populated setting as well as knocking out computers and other electronic machines. This is just one of many weapons that the US has created that were not available a decade ago.

Originally posted by gristl24
Aside from that, the two articles you posted contradict themselves. In one article it claims that the "leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. Their intentions were echoed in a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house in Afghanistan vowing to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad, [and] rule every piece of land . . . with the Islamic Shari'a rule." Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $300,000 to $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, in addition to funds from Saudi Arabia." However in the next article you posted they said that the "enclave was seized by the Islamic militants from territory controlled by the anti-Saddam Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). The Iraqi leader has reportedly dispatched some of his best troops to bolster Ansar al-Islam, despite a long-term hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, because the group is opposed to his enemies in the PUK." So now instead of the Kurds controlling Northern Iraq and fighting together against Saddam, they are fighting eachother? That really makes no sense. Even if it was true then that proves nothing, Saddam hates the Kurds and wants control of northern Iraq, as soon as the PUK is gotten rid of he would turn on Ansar al-Islam and get rid of them too. The man is not an idiot, (he may be insane but I see no indication that he is not quite intelligent).

Did it ever occur to anyone that Osama may be claiming links to Iraq in order to dispose himself of Saddam? Once Saddam is gone you get turmoil and turmoil leads to fundamentalism which is good for Osama.

The two articles are not contradictory in that they show the links between Iraq and Ansar al-Islam, a group clearly linked to al Queda. In this type of agreement it is an alliance in which both sides benefit - while Ansar al-Islam is fighting the anti-Saddam forces in Northern Iraq the terrorist network is given a safe haven from US military forces - a situation that has not been afforded to them in places like Afghanistan. To believe that one side would blatantly support the other without any type of benefit would be contrary to military strategy and policies of warfare. Considering that both sides are able to benefit from such an agreement it would lend itself to the belief that Iraq would want to support this network within his country for as long as they were fighting his enemies - in this case the government of Kurdistan and the western nations of the US, Britain, Australia and Israel.

-Joe!

[JohnCrichton]

Nope, don't disagree and like I said before, my Anti-War stance is built off honor, morales, personal philosphy and alot of Daily Show/The Onion influence.

I'm still a proud liberal tho. Republican's that can speak and project the image that Joe Wagner's doing in spades here is rare as hell and I wouldn't want to be associated with most of them.

And while I feel one way, like I said... what needs to be done, needs to be done. Just wish there was another way. I know I'd be damned if I'd like my morales stand in the way of me capping some guy in the head who was under strong suspesion of plans to kill my mom.

I've got no definate stance on what we should or shouldn't do, cuz I don't have all the info catelogued in my head like Joe seems to. I just know how I feel about certain things and certain people.

[Captain Yurika]

Originally posted by Clayface

One question: what other ways?

No one wants a war - everyone's agreed its bad. The point is that many of us feel we've tried everything we can, and now we're running out of options. We've tried "diplomacy" for the past decade, and its gotten us nowhere but into a more dangerous position.

I don't beleive anyone would rush into war if there were other effective ways to eliminate the threat from Sadam. I see a lot of people protesting the war, but I don't see any of those people offering up any other real alternatives.

Joe Wagner's post above does a good job of addressing all of this as well.


I agree that Joe made some good points but fails to change my mind. I don't feel like we HAVE done everything yet. I have no solutions but I still don't see how war can make anything better or is a solution. To me the only reason we should be at war or go to war is if we are attacked, not terrorised by a seemingly unseen force but attacked (think Pearl Harbor) and must defend ourselves. This is just me though.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Captain Yurika
I agree that Joe made some good points but fails to change my mind. I don't feel like we HAVE done everything yet. I have no solutions but I still don't see how war can make anything better or is a solution. To me the only reason we should be at war or go to war is if we are attacked, not terrorised by a seemingly unseen force but attacked (think Pearl Harbor) and must defend ourselves. This is just me though.

Well, you know what they say, an ounce of prevention...

And besides, we've already been attacked on 9/11. And there is good evidence that the people that attacked us are cavorting with a country that has WMDs and are lying about them. So, I say that since we were dealt the first blow, it's our duty to follow up and keep putting a damper on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists' efforts to cause more damage.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Short and sweet--I don't always trust the media and I certainly don't always trust the "facts" that are presented to me by or from those in authority. That's why I don't like citing figures and/or curious documents which may or may not be legit because they especially can be easily manipulated to fit a certain opinion.

Thus, I would say I'm not qualified to make an opinion I am confident of. Or rather, I do have an opinion, but I don't trust the facts available enough to back it up. That's why I don't like going into these threads, since they are often based on emotion and "facts" which we have no first-hand experience to verify or account for as legit. I'm a conspiracy theorist. So sue me. :)

[gristl24]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
electro-magnetic signals within a populated setting
Yes, I've heard of E.M.P. before but I've also heard that it is a ways off before being functional. I was using Panama as a reference to say that our government claimed to have killed approximately 250 civilians while the real number was in the range of 3000, and not only killed them but shoved them into mass graves. So I think Afghanistan proves nothing,whats to say that the numbers provided by our government are acurate? They've lied about the same thing before what says they wouldn't do it again? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

If the two articles you provided are not contradictory then explain to me why Kurds would fight Kurds? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Captain Yurika]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton
Nope, don't disagree and like I said before, my Anti-War stance is built off honor, morales, personal philosphy and alot of Daily Show/The Onion influence.


Speaking of the Onion, and to throw some humor in....

"Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance
WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war." "

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by gristl24
Yes, I've heard of E.M.P. before but I've also heard that it is a ways off before being functional. I was using Panama as a reference to say that our government claimed to have killed approximately 250 civilians while the real number was in the range of 3000, and not only killed them but shoved them into mass graves. So I think Afghanistan proves nothing,whats to say that the numbers provided by our government are acurate? They've lied about the same thing before what says they wouldn't do it again? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Please provide some statistical evidence about the amount of civilians killed as the claims you are making are largely overinflated and I have seen no evidence that comes even close to supporting such a figure. The EMP is ready to go and has been displayed for military purposes - meaning that it could very well be in use in Iraq.

Originally posted by gristl24
If the two articles you provided are not contradictory then explain to me why Kurds would fight Kurds? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Where does it mention Kurdish factions fighting against each other? In the article it makes mention that Iraq is supporting the Islamic terrorists in Northern Iraq - an area that was set aside to protect the Kurdish population from attacks by the Iraqi army. A similar situation was also established in southern Iraq to protect the Shi'ates from these same types of attacks. The Iraq government is controlled by the Baath party - a party that has often made it a policy to torture and kill their political opponents - especially those of the Kurdish and Shi'ate factions.

-Joe!

[DJ Raza]

I agree that Joe made some good points but fails to change my mind. I don't feel like we HAVE done everything yet. I have no solutions but I still don't see how war can make anything better or is a solution. To me the only reason we should be at war or go to war is if we are attacked, not terrorised by a seemingly unseen force but attacked (think Pearl Harbor) and must defend ourselves. This is just me though.

Well, if you do come up with a solution, I'd sincerely like to hear it. I have yet to hear someone against the idea of going to war come up with an alternate solution, and if someone actually has one, I'd definitely want to see what they have in mind.

I can't come up with an alternate soultion, but I'd like to see some if there are any. Preferably solutions that don't result in many risks or solutions that seem drastically out of the question of being conducted by our government (i.e. Like an idea of sending a convict on death row to assasinate Saddam. Ideas like that are purely illogical.)

And besides, we've already been attacked on 9/11. And there is good evidence that the people that attacked us are cavorting with a country that has WMDs and are lying about them. So, I say that since we were dealt the first blow, it's our duty to follow up and keep putting a damper on Al-Qaeda and other terrorists' efforts to cause more damage.

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more on this.

And while I feel one way, like I said... what needs to be done, needs to be done. Just wish there was another way. I know I'd be damned if I'd like my morales stand in the way of me capping some guy in the head who was under strong suspesion of plans to kill my mom.

I've got no definate stance on what we should or shouldn't do, cuz I don't have all the info catelogued in my head like Joe seems to. I just know how I feel about certain things and certain people.

Well, what exactly needs to be done then?

I'm not trying to debate or argue with you on this, but you say "what needs to be done, needs to be done", so... from your point of view, what exactly needs to be done?

I'm not asking if you "like" the fact that we might have to go to war, but do you think Saddam "needs" to be taken out of power one way or another?



On a side note, I wasn't debating previously in this thread not for the fact that I don't like "anti-war" people or something, but what I've mostly been debating against is people that are willing to admit that Iraq needs to be handled one way or another (most people even admit "at all costs") but are dead-lock against war, which results in them usually being dead-lock against the president. These people remind me of the old saying: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

So basically it becomes not the fact that some people "don't like" the idea of going to war, but that they're practically standing in the way of something most of them admit "must" be done.

And when *I* think of it as something that "must" be done, I think it "must" be done pretty soon. I know some rather wait until Iraq makes their move, but what if its too late by then?

What if they're first attack is a huge brigade of nuclear weapons that wipes out the entire nation and parts of Mexico and Canada?

I just don't think some people realize the seriousness of the situation. We're talking about nuclear weapons that could wipe out human existance altogether, and they're in the hands of a psychotic dictator that openly admits he hates us and would love to see us die. If we just keep waiting and waiting, then hell... maybe Magentabeams had a good idea. Of course, if we keep waiting for an attack, Saddam could eventually get enough nuclear weapons (if he already doesn't have enough already) to decimate the entire planet. So why run?

[JohnCrichton]

From what Joe says what needs to be done is take Saddam down.

From Leaping Larry, no... I don't wholly trust the media or that we know all the intentions behind the actions of our own government.

Like I said before, if the nation's looking to me to decide what it should do, it's asking the wrong person. Cuz, I don't know. But I will be saying how I feel about the situation cuz that's what the thread and freedom of speach are for.

If Wagner's wholly right, then take Saddam down... if there anything else out there that we don't know, I wish we did so we didn't have to go to war.

I don't like the gung-ho attitude I get off Bush. "We have to take down the Axis of Evil!"

They're not evil.... nobody's that kind of cartoon villiany. They're people just like us who I think are overly intimidated to the point where they beliefs drive them to mass rage and evil deeds.

I'd be a pretty pissed off American if Russia started telling us what to do in our own country and trying to curb how powerful we get because they're scared of us.

I just feel like not enough efforts been made on either part to truely understand each other's society. Maybe then if people could just calm the hell down and listen to each other things could be settled without bloodshed.

How to get both sides to listen or a madman who's killing innocents to stop... I don't know. I'm sure there's gotta be someone in the intelligent world full of monks, priests, scholars and thinkers that could figure it out tho.

I'm a hippy liberal who prefers peace and understanding to the "There's nothing left to do, but fight!" attitude.

[Stardust]

Originally posted by Magentabeams
I know I am not thinking very logical. I am very paranoid like, I am going to wake up one day and find that they took out the middle of the counrty and half the population and there is mass chaos all around.

Paranoia is ok, but have faith in those who fight for your freedom. Finding the U.S. in ruins won't happen. Despite those bad apples who give the military a bad rep, they are actually very, very good at their job. These soldiers have more guts and more patriotism than anyone else in the nation, so have faith that they will prevent mass chaos from happening in the States.

In other words I am just kind of dreaming of getting away from all these threats of terrorism and going somewhere a little more peaceful.


It's a good dream, don't we all wish for peace? *sigh* =\

[James]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton


They're not evil.... nobody's that kind of cartoon villiany. They're people just like us who I think are overly intimidated to the point where they beliefs drive them to mass rage and evil deeds.


JohnCrichton - never has a better word been spoken, not that it's wrong or right, just simply - have we considered everything. I think what you say on Evil is very insightful.

It's easy to simplify problems down into basic equation. They are good, the are evil. Life is not like that. Every person tells a tale - every nation has a legitimate standpoint. You may not agree with what they say, but understanding WHY they say it is half way to understanding how we solve it. No one really seems to be doing this on any side of the conflict. A great pity. I don't think the media helps by simplifying the issue.


I'd be a pretty pissed off American if Russia started telling us what to do in our own country and trying to curb how powerful we get because they're scared of us.


Again, intelligent reasoning. Want to understand how your country appears to others? Swing the scenerio round and see how the concept comes across, that way, again you can understand the enemy rather than just trying to swing punches and look tough.


I just feel like not enough efforts been made on either part to truely understand each other's society. Maybe then if people could just calm the hell down and listen to each other things could be settled without bloodshed.


I agree. I have no love for Iraq's regeime, I'm not sure where I stand with international crisis, but I don't think anyone is really interested in talking. Neither the US or the UK give off this vibe. Whether they are right or wrong, that's not a good vibe to let off. We should (UK and US) be looking at coming across as firm, logical and focused - whatever the angle. I think half of the issue with the UN is not just the intended action, but the intent and fierce drive for action coming from both countries. As if there is more emotion than logic. That suspicion is creating a stumbling block.


I'm a hippy liberal who prefers peace and understanding to the "There's nothing left to do, but fight!" attitude.

That's a nice standpoint. I'm the same. I'm liberal, I want peace. If we have to go in there and all are agreed, I'm behind it. I just don't think any of us are doing ourselves any favours in the process. One part of the UN is impatient, the other half possibly too hesitant. In the meantime, I'm sure Saddam is laughing.

[gristl24]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Please provide some statistical evidence about the amount of civilians killed as the claims you are making are largely overinflated and I have seen no evidence that comes even close to supporting such a figure.
"Various regional and international human rights commissions estimate that between 2,500 and 4,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion, a far cry from official U.S. reports of only several hundred. Many of those interviewed in the film - like Isabel Corro, a Panamanian human rights worker - continue to raise money for the exhumation of bodies from mass graves which Pentagon spokesmen deny exist."
I got this from a review of the movie "The Panama Deception" which I found at this website (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/CineastePanamaDeception.html). You'd have to watch the documentary itself to get more exact figures.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by SJJ
I do. I find many in the pro war camp to be the very aggressive and often patronising speakers, basing all they've found from the same source (often Powell) repeatedly and showing disgust for countries or people who aren't 'strong' enough to agree with their opinion.

I find there cold logic holds no bounds with them as they seem disgusted at contemplating a 'liberal view'. Now I'm not addressing the forum but generally (saying that the previous war thread was full of such missives) and it's certainly not everyone. Just some. It's those few which unfortunately taint the many.

I'm not saying that the anti-war are any better, merely that this subject is so close to everyones heart and politic, that it's rare to hear a truely rational voice.

Well, I feel somewhat the opposite: many liberal "Antiwar" speakers are patronising and snobish, (notice how they make fun of Bush's Texas roots: he's a cowboy, he's a crazed Texan). It becomes obvious to me: when a liberal can't debate you on the issues, they resort to name calling and belittling. Of course, that's not true of all liberals, (and I'm refering to the polite liberals on this board, SJJ included :D )

But I think you're right: finding rational voices on both sides of the debate are seldom few. Myself included, (I sometimes get to upset, but I try to calm down).

:knd1:



Originally posted by SJJ
JohnCrichton - never has a better word been spoken, not that it's wrong or right, just simply - have we considered everything. I think what you say on Evil is very insightful.

It's easy to simplify problems down into basic equation. They are good, the are evil. Life is not like that. Every person tells a tale - every nation has a legitimate standpoint. You may not agree with what they say, but understanding WHY they say it is half way to understanding how we solve it. No one really seems to be doing this on any side of the conflict. A great pity. I don't think the media helps by simplifying the issue.

[B]

Again, intelligent reasoning. Want to understand how your country appears to others? Swing the scenerio round and see how the concept comes across, that way, again you can understand the enemy rather than just trying to swing punches and look tough.

[B]

I agree. I have no love for Iraq's regeime, I'm not sure where I stand with international crisis, but I don't think anyone is really interested in talking. Neither the US or the UK give off this vibe. Whether they are right or wrong, that's not a good vibe to let off. We should (UK and US) be looking at coming across as firm, logical and focused - whatever the angle. I think half of the issue with the UN is not just the intended action, but the intent and fierce drive for action coming from both countries. As if there is more emotion than logic. That suspicion is creating a stumbling block.

[B]

That's a nice standpoint. I'm the same. I'm liberal, I want peace. If we have to go in there and all are agreed, I'm behind it. I just don't think any of us are doing ourselves any favours in the process. One part of the UN is impatient, the other half possibly too hesitant. In the meantime, I'm sure Saddam is laughing.

I find all this "empathizing with Saddam" a little strange. As I've stated in another "Iraqi" thread, (The State of the Union thread), I'm all for declaring a government for what it is: in this case: EVIL. Saddam and his elite army's actions speak for themselves. We have a word for it: a dictatorship. Hussein invaded Kuwait with the intentions of conquering it. We're planing on invading Iraq with the intentions of LIBERATING it. Saddam gassed his own people. Is this something the Bush administration has done? Debating this from the standpoint that Iraq and America are moral equals is wrong: America can dictate what tyrants can and cannot do in their own country because they are just that: tyrants who should be opposed, and when all else fails: war is indeed a worthy option towards confronting evil.

But just because we declare a government evil doesn't mean we think that all the people of Iraq are evil. Like Bush said in the State of the Union speech, he said to the people of Iraq: "Your enemy is not the United States, the enemy is within your own country" or something like that.

[James]

Originally posted by wonderfly

I find all this "empathizing with Saddam" a little strange. As I've stated in another "Iraqi" thread, (The State of the Union thread), I'm all for declaring a government for what it is: in this case: EVIL. Saddam and his elite army's actions speak for themselves. We have a word for it: a dictatorship. Hussein invaded Kuwait with the intentions of conquering it. We're planing on invading Iraq with the intentions of LIBERATING it. Saddam gassed his own people. Is this something the Bush administration has done? Debating this from the standpoint that Iraq and America are moral equals is wrong: America can dictate what tyrants can and cannot do in their own country because they are just that: tyrants who should be opposed, and when all else fails: war is indeed a worthy option towards confronting evil.


It's not a matter of defining whose evil and who is good, it's a matter of appreciating perspectives and alternatives like below:


But just because we declare a government evil doesn't meane think that all the people of Iraq are evil. Like Bush said in the State of the Union speech, he said to the people of Iraq: "Your enemy is not the United States, the enemy is within your own country" or something like that.

Again I say this is not Afganistan. Through fear, through propaganda, through hatred of the West sticking it's nose in, the Iraqi people are not a bunch who will stand up and say, yes Mr Bush we agree with your points - my god, look, the devil was indeed on our own doorstep!" Partiotism, propaganda and fear will make their attitude to the allies as unpredictable as theres maybe towards their leader. It's simplisitic to assume that all will rejoice at the overthrow of the evil dictator. Defining what's evil can become a problem as the simplicity starts to wash away the reality. The saying 'better the devil you know' may come into effect with many of his people. So many really believe the West is evil, simply their to kick their country to pieces and steal their wealth. It may not be the West's intent, but it's not a clear cut matter.

As i've said in threads before, indulging in good and evil is the annoying privilage of the media and one I wish we would stop. It brings emotion into issues which should be looked at objectively. I'm not saying that yourself has a clouded vision, but such terms can make it harder for others to make an objective decision away from what the politic or the media tell them.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by SJJ

Again I say this is not Afganistan. Through fear, through propaganda, through hatred of the West sticking it's nose in, the Iraqi people are not a bunch who will stand up and say, yes Mr Bush we agree with your points - my god, look, the devil was indeed on our own doorstep!"



While I agree with not just labelling people with good/evil, I don't think its that far of a stretch to think that the Iraqi people will be happy with Saddam's removal. The Gulf War already showed us just how much his people were behind him - his troops were surrendering left and right, and we didn't have citizens taking up arms and throwing themselves in front of our tanks on suicide missions. I suspect over the past decade, he hasn't made any of their lives an easier, nor convince them all to love him more.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by gristl24
"Various regional and international human rights commissions estimate that between 2,500 and 4,000 Panamanians were killed in the invasion, a far cry from official U.S. reports of only several hundred. Many of those interviewed in the film - like Isabel Corro, a Panamanian human rights worker - continue to raise money for the exhumation of bodies from mass graves which Pentagon spokesmen deny exist."
I got this from a review of the movie "The Panama Deception" which I found at this website (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/CineastePanamaDeception.html). You'd have to watch the documentary itself to get more exact figures.

I have to seriously question any source that relies upon Berkeley as it's primary foundation. According to a Berkeley faculty union their policies have always been to (1) work to change America's foreign policy by fighting militarism, (2) demand that automobiles be banned from the campus and that parking structures be torn down, and (3) speak out strongly in favor of student rights.

After all this is the same university that tried to ban red, white and blue ribbons that were being distributed to remember the attacks of 9/11 because the administration feared alienating students that had come from other nations around the world. This is also the same university that has attempted to compare the United States to the Nazi regime by specializing in studies of "Cultures of US Imperialism" and "Holocaust Studies in the Americas." The complete lack of historical context that is presented in these classes and the amount of bad information that is dissemenated within this university is sickening - even allowing the creation of a student group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine that has specialized in attacking Jewish students as well as scribbling anti-semitic phrases throughout the university, including the class room itself.

One infamous class, "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance", is taught by a student teacher Snehal Shingavi and helps demonstrate the lengths of which the university is willing to go to distribute a very biased view. The course description included the following: "The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, [ongoing] since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people…This class will examine the history of the [resisstance] and the way that it is narrated by Palestinians in order to produce an understanding of the Intifada." The very subject matter is clearly debatable, but the printed course description also clearly stated that persons with a dissenting opinion are unwelcome, and that they should go elsewhere. Basically claiming that students that didn't believe in the homocidal attacks committed by Palestinian terrorists in the Middle East were heroic should not be allowed into the class. For a school to allow such a class to be taught that clearly alienates one group of students and disallows inteligent debate on the topic is uncosciable and clearly shows how far Berkeley is willing to go to attack America and her allies.

Originally posted by SJJ
JohnCrichton - never has a better word been spoken, not that it's wrong or right, just simply - have we considered everything. I think what you say on Evil is very insightful.

It's easy to simplify problems down into basic equation. They are good, the are evil. Life is not like that. Every person tells a tale - every nation has a legitimate standpoint. You may not agree with what they say, but understanding WHY they say it is half way to understanding how we solve it. No one really seems to be doing this on any side of the conflict. A great pity. I don't think the media helps by simplifying the issue.

Again, intelligent reasoning. Want to understand how your country appears to others? Swing the scenerio round and see how the concept comes across, that way, again you can understand the enemy rather than just trying to swing punches and look tough.

The problem with this is that by creating a moral equivalency status we are saying that regimes that kill their own citizens with chemical weapons and have invaded sovereign nations with the purpose of annexing that nation are just as moral and upstanding as a nation that has deployed troops all over the world in an effort to prevent the genocide of different ethnicities the world over while delivering food and medicine to those in need. The idea that there can be no good and no evil creates a scenario where one could feasibly say that Nazi Germany was the moral equivalent of Great Britain, irregardless of the actual policies of these two very different nations. Or perhaps this is more like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is just as moral as Colin Powell.

The thing is though that the world does not and cannot operate in a range of only gray because when the world chooses to follow such a policy it allows for great wrongs to occur (the Holocaust, the Russian slayings of Polish citizens during WWII, the Milosevic slayings, etc). Under a shade of grey the world cannot operate on a safe level because the sins of those that are willing to abuse their power will go unchallenged and they will be permitted to continue these policies.

You also made meniton of placing our country into the position of Iraq but this makes a person believe that a moral equivalency exists between these two very different nations. As logical thinkers we can only evaluate the situation by looking at the past policies of the regime in question and the intelligence data that has been collected and finding a pattern that would suggest the next course of action. Based upon the past policies of Iraq we have found that Saddam was trying to build a nuclear bomb in 1981 and is still operating a nuclear weapons program within Iraq, that he has supported terrorism within Israel - a web of terror that has now grown to include Ansar al-Islam as well as Hamas and others, that he has used chemical weapons upon his own citizens and has never divulged the location of these weapons as per UN Security Council Resolution 687.

On the other hand we can look at the US and find that the US has not used chemical weapons on their citizens, the US has not invaded another sovereign nation with the sole purpose of annexation and that the US deployed troops to the Middle East to prevent the occupation of the sovereign country Saddam tried to annex. Any potential war on Iraq can not come from a standpoint of moral equivalency but must be based upon the recognition of Iraqi failures to follow UN Resolutions for the past 12 years, the aggressive policy they have demonstrated against their neighbors (attack on Tel Aviv, burning of Kuwaiti oil fields, invasion of Kuwait), the blatant support of world terrorism and the retainment of chemical and biological weapons that have not been accounted for by the Iraqi government in its reports to the United Nations.

-Joe!

[gristl24]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
I have to seriously question any source that relies upon Berkeley as it's primary foundation.

But Berkeley is not the foundation. It's a Cineaste article, Cineaste has no financial ties to the film industry or to any academic institutions. The article was posted on Berkeley's website but other than that it has nothing to do with that institution.
Don't talk about questioning sources when a source you posted was from www.frontpagemag.com, a website with a plethora of anti-liberal and anti-Democrat messages and ads. Don't bash others sources when you are using obviously biased sources in your own arguements.

[James]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner

You also made meniton of placing our country into the position of Iraq but this makes a person believe that a moral equivalency exists between these two very different nations. As logical thinkers we can only evaluate the situation by looking at the past policies of the regime in question and the intelligence data that has been collected and finding a pattern that would suggest the next course of action. Based upon the past policies of Iraq we have found that Saddam was trying to build a nuclear bomb in 1981 and is still operating a nuclear weapons program within Iraq, that he has supported terrorism within Israel - a web of terror that has now grown to include Ansar al-Islam as well as Hamas and others, that he has used chemical weapons upon his own citizens and has never divulged the location of these weapons as per UN Security Council Resolution 687.

On the other hand we can look at the US and find that the US has not used chemical weapons on their citizens, the US has not invaded another sovereign nation with the sole purpose of annexation and that the US deployed troops to the Middle East to prevent the occupation of the sovereign country Saddam tried to annex. Any potential war on Iraq can not come from a standpoint of moral equivalency but must be based upon the recognition of Iraqi failures to follow UN Resolutions for the past 12 years, the aggressive policy they have demonstrated against their neighbors (attack on Tel Aviv, burning of Kuwaiti oil fields, invasion of Kuwait), the blatant support of world terrorism and the retainment of chemical and biological weapons that have not been accounted for by the Iraqi government in its reports to the United Nations.


But you're methods are still trying to work in black and white - defining how good or bad one is by comparing to another. By doing so you are creating a spectrum of what is evil to good.

Simply it should be worked on what a country is doing, by international standards, wrong and then proceed from there. It is in fact what is done on the whole, but how the politic and the media use it for their own gains simplfies complicated international affairs into Evil Saddam and his wicked country. I don't think this rallying/rabble rousing is healthy for international affairs. When we could be sending loved ones to die, we should be as level headed as possible, reporting the facts, the issues, the ethical dilemmas in an intelligent, and probably more dull manner. If we did, I think there would be less suspicion about motives and reasons for possible soloutions (it's Bush's family vendetta/it's cos France has vested interest in protecting it's oil.. etc).

This does not happen. People get incensed and caught in the politics and the fear/fury projected in the media and lose sight of the facts and the goals.

A more objective approach by polticians and media, would be more dull, not as easy to define, but it would mean we all could debate the facts as they are according to international law, rather than delving in what's evil/what's right/why others should be doing x when they are doing why... cut through the mess and get to the dull facts.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by SJJ
But you're methods are still trying to work in black and white - defining how good or bad one is by comparing to another. By doing so you are creating a spectrum of what is evil to good.

Simply it should be worked on what a country is doing, by international standards, wrong and then proceed from there. It is in fact what is done on the whole, but how the politic and the media use it for their own gains simplfies complicated international affairs into Evil Saddam and his wicked country. I don't think this rallying/rabble rousing is healthy for international affairs. When we could be sending loved ones to die, we should be as level headed as possible, reporting the facts, the issues, the ethical dilemmas in an intelligent, and probably more dull manner. If we did, I think there would be less suspicion about motives and reasons for possible soloutions (it's Bush's family vendetta/it's cos France has vested interest in protecting it's oil.. etc).

This does not happen. People get incensed and caught in the politics and the fear/fury projected in the media and lose sight of the facts and the goals.

A more objective approach by polticians and media, would be more dull, not as easy to define, but it would mean we all could debate the facts as they are according to international law, rather than delving in what's evil/what's right/why others should be doing x when they are doing why... cut through the mess and get to the dull facts.

First off, I'd like to say that moral absolutes are not a bad thing. In fact, they make sense. If you say that there are no moral absolutes, is that not an absolute in itself? If you say that moral absolutes are wrong and dangerous, is that not an absolute? Everything is eventually an absolute. :D

Second, as to the "dull facts", they have already been debated and decided upon. I direct your attention to Resolution 1441 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm). The text of this resolution does not assume that Iraq might be in breach of its responsibilities, it clearly states that it is in breach! And, it sets a clear time limit and responsibility for Saddam to comply, which he has failed to to. So, based on this resolution, we have the authority to take him out. A resolution that, mind you, has been agreed on by the countries that are now backing off!

What I want to know is, if the will of the international body is so important, how did this resolution get passed in the first place?

It just shows that the U.N. continues to be irrelavant. I'm sorry to sound harsh about that, but they have failed to make Saddam comply for over a decade now. It's been a comedy of errors. And now that we are about to do something about it, we get met with criticism! I say, time's up. We've had 12 years to decide. Now, let's do something about it. We don't need another 9/11 before we have ample reason to defend ourselves.

[Chris Wood]

Hussein invaded Kuwait with the intentions of conquering it. We're planing on invading Iraq with the intentions of LIBERATING it.

It's questionable whether an American created government constitutes liberation.

Saddam gassed his own people. Is this something the Bush administration has done?

No, but he certainly enjoys bombing other nationalities.

Debating this from the standpoint that Iraq and America are moral equals is wrong: America can dictate what tyrants can and cannot do in their own country because they are just that: tyrants who should be opposed, and when all else fails: war is indeed a worthy option towards confronting evil.

I would say America has a far superior moral position to Saddam, but we're still no angels, and many consider us to be just as bad a tyrant.

But just because we declare a government evil doesn't mean we think that all the people of Iraq are evil. Like Bush said in the State of the Union speech, he said to the people of Iraq: "Your enemy is not the United States, the enemy is within your own country" or something like that.

This is going to become confusing when the people who are not their enemies start dropping bombs in their backyards.

[Chris Wood]

According to a Berkeley faculty union their policies have always been to (1) work to change America's foreign policy by fighting militarism, (2) demand that automobiles be banned from the campus and that parking structures be torn down, and (3) speak out strongly in favor of student rights.

These all sound fairly reasonable if there is proper public transportation.

even allowing the creation of a student group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine that has specialized in attacking Jewish students as well as scribbling anti-semitic phrases throughout the university, including the class room itself.

Its indiscretions aside, surely the existence of such a group is desirable. Otherwise one would hear nothing but the Jewish side.

Or perhaps this is more like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer is just as moral as Colin Powell.

But more people are likely to die as a result of Powell's actions than of Dahmer's.

On the other hand we can look at the US and find that the US has not used chemical weapons on their citizens, the US has not invaded another sovereign nation with the sole purpose of annexation and that the US deployed troops to the Middle East to prevent the occupation of the sovereign country Saddam tried to annex. Any potential war on Iraq can not come from a standpoint of moral equivalency but must be based upon the recognition of Iraqi failures to follow UN Resolutions for the past 12 years, the aggressive policy they have demonstrated against their neighbors (attack on Tel Aviv, burning of Kuwaiti oil fields, invasion of Kuwait), the blatant support of world terrorism and the retainment of chemical and biological weapons that have not been accounted for by the Iraqi government in its reports to the United Nations.

The US also possesses biological weapons so it doesn't hold the moral high gorund there.

The US has attacked and annexed Florida (against the Spanish and Seminoles), the western states (against the Mexicans and Indians), Puerto Rico and the Phillipines (against the Spanish), and Okinawa (against the Japanese).

[Chris Wood]

First off, I'd like to say that moral absolutes are not a bad thing. In fact, they make sense. If you say that there are no moral absolutes, is that not an absolute in itself? If you say that moral absolutes are wrong and dangerous, is that not an absolute? Everything is eventually an absolute.

Moral absolutes are fine, but are very rarely applicable to international politics, where situations are nearly always convoluted and ambiguous.

It just shows that the U.N. continues to be irrelavant. I'm sorry to sound harsh about that, but they have failed to make Saddam comply for over a decade now. It's been a comedy of errors. And now that we are about to do something about it, we get met with criticism! I say, time's up. We've had 12 years to decide. Now, let's do something about it. We don't need another 9/11 before we have ample reason to defend ourselves.

The UN would be more relevant if people like us would listen to it. They have failed to make Saddam comply so far, but they also haven't shot anybody yet. What is the connection with 9/11? Saddam is not going to ride an airliner into the Washington Monument. We can not defend ourselves until danger approaches. If we suppose that Saddam is that danger, then it is far too busy cowering in a hole hoping we won't bomb it to cross the Atlantic and attack us.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Desslar
Moral absolutes are fine, but are very rarely applicable to international politics, where situations are nearly always convoluted and ambiguous.

Funny thing is, moral absolutes aren't even the issue, here. They were just brought up out of seemingly nowhere.


The UN would be more relevant if people like us would listen to it. They have failed to make Saddam comply so far, but they also haven't shot anybody yet. What is the connection with 9/11? Saddam is not going to ride an airliner into the Washington Monument. We can not defend ourselves until danger approaches. If we suppose that Saddam is that danger, then it is far too busy cowering in a hole hoping we won't bomb it to cross the Atlantic and attack us.

I am becoming quite weary of saying this. We have seen FREQUENTLY that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are being buddy-buddy. We have also seen FREQUENTLY that Iraq is building nuclear weapons. We have heard threats FREQUENTLY from Saddam against us and our allies. We have had a MAJOR disaster two years ago because we ignored signals from terrorists that something was up. Like I've said, we didn't ask for this war, but we've got to follow through.

Why does everyone want Saddam to attack first, anyway? Did anybody want 9/11 to happen?

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Desslar
It's questionable whether an American created government constitutes liberation.



I can only go by what I see as America's previous "liberations". Japan is better off, West Germany was better off, Panama is better off, South Korea's a better place to live than N. Korea, etc.

The only historical war I can find problems with is the 1848 U.S. /Mexican war, but in looking at Texas now, I'm pretty well assured that Texans are happier being part of the U.S. than being part of Mexico, (from an economic's standard anyway).


Originally posted by Desslar
[B]

No, but he certainly enjoys bombing other nationalities.



I would say America has a far superior moral position to Saddam, but we're still no angels, and many consider us to be just as bad a tyrant.




Yes, many do consider us evil, and I believe we've got to strive harder to change thier opinion, but I also realize that some people in the world hate us just because it's easy to hate the top dog aka the Lone Superpower

Originally posted by Desslar
[B]

This is going to become confusing when the people who are not their enemies start dropping bombs in their backyards.

Accidents happen. The U.S. army doesn't set out to slaughter innocent civilians. If we don't take any action out of fear of accidents, we'd probably be best off never leaving the house. At least the U.S. takes responsibility for it's actions when something goes wrong: (case in point: America has apologized a bazillion times for the 4 dead Canadian soldiers that were killed in Afganistan).

I'm sure others will debate me on that, and point out atrocities in Vietnam or somewhere else, and in the end, maybe this whole "should we go to war with Iraq" thing comes down to one's own outlook on life. I'm a "glass half full" kind of guy, others are "glass is half empty". In other words: I see the plus side of going to war, others see the negative. :(

[James]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
First off, I'd like to say that moral absolutes are not a bad thing. In fact, they make sense. If you say that there are no moral absolutes, is that not an absolute in itself? If you say that moral absolutes are wrong and dangerous, is that not an absolute? Everything is eventually an absolute. :D

I'm not getting into that argument again, suffice to say relying on absolutes is not good when trying to deal issues which are grey.


Second, as to the "dull facts", they have already been debated and decided upon. I direct your attention to Resolution 1441 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm). The text of this resolution does not assume that Iraq might be in breach of its responsibilities, it clearly states that it is in breach! And, it sets a clear time limit and responsibility for Saddam to comply, which he has failed to to. So, based on this resolution, we have the authority to take him out. A resolution that, mind you, has been agreed on by the countries that are now backing off!


That is not the point I'm making and again I'm not going down there.. :) It's that the points get lost in the mix of simplistic language used through the political and media machines.


It just shows that the U.N. continues to be irrelavant. I'm sorry to sound harsh about that, but they have failed to make Saddam comply for over a decade now. It's been a comedy of errors. And now that we are about to do something about it, we get met with criticism! I say, time's up. We've had 12 years to decide. Now, let's do something about it. We don't need another 9/11 before we have ample reason to defend ourselves.

Woah their cowboy! :p It shows the UN continues to be irrelevant? To whom? Those who have decided their action is true? Now I'm not saying I don't support a venture into the Iraq, I'm beginning to think I probably do. But what happened to democracy? The UN is just an extension of this in the same way one government governs your state. If everyone isn't happy then yes, we have to find out why and how we can all be happy. That's representations. The line of reasoning that the UN has failed to support what we feel is right and thus is rubbish smacks against democracy.

I think we will go in there eventually. I think all countries will eventually agree because the evidence being collalated is going to be damning enough that everyone will go in. At the moment it's not conclusive enough for everyone, and in a deomocratic world we give all as much of a voice as possible. Yes, democracy is slower that a dictatorship, that's the nature of a more socially complex order. To fight Saddam's dictatorship we should do it in the name of what we all hold true - liberty. If the population of some of the countries (and remember it's not just politicans - it's the public who don't fully support this) aren't happy we shouldn't ignore them. How can we?

Most have said if the inspectors come back with the evidence which in their eyes damn's Saddam they'll go ahead with the strike if it's required. The world isn't being cowardly. They will fight - but they want to make sure the fight is justified in their eyes - not just yours. :)

[Chris Wood]

I am becoming quite weary of saying this. We have seen FREQUENTLY that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are being buddy-buddy. We have also seen FREQUENTLY that Iraq is building nuclear weapons. We have heard threats FREQUENTLY from Saddam against us and our allies.

I may be ignorant because I have not watched all the news conferences, but could you briefly sum up what specific connections have been documented between Iraq and Al-Qaeda?

Iraq may be building nuclear weapons. Several years ago when Pakistan was racing to develop nuclear weapons, do you recall what kind of gesture the US made to dissuade them? We refused to sign on to the nuclear test ban treaty. We can't expect other nations to stay non-nuclear if we're not going to follow suit.

Saddam has made threats, but is that enough evidence for war? Bush makes threats all the time.

We have had a MAJOR disaster two years ago because we ignored signals from terrorists that something was up.

Good point. The CIA should get more funding.

Like I've said, we didn't ask for this war, but we've got to follow through.

We are asking the UN for a war right now. There is no war at present, at least for the US.

Why does everyone want Saddam to attack first, anyway?

Well, it kind of sucks, but that's the way the good guys operate. Just like policemen cannot shoot suspects who they think may be about to commit a crime, the US does not have the right to attack any and all nations who may be considering hostile action againts it. Preventing wars and finishing wars can be noble causes, but starting them rarely is.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by SJJ
I'm not getting into that argument again, suffice to say relying on absolutes is not good when trying to deal issues which are grey.

That's fine, I don't even know how it got brought up in the first place. (But then, a lot of threads have been that way, lately.) :D


That is not the point I'm making and again I'm not going down there.. :) It's that the points get lost in the mix of simplistic language used through the political and media machines.

Well, I'm just saying that 1441, as I read it, sets the dates, times, and conditions. And a lot of people who originally thought it was a good idea are saying "But we don't want that!" Then, why did they vote on it? That's all I'm saying.

Woah their cowboy! :p It shows the UN continues to be irrelevant? To whom? Those who have decided their action is true? Now I'm not saying I don't support a venture into the Iraq, I'm beginning to think I probably do. But what happened to democracy? The UN is just an extension of this in the same way one government governs your state. If everyone isn't happy then yes, we have to find out why and how we can all be happy. That's representations. The line of reasoning that the UN has failed to support what we feel is right and thus is rubbish smacks against democracy.

The U.N. has so far, as far as I can see, has not ever stopped a war, nor has it ever gotten a country to comply to its will. And looking at the way it's set up, it borders on being, in my eyes, a farce. Liyba as the head of a human rights commision? Come on!

Oh, and it's not set up the same way our government is set up either. The representatives from each country aren't elected, and there's no system of checks and balances that is as extensive as ours. Really, America is not a "democracy" in the purest sense of the word. We have elected officials that represent the people who elected them. We are a Republic, with a bit of deomocracy mixed in. But a pure democracy is mob rule, or anarchy. And that's never worked.

I think we will go in there eventually. I think all countries will eventually agree because the evidence being collalated is going to be damning enough that everyone will go in. At the moment it's not conclusive enough for everyone, and in a deomocratic world we give all as much of a voice as possible. Yes, democracy is slower that a dictatorship, that's the nature of a more socially complex order. To fight Saddam's dictatorship we should do it in the name of what we all hold true - liberty. If the population of some of the countries (and remember it's not just politicans - it's the public who don't fully support this) aren't happy we shouldn't ignore them. How can we?

I'm saying, again, that if these countries aren't so sure a case has been made, they shouldn't have voted "Yes" on 1441. It's very hypocritical to vote one way, and turn around and say the exact opposite when the time to act comes. Again, that undermines the credibility of the U.N. Which is another reason why I think it's irrelavant. If you can make a decision, and not be bound to it, why make the decisions at all?


Most have said if the inspectors come back with the evidence which in their eyes damn's Saddam they'll go ahead with the strike if it's required. The world isn't being cowardly. They will fight - but they want to make sure the fight is justified in their eyes - not just yours. :)

According to the text of 1441, the fight is justified in their eyes, otherwise they would have voted "no".

[Chris Wood]

I can only go by what I see as America's previous "liberations". Japan is better off, West Germany was better off, Panama is better off, South Korea's a better place to live than N. Korea, etc.

Japan is better off. West Germany is better off, but it was separated from its eastern realtives for decades. I don't know about Panama. Suth Korea is doing OK economically but is still separated from its northern relatives.

The only historical war I can find problems with is the 1848 U.S. /Mexican war, but in looking at Texas now, I'm pretty well assured that Texans are happier being part of the U.S. than being part of Mexico, (from an economic's standard anyway).

However the Texans are not the issue. I was speaking of the Indians and Mexicans living in the large area (not just Texas) that the US seized in the Mexican War).

Yes, many do consider us evil, and I believe we've got to strive harder to change thier opinion, but I also realize that some people in the world hate us just because it's easy to hate the top dog aka the Lone Superpower

Very true.



Accidents happen. The U.S. army doesn't set out to slaughter innocent civilians. If we don't take any action out of fear of accidents, we'd probably be best off never leaving the house.

I wasn't talking about accidents. I was talking about bombs falling in general if a US invasion takes place. It would seem difficult for the Iraqi people not to get angry about it.


At least the U.S. takes responsibility for it's actions when something goes wrong: (case in point: America has apologized a bazillion times for the 4 dead Canadian soldiers that were killed in Afganistan).

I'm sorry, but this is wildly inaccurate. Look at the US military's track record over the last five years:

A US jet cut a cable dropping a cable car and 20 Italians to their deaths in Italy. Result: the US soldiers were acquitted.

US soldiers have been involved in several high profile rapes of young girls in Okinawa in recent years, but the US still attempts to impede the local justice system and hand out its own light sentences (if any). The rapes continue to happen.

A US submarine sunk a Japanese fishing boat near Hawaii, killing about 10 children. Result: the Captain of the submarine was removed from duty, but no criminal charges were brought.

A US plane (helicopter) bombed an Afghani wedding party in Afghanistan killing 30 people. Result: As far as I know, no criminal charges were brought.

US soldiers driving a Jeep in South Korea ran over and killed two young girls. Result: they were acquitted.

So much for taking responsibility.

In other words: I see the plus side of going to war, others see the negative.

But there are no "plusses" to war. People die, and that always sucks. War is an act of despair and desperation resorted to when all good options fail.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by gristl24
But Berkeley is not the foundation. It's a Cineaste article, Cineaste has no financial ties to the film industry or to any academic institutions. The article was posted on Berkeley's website but other than that it has nothing to do with that institution.

Don't talk about questioning sources when a source you posted was from www.frontpagemag.com, a website with a plethora of anti-liberal and anti-Democrat messages and ads. Don't bash others sources when you are using obviously biased sources in your own arguements.

While frontpagemag.com is primarily a Conservative Republican website they often present articles from the other point of view - in an effort to create a more balanced website. A glance through their archives would quickly reveal this. Also, frontpagemag.com is not the only source that I use in my arguements - using many references from the UN, the Jerusalem Post and even the UK Times Online and other outlets to support my views.

Originally posted by SJJ
But you're methods are still trying to work in black and white - defining how good or bad one is by comparing to another. By doing so you are creating a spectrum of what is evil to good.

Simply it should be worked on what a country is doing, by international standards, wrong and then proceed from there. It is in fact what is done on the whole, but how the politic and the media use it for their own gains simplfies complicated international affairs into Evil Saddam and his wicked country. I don't think this rallying/rabble rousing is healthy for international affairs. When we could be sending loved ones to die, we should be as level headed as possible, reporting the facts, the issues, the ethical dilemmas in an intelligent, and probably more dull manner. If we did, I think there would be less suspicion about motives and reasons for possible soloutions (it's Bush's family vendetta/it's cos France has vested interest in protecting it's oil.. etc).

This does not happen. People get incensed and caught in the politics and the fear/fury projected in the media and lose sight of the facts and the goals.

A more objective approach by polticians and media, would be more dull, not as easy to define, but it would mean we all could debate the facts as they are according to international law, rather than delving in what's evil/what's right/why others should be doing x when they are doing why... cut through the mess and get to the dull facts.

The primary thing is that we have been releasing the factual information about Iraq to the world community and very few nations have choosen to act on the information - instead claiming it to be faulty or completely irrelevant, even when that info shows a direct ignorance toward the very resolutions these nations have signed. This is less about establishing a good vs. evil scenario but about presenting the facts and acting upon them - a vision that was shared by the UN in regards to Resolution 1441. By signing on to this resolution the members nations made it Iraq's responsibility to reveal all of their weapons and weapons programs, cooperate with inspectors or face severe consequences. When Iraq refused to release an honest document and inspectors found warheads in his possession it was a direct violation of the resolution. The US and Britain have decided to act out the rest of the resolution (the severe consequences if you will) while nations like France, Germany and Russia have choosen to back away from the resolution they signed - effectively making their signatures little more than a facade to actually back the resolution.

You also make mention that there is a lot of grey within this topic but how does grey get defined without having a black and white value to compare it to? This once again provides a moral equivalency status that every nation is equal and colored grey - irregardless of the policies and actions of that country. This is a theory that I don't think the world should subscribe to because it makes a statement that nothing is ever good or evil - only equal. Basically if Saddam chooses to slaughter all of Iran in a nuclear firestorm it's just as equal as if the British decided to drop food on the poor people of Nigeria. A nation cannot be compared upon the values of moral equivalency - only on the basis of their current and past policies. Today Iraq has shown that their current policy is to support terrorism and acquire weapons of mass destruction. Their past policy has shown they are unwilling to follow the resolutions of the UN and have desired to act against their neighbor countries. Given the policies of the past and present the US and her allies have ever right to be concerned about the Iraqi regime and work to secure her own safety.

-Joe!

[Nightflower]

I have nothing to contribute, but I just have to say that I'm really enjoying reading this discussion. Wow... it is possible to have a civil, interesting and polite debate on politics and war! I honestly didn't think it could be done. ^_^

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Desslar
Japan is better off. West Germany is better off, but it was separated from its eastern realtives for decades. I don't know about Panama. Suth Korea is doing OK economically but is still separated from its northern relatives.



Yeah, but separated relatives...aw what the hell. I think we're overall agreeing, so I'll let that tidbit rest.

Originally posted by Desslar


However the Texans are not the issue. I was speaking of the Indians and Mexicans living in the large area (not just Texas) that the US seized in the Mexican War).


Yes, that's what I was refering to when I said that was the war I had perhaps the most problems with. But overall, I'd like to think the American Govt. has come a long way since then.

Originally posted by Desslar

I wasn't talking about accidents. I was talking about bombs falling in general if a US invasion takes place. It would seem difficult for the Iraqi people not to get angry about it.



Yeah, but in general, the places where bombs are going to fall are "military targets". Of course, like I said, there are going to be accidents. It doesn't help when Saddam places civilians in or around military targets in an effort to see his own citizens killed, just so he can claim to the world how evil America is.

Originally posted by Desslar


I'm sorry, but this is wildly inaccurate. Look at the US military's track record over the last five years:

A US jet cut a cable dropping a cable car and 20 Italians to their deaths in Italy. Result: the US soldiers were acquitted.

US soldiers have been involved in several high profile rapes of young girls in Okinawa in recent years, but the US still attempts to impede the local justice system and hand out its own light sentences (if any). The rapes continue to happen.

A US submarine sunk a Japanese fishing boat near Hawaii, killing about 10 children. Result: the Captain of the submarine was removed from duty, but no criminal charges were brought.

A US plane (helicopter) bombed an Afghani wedding party in Afghanistan killing 30 people. Result: As far as I know, no criminal charges were brought.

US soldiers driving a Jeep in South Korea ran over and killed two young girls. Result: they were acquitted.

So much for taking responsibility.




Touche. You bring up some valid points. But I was referring to taking responsibility for stuff that happens 'while actually in combat' such as the Canadians killed during the Afganistan campaign. Many of the ones you bring up didn't happen in warzones. Not that that makes it any better, but I wanted to point out what I was refering to.

Let me see about the ones you've listed here:

"A US jet cut a cable dropping a cable car and 20 Italians to their deaths in Italy. Result: the US soldiers were acquitted. "


I only vaguely have heard about the Italian Cable Car incident, so I can't comment there.

"US soldiers have been involved in several high profile rapes of young girls in Okinawa in recent years, but the US still attempts to impede the local justice system and hand out its own light sentences (if any). The rapes continue to happen."

While I haven't heard of multiple rapes, there was one a couple years back around the time of the Submarine accident that infuriated me as well. This policy of "U.S. military law" superceding Japanese, (and S. Korean,) law goes back to the 19th century, when America had those nations sign treaties where American soldiers are only held responsible to their military superiors, and not to the nation where their crime is commited. I find this disgusting.

"A US submarine sunk a Japanese fishing boat near Hawaii, killing about 10 children. Result: the Captain of the submarine was removed from duty, but no criminal charges were brought."

I was shocked by this incident as well, but it was a proven accident. He'll never captain a sub or boat again. He's also apologized directly to the Japanese public, (even family members of those killed) personally, so I'm not sure what more you could ask.

"A US plane (helicopter) bombed an Afghani wedding party in Afghanistan killing 30 people. Result: As far as I know, no criminal charges were brought."

Yeah, I must say, the day I heard that news was the day I was most upset with the Afganistan campaign. I don't know if criminal charges were brought up either, but since they've been brought up against the 2 pilots who killed the Canadians, they should probably be brought against the pilot of that plane as well. That would be a double standard, saying Canadian lives are worth charges being brought up, and yet, Afgani lives aren't. But I don't know all the details about this...

The key difference may be in that...I heard that the 2 pilots who shot at the Canadians were told to hold off momentarily before firing, yet they did so anyway, in direct violation of their commanders orders. I don't think I heard anything like that about the Afgani deaths. But the reason given for the firing upon the Wedding party was that guns were fired into the air, thus the fighter jet mistook them for Taliban fighters. It's an explanation, though it may not exempt them from charges.

"US soldiers driving a Jeep in South Korea ran over and killed two young girls. Result: they were acquitted."

See my answer about the Japanese rapes above.

Originally posted by Desslar


But there are no "plusses" to war. People die, and that always sucks. War is an act of despair and desperation resorted to when all good options fail.

You phrase it as "when all good options fail", but I'd phrase it as "when all other options fail, and war is for a good cause, then it will 'most of the time' be worth it in the end."

Anyone remember that line from "The Patriot" given by that guy near the beginning of the film when he's trying to rally the colonists to fight against Britian? Something like "When all other options fail, then war is a worthy cause" or something like that...

[wonderfly]

34 votes for Yes. 30 votes for No. 6 undecided. Sounds like America to me: we're evenly divided.

Still, I'd like to see over 100 votes by Monday morning, aka 1 weeks worth of votes. I remember those Batman polls last year: by the time 1 week passed, they had between 150 and 200 votes...and that felt like a pretty good snapshot of how Toonzone members felt on an issue, (though the issue was Batman episodes, which is a tadbit different subject)...

[wonderfly]

Well, did everybody say what they wanted to say about this? Get everything off their chest, so to speak?

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Well, did everybody say what they wanted to say about this? Get everything off their chest, so to speak?

I think I said my peace a long time ago :p

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

1. If we take out Saddam's regime, the Iraqis will be free.

The issue is what we do after the war ends. We can't just leave the country in chaos after we're done, or another person will take over amid the melee.

No; the best bet is to establish a democratic republic, one that the people choose. They can use another country as a model.

2. Yes, Bush will get his oil money. So will every country in the earth that actually knows how to use its natural resources to benefit their nations.

The main thing, though, is that the oil benefits the Iraqi people the most. [see #1]

3. Number 2 will stimulate the stirrings of an economy, which will slowly put an end to the Reign of Terror instigated by manipulators of uneducated, penniless slack-jawed yokels.

You must understand. Education, knowledge, and a bit of money are the beginnings of prosperity. The whole anti-West issue is one of religious origin.

Basically, Muslims in the ME hate the West because they believe it is morally corrupt. Add in poverty, corrupt rulers sitting on a bed of wealth, interference in their culture nad land by these same "unwashed heathen", and a really good Islamic preacher/imam: and we have the perfect recipe for CHAOS.

We're dealing with that pyramid of needs, only on a multinational scale. The first level of that pyramid, Basic Needs, has not been met for the peoples in that region save for a select few. And those select few are too selfish to do what's right for their people, so they redirect the rage and frustration of the youth towards the "heathen nations" that have kept them in power(in an effort to keep the region stable so that oil prices would stay under $1.50; and to protect the youth and other citizens from upheaval); rather than letting the rage follow its natural course(that is, the anger of the people would be directed--rightfully--at the selfish rulers).

:: the above was an attempt an analyizing the Arab world as a whole. [saudi arabia being the major offender here] Iraq is a whole new flavor of cookie, as you'll see below. ::

4. Saddam's government may NOT have ties to Ay-babtu(al qaida = the base, bad internet joke gone sour...I'll continue my point now), but it has offered handsome rewards to any Palestinian terrorists in Israel who kill Israeli citizens.

IOW, Hussein's position is that he condones terrorism and he supports terrorism. And if we count Mr. Hussein's treatment of the Kurds and of his own citizens, that could also be considered acts of terror as well.

Now, since 9/11/2001, President Bush has stated that the US will root out terrorists and those that harbor them.

5. Iraq's government violated the treaty signed at the end of PGW 1991.

6. Said government also failed to comply with the UN mandate that they give a statement of all the weapons they have; and they didn't destroy those weapons either.

7. Said government is also obstructing the UN inspection process, violating another UN code.

8. Because of #6, the UN already has the right to act.

9. The US is a sovereign nation, and has the option to attack its enemy in a preemptive strike without having to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Any other sovereign nation would have already invaded Iraq, including North Korea. (whom I will address in a moment) Is the US to be excluded from a preemptive strike because said nation is too powerful?

Let me ask this another way.

* A nine-year old has been trying to purchase a gun to kill Shaquille O'Neal, and this kid has repeatedly sent death threats to Shaq. Shaq's bodyguards, agents, publicists, teammates, and coach have proven that this nine-year old wants Shaq dead.

*Shaq goes to the police, who sends officers to look into the matter and compel the kid to quit trying to obtain the gun. The nine-year old keeps cleaning her room and hiding all of the evidence that she's tried to purchase a lethal firearm; and she intimidates her parents and relatives so much that they help obscure the truth from the authorities. [also, said family members hate wealthy basketball players.]

* If Shaq knows the kid's plotting to kill him, and reasonably suspects that she paid other kids her lunch money or egged on equally disturbed kids to kill Kobe Bryant, Magic Johnson, and other Lakers' players(or former Lakers in the case of Earvin); should Shaq have to stand around and not stop this girl from killing him because he's 7'2" and weighs over 300 pounds?

While him killing her would be excessive force, Shaq removing the means to get a gun from the nine-year old by force before she succeeds would not be irrational in the least.

IOW[and I've said this earlier], the US should not have to be harangued over a preemptive strike after it has already explained why to the international community.

10. The US wants UN approval and backing.

Quite frankly, the US can't afford to shoulder the cost of post-war repairs alone. Americans NEED that money. At the same time, the US can't say "we have to stop Saddam from building his Weapons of Mass Destruction...but we don't have the money, so we won't do anything."

11. North Korea? North Korea? Who is that?

Yes, I'm aware of the nukes Mr. Kim has. Yes, I wouldn't mind if the US pressured him a bit. However, China isn't stupid. Neither is Japan, who has most likely ignored their disarmament treaty with the US and has already begun [QUIETLY] building weapons of their own to counter NK's nukes. (and get the remaining 75 Japanese abductees back on Japanese soil)

And don't forget Russia, either. Russia and China are close buddies.

IOW, this is another nine-year old wanting to kill Shaq--one who already has a gun--but one surrounded by a group of older brothers who would pound him in the ground if he attempts to fire a shot at anyone. All that Shaq has to do is use his influence and compel the elder siblings to make the kid put the gun down.

12. Because of the comparative impotence of #11, the US can't afford to spread its military too thin trying to hunt terrorists, take out Saddam, AND stop Kim.

The US can't have too many enemies on its plate. Ousting Saddam will cripple the terror cells in the long run, due to #s 1 and 2. We can deal with NK diplomatically, as the two nations with a vested interest in SE Asia are quite happy to back up the US against Kim.

= = =

Feel free to dispute my rationale at any time, but I think I've got the logic right.

[Damien]

:( My choice wasn't on the poll.
The U.N. has come up with a new plan, and if that fails, they say they will back us in going to war. I think they need to toughen up the plan a little, and when it does fail (and even though the U.N. probably still won't back us even then), we should head in without hesitation.

[James]

I agree it needs to be toughened. But I like the compromise here. Try this, if it looks like it fails than we'll back any conflict. Sounds like an attempt to work together. A good sign.

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by Anubis C. Soundwave


You must understand. Education, knowledge, and a bit of money are the beginnings of prosperity. The whole anti-West issue is one of religious origin.

Basically, Muslims in the ME hate the West because they believe it is morally corrupt. Add in poverty, corrupt rulers sitting on a bed of wealth, interference in their culture nad land by these same "unwashed heathen", and a really good Islamic preacher/imam: and we have the perfect recipe for CHAOS.

Er, you're forgetting about the Palestine issue. A lot of people hate the US because of its one-sided support for the Israelis. Creating prosperity in Iraq is not going to lessen anger over this issue.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Outlander00
I think I said my peace a long time ago :p

Yes, I figure many people have :D , but you have to understand, I'm trying to keep the thread going till at least Monday to get a full week's worth of voting. :rolleyes: I'm trying to get the consensus of how the majority of Toonzone members feel, (yeah, I know: Mission Impossible)

Besides, look at it this way: this event is coming to a peak here in a few weeks time. We're either going to go to war, or we're not. Something's about to happen, and when it does, the time for debate will be over: we'll either be at War or we'll have come to some sort of world consensus that avoids war, (for better or for worse).

The time for the debate to end draws near...

[wonderfly]

Here's a quick question for you guys and gals that voted the first option: 1."Yes, even if we have to go it alone".

I think the U.S. had a bad day at the U.N. yesterday. We do have many nations that support us, but it just doesn't seem to sway the majority of the U.N....so if you voted "Yes, even if we have to go it alone" do you actually think Bush is going to do that? Or do you get the sense that Bush will hold off attacking Iraq? Which way do you think the Administration is heading? They're talking tough to the world, but in the end, do we really have the guts to go this alone?

Yeah, I'm basically asking you to predict the future...

On another quick note: I was going to contribute this to "It sucks to be American" thread, but I'll post it here:

I saw on the news yesterday that a Kuwaiti flower shop owner handed out 10,000 flowers to U.S. troops yesterday, (or the day before). See? We are loved by some people in the world. :D

[James]

Originally posted by wonderfly
I saw on the news yesterday that a Kuwaiti flower shop owner handed out 10,000 flowers to U.S. troops yesterday, (or the day before). See? We are loved by some people in the world. :D

Hehe. Excellent. t's could to see some positive experiences coming out of all this. As I said, don't ever feel you are hated (except by obvious people). It's simply people don't agree with the stance. I'm sure there is nothing personal in it. Yes, some people hate Americans, some people hate the French, lots of people hate the English *shock* (especially the Scottish, French and the Welsh.. :p) but that's personal taste - or predjudice. I'd like to think all these disagreements haven't tainted anyones perceptions of citizens of those nations. That would be very disappointing.

I didn't see the UN conference as disappointing. It was calm, orderly and no mud slinging. I hope that's a good sign and that all nations - regardless of their stance will listen to each other in a calm and fair manner. I personally think the two major points of contention have valid points. I can see why both factions believe what they do.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Here's a quick question for you guys and gals that voted the first option: 1."Yes, even if we have to go it alone".

I think the U.S. had a bad day at the U.N. yesterday. We do have many nations that support us, but it just doesn't seem to sway the majority of the U.N....so if you voted "Yes, even if we have to go it alone" do you actually think Bush is going to do that? Or do you get the sense that Bush will hold off attacking Iraq? Which way do you think the Administration is heading? They're talking tough to the world, but in the end, do we really have the guts to go this alone?

Yeah, I'm basically asking you to predict the future...

I didn't vote that way but anyway I'm not sure, it seem logic and sanity is going out the window.

Look the US goverment is telling people to buy duct tape and platic sheets. At least with the duck and cover it was free :rolleyes:

The harder Bush pushes the wider the divide seems to grow. Germany and the US are in a evergrowing flame war, US grouping Germany with Libya and saying their actions are sick. Germany taking offence to it and saying they are a democracy and have the right to follow the wishes of the people they repersent. (and I thought trolls on the net was bad)

The US Goverment won't even consider removing US puppet goverment in the middle east. Lossing support

So during this intermission of the war on terrorism it seems Bush wants to invade Iraq even it means putting the US in a worse possition in the long run. *hmph* Just like during the coldwar when the US alienated communist states that was willing to compermising and kiss up to the US but the US still sent them the the USSR since they were communist.

Sometimes you have to lose to win and I think that is the case now. If going into Iraq will alienate the US from the is allies more then usual then losing face to Iraq is the only logical move.

[samurai_miaka]

Yes, we should. If we don't, history could repeat itself. We didn't do anything about Hitler because he would probably lose power. And what happened? He ended up killing 12 million people. I think the same could happen with Saddam Hussein if we don't act soon.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by samurai_miaka
Yes, we should. If we don't, history could repeat itself. We didn't do anything about Hitler because he would probably lose power. And what happened? He ended up killing 12 million people. I think the same could happen with Saddam Hussein if we don't act soon. Yhea but Saddam hasn't done anything the US didn't do in 3rd world nations during the cold war.

Also what is more important. Stoping some dicator that may or may not pose a threat sometime in the far future or keeping a united front aginst the war on terrorism, that is the current threat.

[Catlover]

Does nobody remember that sadam has killed his own people. Many people say that he poses no threat to us, how can that be when he kills his own people at the drop of a hat? We should go to war with sadam to at least help the people of Iraq.

[James]

The question isn't is he a threat or is he a danger to his people, it's is there enough evidence to justify the actions of war. Remember for a peaceful nation or unity of nations to decide to attack any country is the very last resort and shouldn't be taken likely.

What the issue comes down to, is their enough definitive evidence that can be justified to everyone to warrant such a severe punishment as invasion. It's such a heinous thing to have to do - go in knowing you will murder innocence, we can't just decide it at a whim.

This is the issue and both sides have merit for their contentions.

[DJ Raza]

Yes, we should. If we don't, history could repeat itself. We didn't do anything about Hitler because he would probably lose power. And what happened? He ended up killing 12 million people. I think the same could happen with Saddam Hussein if we don't act soon.

Excellent point.

Also what is more important. Stoping some dicator that may or may not pose a threat sometime in the far future or keeping a united front aginst the war on terrorism, that is the current threat.

I personally believe in stopping that dictator in particular since I believe he is a threat, and also regardless of who will join the US in doing it or not. I also think its more important than the after effects of who will continue to join the US in the war on terrorism.

Plus, the argument can still be made that he may be either harbouring or has links to terrorists.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DJ Raza

I personally believe in stopping that dictator in particular since I believe he is a threat, and also regardless of who will join the US in doing it or not. I also think its more important than the after effects of who will continue to join the US in the war on terrorism. That is like putting more priority into winning a single battle then winning the war.

This has thrown a wrench into war on terrorism as the it makes it harder for the USs allies to work together since there is too much bad vibes now due to the US pushing its allies far too hard to support their invasion of Iraq.

Think of what will happen if things keep going they way they are going, think what would happen if NATO dispands which there is talk of, If EU dispands which there is talk of.

What happends if the US wins the war on Iraq but now all of the US allies won't work together?

[James]

Originally posted by samurai_miaka
Yes, we should. If we don't, history could repeat itself. We didn't do anything about Hitler because he would probably lose power. And what happened? He ended up killing 12 million people. I think the same could happen with Saddam Hussein if we don't act soon.

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is an unfair comparison. Hitler had a far more powerful economy and military. His threat of expansion was greater too. There are many dictators out there we could compare to Hitler. We need to take them on by the methods of the new world and not resort to the barbaric methods unless we have no alternative - or that everyone agrees that is the only just cause.

If there is a tragedy because of holding back, yes, be it on our conscience, but there are rules for democracy to work and we can't ignore some when it suits. That is the painful price of allowing people to have a voice. All must be heard.

This isn't a Hollywood movie. There are no brownie points given for ignoring the boss as he tells you you're 'off the case'. Democracy requires certain rules for it to work. Break them and you risk bringing down the principles you believe in.

We want democracy, the price is we must remain united in a community where we are all taken seriously. You want to make the rules and go when you choose? That's Saddam's way. Yeah, it's quicker, and it lets you do what you want - but the price you pay is tolerance and co-operation, the key aspects of all our pursuit for justice and liberty.

Remember, this is invasion we are talking about - of a country. This is going into a country with the intent and knowledge that death will occur. For any nation to do this, for any reason, has to be justifiable to the world, not just to itself. That's why this is a big issue and why Mr Bush has not gone swooping in. It is important that all agree that it's the right action.

[Catlover]

Originally posted by SJJ
What the issue comes down to, is their enough definitive evidence that can be justified to everyone to warrant such a severe punishment as invasion.

There is evidence, but I will let someone like joe wagner explane.

It's such a heinous thing to have to do - go in knowing you will murder innocence,

Saddom is the same as hitler, if we don't go in there will be a holacost(sp) and more innocent people will get killed than if we don't go in.

we can't just decide it at a whim.

But we won't be decideing on a whim, we've had years to look at the evidence.

[James]

Originally posted by catlover
There is evidence, but I will let someone like joe wagner explane.


He has. But while it's enough for you, it's not for others. It HAS to be enough for a majority to agree otherwise the voice of the people is not heard and democracy, the slow process it is, has failed.


Saddom is the same as hitler, if we don't go in there will be a holacost(sp) and more innocent people will get killed than if we don't go in.


Innocents having been dying for years. There has been much spilt blood and we've not done anything of use. I don't think we can claim that if we don't act now, innocents will die. They already have been and will continue. I'm sure now the nations will stop this one way or another.

But we must do it the right way. We're bound by a system which we must uphold as much as we must help the sufferers. Unity is how we pull resources together, that is a pivotol process to maintain.


But we won't be decideing on a whim, we've had years to look at the evidence.

It is on a whim if we're not behind it. Look, I agree with you. I think we need decisive possible, ASAP. I totally do. But I'm also aware of the importance of international co-operation and how we need to work together now, and on future projects. Unity benefits us all. We have to strike a balance of understanding between countries. Regardless, we will not be sitting there any longer. It looks like a containment plan will be inforced and if it fails we will go in. Things are changing. This way, at least we can say we avoided bloodshed as much as possible. If we have to go in, so be it. Let's do it united, and show the world we ALL work better as friends and allies. I think that's a good message worth sending.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by SJJ
He has. But while it's enough for you, it's not for others. It HAS to be enough for a majority to agree otherwise the voice of the people is not heard and democracy, the slow process it is, has failed.

Trouble is, the majority has already agreed. Read 1441 again.

ACTING UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS,



1. DECIDES that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

This one's a no-brainer. Iraq is in breach of its obligations, period. No smoking gun neccesary.

2. DECIDES, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the council;

Key words: "Final opportunity"

3. DECIDES that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Iraq's first strike. The report that they gave was inaccurate. It did not account for many things.

4. DECIDES that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 AND 12 below;

So, Iraq made omissions in its statement. By this alone, Iraq is in further trouble.

5. DECIDES that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the council 60 days thereafter;

6. ENDORSES the 8 October 2002 letter from the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. DECIDES FURTHER that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:


-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programs and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient U.N. security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or
close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof;

and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

All this ties into saying that Iraq must fully comply with inspectors. To date, Blix has not said that Iraq has fully complied. Rather, he's said that Iraq has not given him and his inspectors 100% cooperations. Another breach.

8. DECIDES FURTHER that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or of any member state taking action to uphold any council resolution;

How many times has Iraq called the inspectors "spies?" It's not a threat per se, but it could very well turn into one.

9. REQUESTS the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

They have not cooperated immediately, unconditionally, nor actively with anybody, by all accounts.

10. REQUESTS all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Which has been done. (Esp. through Powell's efforts.)

11. DIRECTS the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

Which they have.

12. DECIDES to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;



13. RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;



14. DECIDES to remain seized of the matter.

And there you have it. Iraq is in breach of 1441, and they are in danger of "serious consequences" for that. All nations on the Security Council agreed to this resolution, as a "last chance" for Iraq. But now, they want another "last chance". This effectively nullifies the U.N.'s authority in the eyes of the world.

And that's why it's too late to reconsider.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985

How many times has Iraq called the inspectors "spies?" It's not a threat per se, but it could very well turn into one.
Well there were right kinda. The fact that the CIA was spying on the inspectors breached the UN end of the deal since the CIA was able to spy on Iraq including information even the UN was not allowed to collect via UN inspectors during the 90's. They are no longer doing it but it is the reason for the bad vibe between Iraq and the UN inspectors and the UN inspectors and the CIA since the CIA gave Iraq a reason to not trust the inspectors.

I say lets give this round of inspections a chance and give Iraq a bit of slack.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Well there were right kinda. The fact that the CIA was spying on the inspectors breached the UN end of the deal since the CIA was able to spy on Iraq including information even the UN was not allowed to collect via UN inspectors during the 90's. They are no longer doing it but it is the reason for the bad vibe between Iraq and the UN inspectors and the UN inspectors and the CIA since the CIA gave Iraq a reason to not trust the inspectors.

I say lets give this round of inspections a chance and give Iraq a bit of slack.

Well, you may say it, but the facts are, that's not in the agreement. Opinions are fine, but the hard facts are that this is Iraq's last chance by a majority decision. If the nations that supported this resolution go back on it, they have made the U.N. of no effect.

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Which is worse, a country that is lying to you about their illegal weapons, or a country that's being honest about it?

North Korea, Iraq doesn't have ballistic missles that can strike the U.S. and they don't have plutonium.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by ccffan01
North Korea, Iraq doesn't have ballistic missles that can strike the U.S. and they don't have plutonium.

Ah-ha, but Iraq has ties to terrorists. Whether the guy on the tapes is Bin Laden or not, is not the issue. I personally believe the Al-Qaeda network is trying to cover up the death of their leader. If the bombs didn't get him, his failing health did. At any rate, it seems evident that terrorists in the Al-Qaeda orginization are expressing support for Iraq, and demonstrate a mutual friendship with the country.

Terrorists are more concerned right now with eliminating Americans than NK is. I say, let's take care of one threat at a time. Meanwhile, I think that this crisis with North Korea should convince us to go ahead and build that missile defence system. All the naysayers have been proven wrong, there ARE countries out there that can and do try to make ICBMs with nuclear warheads. People said that it would never happen with North Korea, but it has. I say that we need to play defense with NK and offense with Iraq right now. There's precious little that North Korea can do at this point besides lobbing a nuclear warhead at us. If we can defend against that, then we've sealed off most of the threat until we can devote total attention to that problem.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Well, you may say it, but the facts are, that's not in the agreement. Opinions are fine, but the hard facts are that this is Iraq's last chance by a majority decision. If the nations that supported this resolution go back on it, they have made the U.N. of no effect. But the nations are not going back they just want to give inspections more time and more resources to find solid proof.

There is no hard proof Saddam has weapons only technicalities and minor infractions at this point. What would the US do if that is it and what we have already found is not the tip of the iceberg but the whole iceberg. Would be a PR nightmare for the west and Bin Ladden would love it Evil west liberates Iraq to remove weapons of mass distruction but finds none. Make anyone that backs the war looks no better then the Roman Empire.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Ah-ha, but Iraq has ties to terrorists. Whether the guy on the tapes is Bin Laden or not, is not the issue. I personally believe the Al-Qaeda network is trying to cover up the death of their leader. If the bombs didn't get him, his failing health did. At any rate, it seems evident that terrorists in the Al-Qaeda orginization are expressing support for Iraq, and demonstrate a mutual friendship with the country. Yhea right, Bin Laden called on the people of Iraq to overthrough Saddam so I would say if there is any co-operation it is either a dominating relationship of Al-Qaeda threating Iraq goverment to co-operate or of Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq that have infiltrated Iraq's goverment.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But the nations are not going back they just want to give inspections more time and more resources to find solid proof.

There is no hard proof Saddam has weapons only technicalities and minor infractions at this point. What would the US do if that is it and what we have already found is not the tip of the iceberg but the whole iceberg. Would be a PR nightmare for the west and Bin Ladden would love it Evil west liberates Iraq to remove weapons of mass distruction but finds none. Make anyone that backs the war looks no better then the Roman Empire.

Proof is not the issue. We don't need to prove anything, Saddam does. We know he's had the WMDs, and it's his responsibility to show that he's destroyed them. If you'll read 1441 up there again, you'll find that the UN is acting as if Iraq already has WMDs. If Iraq has no WMDs, why hasn't he released an accurate statement saying so? It's what the resolution calls for! By my watch, Saddam has just about run out of time to produce one, too.

3. DECIDES that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

It's been about a month, and no report as of yet. If Iraq has nothing to hide, why is it breaching the resolution in this regard?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Proof is not the issue. We don't need to prove anything, Saddam does. We know he's had the WMDs, and it's his responsibility to show that he's destroyed them. If you'll read 1441 up there again, you'll find that the UN is acting as if Iraq already has WMDs. If Iraq has no WMDs, why hasn't he released an accurate statement saying so? It's what the resolution calls for! By my watch, Saddam has just about run out of time to produce one, too.

You are right but 1441 does not say if he does not comply he will be invaded it says serious consequences. France and Germany interpet that as police action (peacekeepers) not invasion. France and Germany want to install a temporary Peace Keeping HQ in Iraq and give peace keepers the duty or arresting anyone getting in the way of 1441.

Basicly they want to see if Iraq will stand down and they go looking for WMD as if Iraq was succesfull invaded.

It's been about a month, and no report as of yet. If Iraq has nothing to hide, why is it breaching the resolution in this regard? Ever though that Saddam or someone pulling Saddam's strings wants this war?

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But the nations are not going back they just want to give inspections more time and more resources to find solid proof.

There is no hard proof Saddam has weapons only technicalities and minor infractions at this point. What would the US do if that is it and what we have already found is not the tip of the iceberg but the whole iceberg. Would be a PR nightmare for the west and Bin Ladden would love it Evil west liberates Iraq to remove weapons of mass distruction but finds none. Make anyone that backs the war looks no better then the Roman Empire.

Apparently the balistic warheads that were uncovered by inspectors (and not in Iraq's declaration) that are capable of carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are not to be considered a breach of this. Of course possessing these weapons violates Resolution 687 which called upon Iraq to disarm as well as showing an unconditional breach of 1441.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yhea right, Bin Laden called on the people of Iraq to overthrough Saddam so I would say if there is any co-operation it is either a dominating relationship of Al-Qaeda threating Iraq goverment to co-operate or of Al-Qaeda cells in Iraq that have infiltrated Iraq's goverment.

The terrorist group Anasar al-Islam was established by al Queda funds in Northern Iraq, striking at the Kurdish government in this region. Since it was established numerous al Queda agents have sought sanctuary within this camp (the most famous being Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) and has been supported by weapons from the Iraqi government. As the world has witnessed many times before, a single enemy can make bitter enemies allies. After all, the US teamed with the USSR during WWII to fight the greater evil of the Nazi regime.

As far as the question that was posed is concerned - if the UN fails to pass yet another resolution and abide by the current one I believe that we must act to secure our safety. The idea that we will be acting unilaterally does not hold true in this matter as we already have 40 countries that have pledged their support for any invasion on Iraq. In my eyes the UN has once again failed their obligations - while they are busy passing resolutions that condemn the nation of Israel for having a democratic country, they allow tyrants like Saddam to abuse their resolutions and make a mockery of their establishment. While the UN is busy researching claims of a false Jenin massacre it continues to help fund the very terrorism that occurs within Israel by not tracking their donations to the terrorist Yassir Arafat.

In it's fifty plus years of existence the UN has changed their original doctrine - becoming less of an organization that was established to keep the peace and more of an organization that has sought to enforce it's own will on the sovreginity of the nations of the world. The charter never called for an official UN military force or an international court - yet these events have come to pass as more and more nations allow themselves to be subjected to the UN's will with the hopes of being protected. When a nation acts in its own safety they are bashed for acting - as was the case during the Independence War of 1948, the Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War - resolutions were passed against the nation of Israel but not against their Arab aggressors - the very nations that attacked Israel or (in the case of 1967 were preparing to attack).

Today the UN has grown to consider itself the basis of morality in the world - but I view it differently. In my eyes it has become an organization that has never been able to follow the guidelines of the charter by which it was established. Throughout their history they have demonstrated a willingness to anti-semitic behavior, an allowance of human attrocities and an inability to champion the human rights of individuals the world over. While Libya is being considered to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights, Israel is not even allowed to sit on the Security Council (the only nation in the world this condition is applied to).

Much like the League of Nations (that failed to prevent the rise of Hitler and the start of WWII) the UN is proving to be an organization that is committed to appeasement, attacking democratic countries and failing to fulfill their own responsibilities. The US and her allies can not afford to wait for a day when hopefully the UN realizes the serious threats that the world is faced with today. Considering the enormous potential threats that the US faces today it would be ill advised for the US to wait for the threat to grow to an uncontrolable level and risk American citizens and soldiers in the process.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox

You are right but 1441 does not say if he does not comply he will be invaded it says serious consequences. France and Germany interpet that as police action (peacekeepers) not invasion. France and Germany want to install a temporary Peace Keeping HQ in Iraq and give peace keepers the duty or arresting anyone getting in the way of 1441.

Basicly they want to see if Iraq will stand down and they go looking for WMD as if Iraq was succesfull invaded.

I think not. Also note the words "final opportunity". Final opportunity for what? "If you don't comply we'll send in more inspectors?" "We'll get really, really, mad?" "We'll send in our blue helmets?" Come on, if you think that sending in American troops to topple Saddam is going to make terrorists mad, just wait until we put long-term "infidels" in to police the action. No, you know as well as I do that "serious consquences" means military action. Saddam's not scared of the UN, as he has flagrantly demonstrated for the past 12 years. "Peackeepers" aren't going to frighten him one bit into complying.


Ever though that Saddam or someone pulling Saddam's strings wants this war?

'Course Saddam wants it. He's a deranged madman who thinks that he stands a chance against the "infedels". But, we've proved him wrong before, and we're gonna prove it again. You know, a lot of people said the same thing about Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. That didn't go so well for them, did it?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner

The terrorist group Anasar al-Islam was established by al Queda funds in Northern Iraq, striking at the Kurdish government in this region. Since it was established numerous al Queda agents have sought sanctuary within this camp (the most famous being Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) and has been supported by weapons from the Iraqi government. As the world has witnessed many times before, a single enemy can make bitter enemies allies. After all, the US teamed with the USSR during WWII to fight the greater evil of the Nazi regime.Yhea but the USSR wasn't tring to overthrow the US at the time.

In it's fifty plus years of existence the UN has changed their original doctrine - becoming less of an organization that was established to keep the peace and more of an organization that has sought to enforce it's own will on the sovreginity of the nations of the world. The charter never called for an official UN military force or an international court - yet these events have come to pass as more and more nations allow themselves to be subjected to the UN's will with the hopes of being protected. When a nation acts in its own safety they are bashed for acting - as was the case during the Independence War of 1948, the Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War - resolutions were passed against the nation of Israel but not against their Arab aggressors - the very nations that attacked Israel or (in the case of 1967 were preparing to attack).
Right and the US liked the out come too in both cases. At the time the US was pro Arab and the UN just followed the US.

This is the key problem of the UN as it can't actully take on any of the big players. It couldn't do a thing to the US during its infractions like when the UN accepted the US claming East Timor was a preemptive defence when international law says preemptive defence is not an acceptabe excuse ever since the Nazis said that was the reason they started WWII.

The UN could not stop the Soviet Union

The UN could not stop even France's infractions.

But the UN still has made a small difference which is good considering the UN only has the power that its memebers gives it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
I think not. Also note the words "final opportunity". Final opportunity for what? "If you don't comply we'll send in more inspectors?" "We'll get really, really, mad?" "We'll send in our blue helmets?" Come on, if you think that sending in American troops to topple Saddam is going to make terrorists mad, just wait until we put long-term "infidels" in to police the action. No, you know as well as I do that "serious consquences" means military action. Saddam's not scared of the UN, as he has flagrantly demonstrated for the past 12 years. "Peackeepers" aren't going to frighten him one bit into complying.
It is still the wording. The US can't go to war with Iraq within UN's law since they need a UN resolution that basicly spells it out.

'Course Saddam wants it. He's a deranged madman who thinks that he stands a chance against the "infedels". But, we've proved him wrong before, and we're gonna prove it again. You know, a lot of people said the same thing about Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. That didn't go so well for them, did it? Well Al-Qaeda fled. Iraq's troops might give up or run but there is a chance they might put up a fight and a urban battle feild give the defenders an advantage.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
It is still the wording. The US can't go to war with Iraq within UN's law since they need a UN resolution that basicly spells it out.

So, war isn't a "serious consquence?" :D

Well Al-Qaeda fled. Iraq's troops might give up or run but there is a chance they might put up a fight and a urban battle feild give the defenders an advantage.

Doesn't matter what they do. We've still got the best chance of coming out on top. But that is of no consquence. It doesn't matter who wants a war, or who's most likely to win. The problem at hand is that Saddam isn't disarming, and, by historical precedent, he's not going to disarm until he's forced to do so. He's had this policy for twelve years, and he still doesn't seem to be changing it.

[James]

This is becoming a tougher and tougher issue for me. I'm not dogmatic in my opinion and the more I hear of the atrocities I here committed in Iraq, the more I feel pro active military action.

Yet at the same time, I still believe that we need full support so history records unity in having to retreat to the most basic tactic of communication - war.

I think this goes beyond and argument about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. I'm surprised that the UK or US hasn't centered a campaign for an attack based on the death and fear his people suffer. Humanitarian aid. The weapon's of mass destruction doesn't cut it - there are countries with a larger more deadly stockpile than he. Terrorism? If we want to fight the main sources of this again we can target more active groups. The atrocities Saddam commits towards his people? That surely is the only definite and definitive reason for getting him out... and perhaps the only reason I could truely see myself supporting military action.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
So, war isn't a "serious consquence?" :D
The problem is there are other actions that fall under serious consquence. It could mean anything from peacekeepers to funding rebels to yes war.


Doesn't matter what they do. We've still got the best chance of coming out on top. But that is of no consquence. It doesn't matter who wants a war, or who's most likely to win. The problem at hand is that Saddam isn't disarming, and, by historical precedent, he's not going to disarm until he's forced to do so. He's had this policy for twelve years, and he still doesn't seem to be changing it. Well that depends how creative they are. The German Barbarians slaughtered Roman troops even though odds were totaly in Roman's favor yet the German's out smarter the Roman army by lauching a huge ambush.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by SJJ
This is becoming a tougher and tougher issue for me. I'm not dogmatic in my opinion and the more I hear of the atrocities I here committed in Iraq, the more I feel pro active military action.

Yet at the same time, I still believe that we need full support so history records unity in having to retreat to the most basic tactic of communication - war.
That's why this would be much simplier if there was a Pacifist Bin Ladden in the region. Then all we would have to do is back the Pacifist (even is we really don't agree with them) and let Saddam get swollowed up by gerneral strikes and uprisings in his nation.

Actully if the ani-saddam support wasn't seriously weaken by the aftermath of the first gulf war such actions could have been arranged.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The problem is there are other actions that fall under serious consquence. It could mean anything from peacekeepers to funding rebels to yes war.

Problem is, the UN was referring to serious consquences that they had already threatened against Saddam. I looked through the resolutions, and I didn't see where they threatened Peacekeepers. Quite the opposite, actually! :D

Well that depends how creative they are. The German Barbarians slaughtered Roman troops even though odds were totaly in Roman's favor yet the German's out smarter the Roman army by lauching a huge ambush.

Like I said, that has nothing to do with it. Odds are not an issue. Iraq's obligations are.

That's why this would be much simplier if there was a Pacifist Bin Ladden in the region. Then all we would have to do is back the Pacifist (even is we really don't agree with them) and let Saddam get swollowed up by gerneral strikes and uprisings in his nation.

Actully if the ani-saddam support wasn't seriously weaken by the aftermath of the first gulf war such actions could have been arranged.

Trouble is, there will never be a pacifist Bin Laden. If there were such a thing, he would certainly not back the PLO. (Which would be a death blow to any radical Islamic leader.)

Originally posted by SJJ

This is becoming a tougher and tougher issue for me. I'm not dogmatic in my opinion and the more I hear of the atrocities I here committed in Iraq, the more I feel pro active military action.

Yet at the same time, I still believe that we need full support so history records unity in having to retreat to the most basic tactic of communication - war.

I think this goes beyond and argument about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. I'm surprised that the UK or US hasn't centered a campaign for an attack based on the death and fear his people suffer. Humanitarian aid. The weapon's of mass destruction doesn't cut it - there are countries with a larger more deadly stockpile than he. Terrorism? If we want to fight the main sources of this again we can target more active groups. The atrocities Saddam commits towards his people? That surely is the only definite and definitive reason for getting him out... and perhaps the only reason I could truely see myself supporting military action.


Humanitarian concerns are also behind this. I left out a lot of the first part of resolution 1441, since it's a bit redundant to this conversation. But if you'll read the whole thing, (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm) it mentions an earlier resolution that had to do with the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Saddam has yet to fulfill that one, too.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by SJJ
This is becoming a tougher and tougher issue for me. I'm not dogmatic in my opinion and the more I hear of the atrocities I here committed in Iraq, the more I feel pro active military action.

Yet at the same time, I still believe that we need full support so history records unity in having to retreat to the most basic tactic of communication - war.

I think this goes beyond and argument about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism. I'm surprised that the UK or US hasn't centered a campaign for an attack based on the death and fear his people suffer. Humanitarian aid. The weapon's of mass destruction doesn't cut it - there are countries with a larger more deadly stockpile than he. Terrorism? If we want to fight the main sources of this again we can target more active groups. The atrocities Saddam commits towards his people? That surely is the only definite and definitive reason for getting him out... and perhaps the only reason I could truely see myself supporting military action.

SJJ - the reason that no campaign has focused entirely upon Saddam's human attrocities is because these same attrocities have failed to rally support since the creation of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. Since the Persian Gulf War ended both the UK and US have patrolled these no-fly zones and allowed the Kurdish opposition to fundamentally form their own nation in Northern Iraq - a region that is the richest in per capita wealth within Iraq. The thing that is most disturbing about Saddam Hussein though is the combonation of willingness to associate with terror groups, use weapons of mass destruction on his own people (the only nation to use WMD's since the end of WWII) and to imprision/slaughter his political opponents and their families.

When all of these factors are taken into account the true threat of Saddam is seen in full effect - instead of seeing just one piece of the puzzle we can see the bigger picture.


Originally posted by SJJ
That's why this would be much simplier if there was a Pacifist Bin Ladden in the region. Then all we would have to do is back the Pacifist (even is we really don't agree with them) and let Saddam get swollowed up by gerneral strikes and uprisings in his nation.

Actully if the ani-saddam support wasn't seriously weaken by the aftermath of the first gulf war such actions could have been arranged.

This would be like saying "if only there was a pacifist Hitler during WWII". The Middle East has often been a place that does not allow for the dissenting opinions of people that would like to find a way to co-operate with the Western nations. In Iraq a person speaking against Saddam will be slaughtered - a policy that is true in Iran, Libya, Jordan and the "territories" of Palestine. Perhaps the worst of these examples would be under Arafat's leadership where a person that proposes dealing with the Israeli government becomes a target - often being stoned to death by large mods of people who have been taught to hate Israel. The very idea of establishing a pacifist voice that still has the same hate for other cultures is dangerous in and of itself - if the Middle East truly wants to be free of the oppressive regimes that have been allowed to operate within their region their must come leaders that are respective of other religions and cultures (much like Lebanon of the early 80's before their cities were invaded by PLO terrorists). Only when the intolerance for all other religions have ended shall their come the chance for true peace in this region.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by SJJ
Hehe. Excellent. t's could to see some positive experiences coming out of all this. As I said, don't ever feel you are hated (except by obvious people). It's simply people don't agree with the stance. I'm sure there is nothing personal in it. Yes, some people hate Americans, some people hate the French, lots of people hate the English *shock* (especially the Scottish, French and the Welsh.. :p) but that's personal taste - or predjudice. I'd like to think all these disagreements haven't tainted anyones perceptions of citizens of those nations. That would be very disappointing.



You're right about one thing: we need to stop taking this so personally. I'm sick of hating the French. It's getting me nowhere but upset. I love their country, it's just that sometimes there political views rub me the wrong way. And I really do have no love for Chirac, (and I suspect neither do his people, judging by the way they voted last time around).

But if we keep saying to citizens of the Middle East: "You guys are going to have to stop hating the U.S." we'd best stop some of the hating as well.

Originally posted by SJJ
I didn't see the UN conference as disappointing. It was calm, orderly and no mud slinging. I hope that's a good sign and that all nations - regardless of their stance will listen to each other in a calm and fair manner. I personally think the two major points of contention have valid points. I can see why both factions believe what they do.

I still feel that it didn't go in the U.S.'s favor, (and thus, it went in Iraq's favor :mad: ) but Powell did a good job.


I read a good analysis of the U.N. debate in yesterday's paper. Actually, it started out discussing Rumsfeld's comments on "Old Europe", but it went on to discuss some aspects of the U.N. debate on Friday: If you folks don't mind, I'll reprint it here, (I found it online):


"Posted on Sun, Feb. 16, 2003

Blunt Rumsfeld alienating allies
FRANKNESS MAKES COALITION-BUILDING TRICKIER IN EUROPE
By Mike Allen And Vernon Loeb
THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's cranky frankness made him a star in a bland administration, but now his periodic slaps at Europe are being blamed by some for adding to the administration's difficulties in recruiting a coalition to confront Iraq.

To the surprise of foreign policy specialists and even some White House officials, Rumsfeld has become a leading administration voice on diplomatic matters -- and is widely viewed abroad as the official who most closely reflects what President Bush really thinks.

So when Rumsfeld dismissed France and Germany as "old Europe" last month, and provocatively included Germany with Libya and Cuba as "three or four countries that have said they won't do anything" to assist in reconstructing a postwar Iraq, his comments offered a measure of vindication for Europeans who contend that Bush has no interest in working with officials who do not instantly agree with him.

German Defense Minister Peter Struck told his parliament that he found Rumsfeld's linking of Germany to Libya and Cuba "unacceptable and un-American."

When an interviewer for German television told Rumsfeld last week that many Germans were outraged by the gibe, Rumsfeld replied, "All I was doing was accurately representing what they have said publicly. I can't imagine why someone would be so sensitive to be concerned about it."

Brushing off another critic, Rumsfeld said the French "are frequently recalcitrant about a lot of things."

Though Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks for the United States at such forums as Friday's meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Rumsfeld's style has often eclipsed Powell's on issues of global security, according to Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a public policy think tank. "Powell's careful locutions can't compete with the blunt eloquence of Rumsfeld," Thompson said.

Even at the United Nations, Rumsfeld's remarks echoed Friday, as speakers from France, China, Britain and Bulgaria referred with various degrees of tart humor as coming from "old" countries. Powell responded by saying he came from a "relatively new country," but the "oldest democracy" at the table.

Still, Rumsfeld's critics say he has made it more difficult for France, Germany and other countries to make behind-the-scenes compromises with the United States. "At a moment of grand diplomacy, you try to figure out a subtle way to back the other party into your corner," said James Rubin, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration. "When Don Rumsfeld speaks, much of Europe and the rest of the world disagree with him before he even opens his mouth."

Plenty of differences would separate Bush and Western Europe in any case, but Ezra Suleiman, director of the Committee for European Studies at Princeton University, said Rumsfeld has "rubbed salt in the wound," and helped squander the sympathy for the United States that spread through Europe after the Sept. 11 attacks."



Hehe,
My favorite part of the article: "Even at the United Nations, Rumsfeld's remarks echoed Friday, as speakers from France, China, Britain and Bulgaria referred with various degrees of tart humor as coming from "old" countries. Powell responded by saying he came from a "relatively new country," but the "oldest democracy" at the table."

Take that, old Nations! :D

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Ah-ha, but Iraq has ties to terrorists. Whether the guy on the tapes is Bin Laden or not, is not the issue. I personally believe the Al-Qaeda network is trying to cover up the death of their leader. If the bombs didn't get him, his failing health did. At any rate, it seems evident that terrorists in the Al-Qaeda orginization are expressing support for Iraq, and demonstrate a mutual friendship with the country.

Terrorists are more concerned right now with eliminating Americans than NK is. I say, let's take care of one threat at a time. Meanwhile, I think that this crisis with North Korea should convince us to go ahead and build that missile defence system. All the naysayers have been proven wrong, there ARE countries out there that can and do try to make ICBMs with nuclear warheads. People said that it would never happen with North Korea, but it has. I say that we need to play defense with NK and offense with Iraq right now. There's precious little that North Korea can do at this point besides lobbing a nuclear warhead at us. If we can defend against that, then we've sealed off most of the threat until we can devote total attention to that problem.

You really think that North Korea doesn't have ties to terrorism. The North Koreans can do alot more damage then a couple of terrorists. It's really ironic that Clinton would've attacked North Korea if they started up their nuclear plants but Bush is reluctant.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner

This would be like saying "if only there was a pacifist Hitler during WWII". The Middle East has often been a place that does not allow for the dissenting opinions of people that would like to find a way to co-operate with the Western nations. In Iraq a person speaking against Saddam will be slaughtered - a policy that is true in Iran, Libya, Jordan and the "territories" of Palestine. Perhaps the worst of these examples would be under Arafat's leadership where a person that proposes dealing with the Israeli government becomes a target - often being stoned to death by large mods of people who have been taught to hate Israel. The very idea of establishing a pacifist voice that still has the same hate for other cultures is dangerous in and of itself - if the Middle East truly wants to be free of the oppressive regimes that have been allowed to operate within their region their must come leaders that are respective of other religions and cultures (much like Lebanon of the early 80's before their cities were invaded by PLO terrorists). Only when the intolerance for all other religions have ended shall their come the chance for true peace in this region.

-Joe! First of Pacifism in its self sheads hate since the goal is for the other side the burn is self up in its own hate by bring injustice to the surface.

Second Pacifism if done right and has enough support is much more powerful the any aggression. Saddam and his truesupporters are the minority if the majority stood up and went on strike Iraq would come to a halt and so would Saddam's power. Saddam can't attack them on live arab TV since that would bring the wrath of the violent groups like Al-Qaeda.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by ccffan01
You really think that North Korea doesn't have ties to terrorism.

It's an atheist state. I don't think Al-Qaeda take too kindly to that.


The North Koreans can do alot more damage then a couple of terrorists. It's really ironic that Clinton would've attacked North Korea if they started up their nuclear plants but Bush is reluctant.

Really? We're talking about the same Clinton, right? He claimed that he had a plan to send ninjas in to fight against Al-Qaeda. :rolleyes: Heaven knows what he would have proposed for North Korea.

[wonderfly]

Well, it's Monday afternoon, and the polls been open for 1 week. Though the poll is still open technically, 1 week is usually the time limit for Toon Zone polls.

So as it stands right now:

32 votes for: "Yes, even if we have to go it alone"

14 votes for: "Yes, but only thru the U.N"

7 votes for: "It's not proven Saddam has WMD's or links to terrorist"

12 votes for: "This is all about Bush and oil, and the economy"

17 votes for: "War is not the answer, people die in war"

7 votes for: "I'm truly undecided"

46 votes for Yes, 36 votes for No.

Interesting. While "going it alone" won, I'm surprised second place went to "War is not the answer". Is there a strong Pacifist movement at Toonzone?

Well, this thread can remain open to discussion and debating, but I really just wanted to see how many votes I could get in one week....and we only got 89? C'mon folks, let's go for 100 at least! :D

[Drachentöter]

I'll make this brief since I'm pretty tired of an issue that will most likely not end well anyway.

Yes, we should go in and take out Saddam. Even if we have to alone (which we won't, we've got a handful of willing allies). We should do it because Saddam is a tyrant and a murderer. The entire terrorism link is flimsy, I think. We should do it for the simple fact that Hussein causes suffering for his people and for his region. What more reason do you need?

And now that we've got him riled up, there's no guarantee that he won't strike first just to cause damage. Waiting for an attack is not the smart thing to do.

The inspectors will find nothing worth getting UN support, because the UN hates war. Nothing is damning enough to justify war for them. Forget them.

But don't hate them.

I find it ridiculous how the media is portraying France and Germany as weasels. Their claims are perfectly justified. They don't want to get into war, so be it. It's their country. They have every right to refuse to go in without "more proof." I don't care, the US has enough resources.

That, and the economy always picks up after a successful war operation.

(And I said this was going to be brief...)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite

Yes, we should go in and take out Saddam. Even if we have to alone (which we won't, we've got a handful of willing allies). We should do it because Saddam is a tyrant and a murderer. The entire terrorism link is flimsy, I think. We should do it for the simple fact that Hussein causes suffering for his people and for his region. What more reason do you need?

hmmm that sounds like alot of dictators around the world.

Would this fix the problem in the middle east? No more like a quick fix.

The Middle East needs enlightenment from a wide varity of minds. The only way the Middle East will recover is with the free flow of ideas getting into the minds of the people.

[Drachentöter]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
hmmm that sounds like alot of dictators around the world.

Would this fix the problem in the middle east? No more like a quick fix.

The Middle East needs enlightenment from a wide varity of minds. The only way the Middle East will recover is with the free flow of ideas getting into the minds of the people.

But that's not going to happen while a tyrant opposed to progression and thought is in power.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
But that's not going to happen while a tyrant opposed to progression and thought is in power. Not even the Soviet Union was able to stop all ideas and people were able to stand up to Soviet Union in pockets from time to time.

If the west can find the right leaders that the people can get behind with open ideas they can get behind within a few months they could have a complete general strike, shutting down Iraq.

Maybe this pome from Percy Bysshe Shelley would explain



Then it is to feel revenge

Fiercely thirsting to exchange

Blood for blood -

and wrong for wrong -

Do not thus when ye are strong.

(...)

Stand ye calm and resolute,

Like a forest, close and mute,

With folded arms and looks which are

Weapons of unvanquished war.

(... )

Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you

Ye are many - they are few.


The last part is were Pacifism power comes from. No tyrant has more the a minority of true followers

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
I'll make this brief since I'm pretty tired of an issue that will most likely not end well anyway.

Yes, we should go in and take out Saddam. Even if we have to alone (which we won't, we've got a handful of willing allies). We should do it because Saddam is a tyrant and a murderer. The entire terrorism link is flimsy, I think. We should do it for the simple fact that Hussein causes suffering for his people and for his region. What more reason do you need?

And now that we've got him riled up, there's no guarantee that he won't strike first just to cause damage. Waiting for an attack is not the smart thing to do.

The inspectors will find nothing worth getting UN support, because the UN hates war. Nothing is damning enough to justify war for them. Forget them.

But don't hate them.

I find it ridiculous how the media is portraying France and Germany as weasels. Their claims are perfectly justified. They don't want to get into war, so be it. It's their country. They have every right to refuse to go in without "more proof." I don't care, the US has enough resources.

That, and the economy always picks up after a successful war operation.

(And I said this was going to be brief...)

I kinda like your "short and sweet" sentiments....you even found a way to say "It's okay France and Germany. We still like you somewhat".

[The Landstander]

a few quick thoughts...

1. We are going to war. There's pretty much no stopping it. Dubya has been playing Cowboy BeBush for a long time now, and there's pretty much no stopping him.

2. Iraq isn't the worst when it comes to the reasons we have for going to war. Weapons of mass destruction? North Korea seems to be proud of theirs. Connections to terrorism? Saudi Arabia has a much bigger/more definite connection to Al-Qaeda.

3. I always had one question...why now? I mean, Iraq is just as much of a threat now as they were a few years ago, and there wasn't much of a war movement against them then.

4. As for the whole 'take him out because he makes lives miserable theory', though that is a good reason, there are dictators like him all throughout the middle east and in other areas of the world (though he is probably one of the, if not the worst dictators).

just a few thoughts

[Drachentöter]

Originally posted by DrWeird
a few quick thoughts...

1. We are going to war. There's pretty much no stopping it. Dubya has been playing Cowboy BeBush for a long time now, and there's pretty much no stopping him.

Sometimes I wonder...how long has it been since he announced this hoo-ha? Six months?

2. Iraq isn't the worst when it comes to the reasons we have for going to war. Weapons of mass destruction? North Korea seems to be proud of theirs. Connections to terrorism? Saudi Arabia has a much bigger/more definite connection to Al-Qaeda.

While I agree there are other nations just as dangerous, they aren't as obvious. Saudi Arabia still makes itself look like our ally and have considerable more power than Iraq. N. Korea seems to only be blowing off steam and only gets riled up when Bush and Co. anger it.

3. I always had one question...why now? I mean, Iraq is just as much of a threat now as they were a few years ago, and there wasn't much of a war movement against them then.

Because Bush wants to copycat his daddy? Maybe, but most likely it's because the war on terrorism wasn't proving too fruitful in the polls. As Bush's ratings slowed down he needed some issue to make people like him again. Distractionary politics.

4. As for the whole 'take him out because he makes lives miserable theory', though that is a good reason, there are dictators like him all throughout the middle east and in other areas of the world (though he is probably one of the, if not the worst dictators).

Personally, I want him out because I hate unfinished jobs. Bush Sr. dragged us into Persian Gulf and didn't finish the job. Bush Jr. might as well make up for his dad's mistakes. Also, taking out Hussein has more of a probability of success and support than say, taking out Castro.

just a few thoughts

Just because I want Bush's speeches to be realized, it doesn't mean I actually believe his motives. It is so obvious that he has his own hidden agenda when it comes to Hussein, but I truly don't care as long as Saddam is ousted. The ends justify the motives.

But so far, there are no ends in sight.

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
It's an atheist state. I don't think Al-Qaeda take too kindly to that.




Really? We're talking about the same Clinton, right? He claimed that he had a plan to send ninjas in to fight against Al-Qaeda. :rolleyes: Heaven knows what he would have proposed for North Korea.


Not all terrorists are Muslim. I think with all the things that North Korea has reccently said I think it is quite obvious that they are the bigget threat. Saying that they could win a nuclear war(Which might be true) is quite a big statement.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by ccffan01
Not all terrorists are Muslim.

But they are the most vocal and active ones right now.


I think with all the things that North Korea has reccently said I think it is quite obvious that they are the bigget threat. Saying that they could win a nuclear war(Which might be true) is quite a big statement.

They know, and we know that they could never win a nuclear war. It's like a little 13-year-old gym rat shaking his fist at Mike Tyson. Besides, Iraq has been threatening us long before North Korea. We've had twelve years, now it's time to go after them first. We can handle NK after Iraq. I'm quite sure.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VortexInfinite
Just because I want Bush's speeches to be realized, it doesn't mean I actually believe his motives. It is so obvious that he has his own hidden agenda when it comes to Hussein, but I truly don't care as long as Saddam is ousted. The ends justify the motives.
I disagree.

Launching an attack on Iraq proves nothing and has only short term gains.

The US still is deaf and unwilling to even lissen to educated voices of dissent on how the US effects the middle east in negative ways.

The US still has no clear plan on how to bring democracy to Iraq afterwards nor has any backup plan incase a civil war breaks out.

Plus the US holds back democracy to its puppet goverments in the region. Kind of a double standard.

I say the US should take hold of the democratic uprisings in the middle east even if would hurt US economically. It would make the war on terrorism easiler and could bring a peaceful end to Saddam's power.

[MultipleSifl]

What is the economic situation in Iraq? Have they fallen on hard times as well? This all seems so "Wag the Dog" to me.

[wonderfly]

I couldn't help but share this piece by Bill ORielly that he gave last night on his show. It's his "Talking Points memo" which I think describes those Peace Protests over the weekend pretty well. Here's the transcript from that portion of his show last night, in it's entirity:

"Tuesday, February 18, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly


Saddam Hussein is a very happy man after this weekend. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

Millions of people worldwide demonstrated against any war over Iraq and if their wish comes true Saddam Hussein will keep his power.

That means thousands of Iraqis will be tortured and murdered this year and perhaps in the future lethal weapons will be used against Americans courtesy of Saddam.

The question is do the peace demonstrators consider the ramifications of their actions?

American protesters succeeded in shutting down the war effort in Vietnam and that was a good thing. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and President Johnson would not fight the war to win because he was afraid of Chinese and Soviet intervention.

But when U.S. troops pulled out of Southeast Asia many bad things began to happen: Two million Cambodians were slaughtered by Pol Pot and his communist killers and millions were enslaved by a totalitarian regime in Vietnam.

If you remember the peaceniks back then said nothing about these atrocities and ignored the holocaust in Cambodia.

So here's the question and it's a complicated one: What if good intentions result in bad actions?

For example, if the United States had prevailed in Vietnam, those 2 million Cambodians would not have been slaughtered. But for a variety of reasons we did not prevail.

That same scenario could happen again if the peace people have their way. Saddam Hussein will remain in power. He'll continue to play hide and seek with whatever weapons he has -- and according to the U.N. he's got anthrax, VX gas, Ricin and on and on.

Peace demonstrators are willing to take the chance that Saddam will not hand these weapons off to Al Qaeda, or to other terrorists. They are willing to take that chance.

Now, I respect sincere opinion that is well thought out so I can't condemn peace marchers. I can only say that I believe they are terribly wrong.

I can also say with confidence that many marching for peace simply hate the USA -- especially overseas -- and some Americans feel President Bush is a bigger menace to the world than Saddam.

This kind of thinking is frightening, but it's a reality and unfortunately we all have to deal with this because the protesters are very visible.

The happiest man around these days is Saddam Hussein. He loves the peace demonstrators because they will keep him in power longer. He loves France, Germany and Russia because they will keep him in power.

And most of all he loves the fact that the United States is being vilified for trying to rid the world of a true villain. Yes Saddam indeed is a very happy man today.

And that's The Memo."

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly

Millions of people worldwide demonstrated against any war over Iraq and if their wish comes true Saddam Hussein will keep his power.

That means thousands of Iraqis will be tortured and murdered this year and perhaps in the future lethal weapons will be used against Americans courtesy of Saddam.
None of the protesters want Saddam in power. I for one don't want war since how can we bring democracy to Iraq. The People of Iraq have to open their eyes first and we can't force them at gun point to.


American protesters succeeded in shutting down the war effort in Vietnam and that was a good thing. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and President Johnson would not fight the war to win because he was afraid of Chinese and Soviet intervention.

But when U.S. troops pulled out of Southeast Asia many bad things began to happen: Two million Cambodians were slaughtered by Pol Pot and his communist killers and millions were enslaved by a totalitarian regime in Vietnam. Yes but why did the US break the close freindship with Vietnam in the first place? Vietnam saw the US as its closest ally untill the US helped the French the hated enemy of Vietnam divide the nation in 2. But N. Vietnam still saw its self as an ally of the US. Then S. Vietnam commeited atrocities amongst its own populas. N Vietnam pleaded the US to make S. Vietnam stop it yet US turned a deaf ear so N. Vietnam started the war.

What side did the US pick? Its ally N. Vietnam, nope the S. Vietnam that was defending its right to commit acts of atrocities amoungs its own people.

Bascily we picked the devil over a nation that while had problems was no where near as evil as S. Vietnam (at least not at the time)

For example, if the United States had prevailed in Vietnam, those 2 million Cambodians would not have been slaughtered. But for a variety of reasons we did not prevail.
If the US had prevailed S Vietnam would have continued to kill its own people and I'm sure it would have easily went past 2 million after the war.

Peace demonstrators are willing to take the chance that Saddam will not hand these weapons off to Al Qaeda, or to other terrorists. They are willing to take that chance.

Well why doesn't the US try to reverse the damage it did to the Middle East? Why are we supporting Saudi Arabia? They are state capitalist and much much worse then Cuba. Why is the CIA helping Saudi Arabia oppress the democratic movement?

The US has to change and open its eyes too or else the US will have the same fate as the British Empire.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
None of the protesters want Saddam in power. I for one don't want war since how can we bring democracy to Iraq. The People of Iraq have to open their eyes first and we can't force them at gun point to.

And under the leadership of Saddam all of these types of movements have been quelled or forced to move into the northern or southern sections of Iraq where they are protected by US and British planes that are enforcing the no-fly zones. With Saddam in power the people of Iraq have little to no chance of establishing a democracy.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but why did the US break the close freindship with Vietnam in the first place? Vietnam saw the US as its closest ally untill the US helped the French the hated enemy of Vietnam divide the nation in 2. But N. Vietnam still saw its self as an ally of the US. Then S. Vietnam commeited atrocities amongst its own populas. N Vietnam pleaded the US to make S. Vietnam stop it yet US turned a deaf ear so N. Vietnam started the war.

Two things - in order to disarm the Japanese forces in Vietnam the Allied forces of Britain, the US and the USSR decided to split the nation at the 16th parallel with Chinese troops leading the disarmament in the Northern section while British troops would lead the disarmament of the southern section. As for France - they were granted their rights back to all of their pre-war colonies because they had been taken from them by the Japanese. This was agreed upon by all of the members of the Alliance - not just the US.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
What side did the US pick? Its ally N. Vietnam, nope the S. Vietnam that was defending its right to commit acts of atrocities amoungs its own people.

Bascily we picked the devil over a nation that while had problems was no where near as evil as S. Vietnam (at least not at the time)

If the US had prevailed S Vietnam would have continued to kill its own people and I'm sure it would have easily went past 2 million after the war.

The US didn't become involved in the conflict until July 1950 and did so to support our French allies that were being attacked by Ho Chi Minh's Communist supported Democratic Republic of Vietnam and was aimed at preventing the spread of Communism in the region. North Vietnam was never recognized by the United States or Britain while South Vietnam was - meaning that Ho Chi Mihn was an ally during WWII when he worked with Chinese forces to fight against the Japanese forces but Minh was never a US ally when he attempted to create a united Vietnam. The US opted to support their ally and not the Communist backed force of Northern Vietnam.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Well why doesn't the US try to reverse the damage it did to the Middle East? Why are we supporting Saudi Arabia? They are state capitalist and much much worse then Cuba. Why is the CIA helping Saudi Arabia oppress the democratic movement?

The US has to change and open its eyes too or else the US will have the same fate as the British Empire.

What damage has the US done to the Middle East? A review of history would show that the strongest US policy in the region has been to protect Israel - a view that has often been criticized by the Arab nations that have claimed this as being their sole reason for anti-American hatred. This completely negates any rational analysis and shows that a teaching of hate has been propagated throughout most of the Middle East. In the early 1980's the nation of Lebanon was one of the most gorgeous destination spots in the region and had proven that the different religions of Catholism and Islam could work together peacefully - until the PLO began to establish camps in the nation and eventually disrupted their government. One of the major players in this type of hatred though is Saudi Arabia which is a leading supporter of the corrupt PLO and uses school books that teach hatred against the Jewish people. They are also a strong supporter of the other Arab nations in the Middle East and only extremists like Bin Laden and Saddam have ever threatened their nation - primarily because of the presence of US troops on their soil.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
None of the protesters want Saddam in power. I for one don't want war since how can we bring democracy to Iraq. The People of Iraq have to open their eyes first and we can't force them at gun point to.




Yes, but one of his points, (which I agree with) is that even if they don't want Saddam in power, many of these protestors are more content to protest against Bush than Saddam. Think about it: they are more willing to rally against supposed crimes of George W. Bush, (the war hasn't even happened in Iraq yet) then against the known crimes of Saddam (who we know has murder hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his own people).

I feel that perhaps a better way for war to be avoided by rallying, (and this applies to France and Germany too) is if they're going to protest, they need to protest against Saddam in the streets. With a United Front around the world, Saddam would have no choice but to comply, (he might even flee the country quietly, no strings attached). That could prevent a war faster than rallying against Bush.

But Bill Orielly is right: These people fear Bush more than they do Saddam, (which I find irrational). I don't mind peace protests, but some of the people there have absurd views. The people that are pissing me off the most though are these ones from Europe (and possibly a few from America) who are travelling to Iraq to sign up as Human Sheilds. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! They're perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives for a Madman, they're willing to stand in front of U.S. troops because they know we won't knowingly fire on innocents, (though we will fire at military targets, and Saddam has been known to place civilians around such targets in an effort to stop us from attacking). He's in essence taking hostages (like a terrorist would), but the U.S. doesn't negotiate with Terrorists.

One peaceful protest I somewhat respect is the Vatican's protest against war. Of course the church is against war, but they've sent representatives to Iraq on behalf of the Pope in an effort to urge Iraq to comply with international will. Instead of saying "Bush is evil," The Church is saying to Saddam "Do it for the people, to prevent their needless deaths". Not that Saddam will listen...

As for your comments on Vietnam, Pyscho Fox, that's a debate for another time, but I'd love to see you debate that with Oreilly. If there's one thing he loves to do is debate, but then, so do you Fox.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
And under the leadership of Saddam all of these types of movements have been quelled or forced to move into the northern or southern sections of Iraq where they are protected by US and British planes that are enforcing the no-fly zones. With Saddam in power the people of Iraq have little to no chance of establishing a democracy.
Not so, Democracy has grown from under harder oppression.

Two things - in order to disarm the Japanese forces in Vietnam the Allied forces of Britain, the US and the USSR decided to split the nation at the 16th parallel with Chinese troops leading the disarmament in the Northern section while British troops would lead the disarmament of the southern section. As for France - they were granted their rights back to all of their pre-war colonies because they had been taken from them by the Japanese. This was agreed upon by all of the members of the Alliance - not just the US.
Yes but why? Vietnam gained their freedom druing the war, they didn't even have enough time to see if freedom would grow or shrink so why should France get its colony back? Isn't the US suppose to help people fight oppression? How was putting Vietnam back under French control a good thing?

Bascily its kinda like the US saying "I know your all happy being free but sorry we have to take it back from you since France legally owns you"

The US didn't become involved in the conflict until July 1950 and did so to support our French allies that were being attacked by Ho Chi Minh's Communist supported Democratic Republic of Vietnam and was aimed at preventing the spread of Communism in the region. North Vietnam was never recognized by the United States or Britain while South Vietnam was - meaning that Ho Chi Mihn was an ally during WWII when he worked with Chinese forces to fight against the Japanese forces but Minh was never a US ally when he attempted to create a united Vietnam. The US opted to support their ally and not the Communist backed force of Northern Vietnam.
Yes but the South at that time was more evil then the north what were they tring to say you can be an evil monster that kills their own people just don't be communist even if you are a good communist?

What damage has the US done to the Middle East? A review of history would show that the strongest US policy in the region has been to protect Israel - a view that has often been criticized by the Arab nations that have claimed this as being their sole reason for anti-American hatred. Nothing wrong there but the US has been a bit lazy on tring to actully bring peace.

This completely negates any rational analysis and shows that a teaching of hate has been propagated throughout most of the Middle East. In the early 1980's the nation of Lebanon was one of the most gorgeous destination spots in the region and had proven that the different religions of Catholism and Islam could work together peacefully - until the PLO began to establish camps in the nation and eventually disrupted their government. One of the major players in this type of hatred though is Saudi Arabia which is a leading supporter of the corrupt PLO and uses school books that teach hatred against the Jewish people. They are also a strong supporter of the other Arab nations in the Middle East and only extremists like Bin Laden and Saddam have ever threatened their nation - primarily because of the presence of US troops on their soil.

-Joe! One the US backed Iraq (He was as much of an evil dictator back then as now)to fight aginst Iran at the same time the US sold weapons to Iran.

So what did the US plan to accomplish beside make tons of money of selling arms to Iran that they needed to defend them selfs aginst the US backed Iraq? Hard to actully saw anything good about US in that war since they played both sides.

In 1951 Dr. Muhammad Mossadaq was elected as Prime Minister and he made moves to nationalise the country's oil.

The US responded by deposing Mossadaq in a coup in 1953 and foisting their pro-West puppet, the Shah, upon the Iranian people thus retaining the oil in private hands of 8 companies.

And as you said the US supports Saudi Arabia that is as you would say Communist and not even the kind that looks after the people. Saudi Arabia has suffocated the freedoms of the people and the US has helped them do it.

[The Landstander]

about the whole protesting saddam thing...everyone already knows saddam is a bad bad man. however, protesting against him doesn't really do anything to fix this situation...however, people dont feel it is neccessary for us to go to war against him (or whatever their anti-war views may be), and protesting is an effective way for people's opinions to be heard.

Originally posted by wonderfly
But Bill Orielly is right: These people fear Bush more than they do Saddam, (which I find irrational). I don't mind peace protests, but some of the people there have absurd views. The people that are pissing me off the most though are these ones from Europe (and possibly a few from America) who are travelling to Iraq to sign up as Human Sheilds. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! They're perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives for a Madman, they're willing to stand in front of U.S. troops because they know we won't knowingly fire on innocents, (though we will fire at military targets, and Saddam has been known to place civilians around such targets in an effort to stop us from attacking). He's in essence taking hostages (like a terrorist would), but the U.S. doesn't negotiate with Terrorists.


i will admit...thats pretty damn stupid.

[wonderfly]

Heh...Joe beat me to the response. While I was typing up mine, he apparently posted his thoughts. You're always on the ball, you know that? :p By the way, cool Avatar Joe.

EDIT: Holy crap, and now a response by Fox and Dr. Wierd! It's a flurry of message activity! :D

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox

Nothing wrong there but the US has been a bit lazy on tring to actully bring peace.
One the US backed Iraq (He was as much of an evil dictator back then as now)to fight aginst Iran at the same time the US sold weapons to Iran.

So what did the US plan to accomplish beside make tons of money of selling arms to Iran that they needed to defend them selfs aginst the US backed Iraq? Hard to actully saw anything good about US in that war since they played both sides.



Yes, but I believe playing both sides against each other was the point. We bled both of their militaries against each other, and thus made both of these countries weaker. Iran is much less a threat today then it was in the 80's, (though they still are the biggest supporters of terrorists, mostly against Isreal) but this was accomplished through allying ourselves with Saddam. And when Saddam got greedy, and went after Kuwait, we put him in back in his place, (though we didn't kick him out of power like we should have).

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by DrWeird
about the whole protesting saddam thing...everyone already knows saddam is a bad bad man. however, protesting against him doesn't really do anything to fix this situation... Well us protesting aginst him doesn't do anything but if his people rise up aginst him in protest then that is a different story.

And what would make that more powerful is Saddam can't weasel from his own people and like his troops will take on the majority of the Iraq people and risk meeting a fate worse then death from Al Qaeda as odds are Al Qaeda would try to be buddy buddy with the uprising.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Yes, but I believe playing both sides against each other was the point. We bled both of their militaries against each other, and thus made both of these countries weaker. Iran is much less a threat today then it was in the 80's, (though they still are the biggest supporters of terrorists, mostly against Isreal) but this was accomplished through allying ourselves with Saddam. And when Saddam got greedy, and went after Kuwait, we put him in back in his place, (though we didn't kick him out of power like we should have). Okay then how do you explain the US overthroughing democratically elected Muhammad Mossadaq from Iran in 1953 that led to a communistic like dictator that led to the Iran uprising that truned anti-west becouse we put a communistic dictator in Iran in 1953?

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Not so, Democracy has grown from under harder oppression.

Under the conditions currently presented there is very little hope for the creation of any type of democracy within Iraq without relying on the US and Britain for protection. Even under the protection of the northern no-fly zone the Kurds still find themselves attacked by the Iraqi supported terrorist group Ansar al-Islam.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but why? Vietnam gained their freedom druing the war, they didn't even have enough time to see if freedom would grow or shrink so why should France get its colony back? Isn't the US suppose to help people fight oppression? How was putting Vietnam back under French control a good thing?

Vietnam didn't gain their independence during WWII - they were invaded by the Japanese military and became a battleground between the alliance of Ho Chi Minh/Chinese military against their Japanese invaders.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Bascily its kinda like the US saying "I know your all happy being free but sorry we have to take it back from you since France legally owns you"


Once again - they weren't free. Vietnam was invaded by the Japanese military. Following their surrender the country was patrolled by Chinese troops above the 16th parallel and British troops below the 16th parallel. At least until the French troops were able to re-establish themselves in Southern Vietnam.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but the South at that time was more evil then the north what were they tring to say you can be an evil monster that kills their own people just don't be communist even if you are a good communist?

Sorry but both sides were guilty of these types of attacks - clearly the French citizens living in Saigon would be guilty of attacking the Vietnamese population upon their release from their prision camps while the French citizens and troops experienced over 90,000 casualties at the hands of the Viet Minh by the end of 1951.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Nothing wrong there but the US has been a bit lazy on tring to actully bring peace.

One the US backed Iraq (He was as much of an evil dictator back then as now)to fight aginst Iran at the same time the US sold weapons to Iran.

So what did the US plan to accomplish beside make tons of money of selling arms to Iran that they needed to defend them selfs aginst the US backed Iraq? Hard to actully saw anything good about US in that war since they played both sides.

In 1951 Dr. Muhammad Mossadaq was elected as Prime Minister and he made moves to nationalise the country's oil.

The US responded by deposing Mossadaq in a coup in 1953 and foisting their pro-West puppet, the Shah, upon the Iranian people thus retaining the oil in private hands of 8 companies.

And as you said the US supports Saudi Arabia that is as you would say Communist and not even the kind that looks after the people. Saudi Arabia has suffocated the freedoms of the people and the US has helped them do it.

The US has been one of the primary reasons that any form of peace has been established within the region. Not only did the US strenghten relations between Egypt and Israel but they were also very influential in establishing relations between Turkey and Israel.

As for Saudi Arabia - they are an oppresive regime and one that I would very much like to see changed. Considering the policies that they hold toward Israel and their blatant funding of terrorism I do think that the US needs to exercise far more pressure on the nation than they have in the past and that the policies they hold need to be changed in order to stop the funding of hatred within the region. However, the problems that we have with Saudi Arabia make it a nation that is considered a friend to the other Arab nations and has worked to continue the policies of the region while attempting to hurt the more western nations of Israel and the early 1980's Lebanon.

-Joe!

[Chris Wood]

The inspectors will find nothing worth getting UN support, because the UN hates war. Nothing is damning enough to justify war for them. Forget them.

They hate war? What a strange inclination. Must be something wrong with them.

That, and the economy always picks up after a successful war operation.

Well, that'll make the Iraqi people sleep easier at night.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/cx/uc/20030217/bs/bs030217.gif

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
What damage has the US done to the Middle East? A review of history would show that the strongest US policy in the region has been to protect Israel - a view that has often been criticized by the Arab nations that have claimed this as being their sole reason for anti-American hatred.

You make it sound like this is a minor issue. This is a major problem, quite possibly THE problem, and until the US more evenly divides its support between Israel and the Palestinians hatred will inevitably continue to build.

[Chris Wood]

I don't mind peace protests, but some of the people there have absurd views. The people that are pissing me off the most though are these ones from Europe (and possibly a few from America) who are travelling to Iraq to sign up as Human Sheilds. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! They're perfectly willing to sacrifice their lives for a Madman, they're willing to stand in front of U.S. troops because they know we won't knowingly fire on innocents, (though we will fire at military targets, and Saddam has been known to place civilians around such targets in an effort to stop us from attacking).

You are missing the point. They hope to protect the lives of Iraqi civiliians. They don't give a damn about Saddam.

He's in essence taking hostages (like a terrorist would), but the U.S. doesn't negotiate with Terrorists.

Unless they live in North Korea.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Desslar
You are missing the point. They hope to protect the lives of Iraqi civiliians. They don't give a damn about Saddam.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021803/content/from.parcol2.0002.ImageFile.jpg

Actual photo from Cisco peace protests. :D


NEWSFLAH: Did anyone catch this? (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAN230030) Do we need any more evidence now?

[FavreFactor]

Yes. I think that we should just go to war with Iraq. Its not like they're too tough for us or anything. Who cares if the UN wants to help us or not. We have the strongest navy in the world and I think we should use it. Iraq is asking for everything.

-FavreFactor

[Drachentöter]

I caught what O'Reilly said on his talking points last night. Unfortunately, as usual with O'Reilly, he spoke but most of what I heard was "hate democrats, hate protesters, love Bush, love me."

I caught the general gist of it.

I find it very sad that people are opposing an American's right to protest. It's absurd. Just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean they should be silenced. The effect they have on the war effort, their targets for blame, and their determination to prevent war should not brand them "Saddam-lovers" or "anti-Americans." Outrageous.

This was the topic on Donahue last night. He made a much better case than O'Reilly.

Protestors should only be considered a threat to American success once they resort to violence (or in the case luckybob presented, but I really doubt that's more than hot air on the protestors' part.)

Gotta love those hippies.

To recap my positions:

-We should go to war to remove a tyrant and murder from power.

-We should stop stalling and wating for the UN to give its approval.

-We should not blame protesting countries or individuals for expressing their opinions and feelings.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Under the conditions currently presented there is very little hope for the creation of any type of democracy within Iraq without relying on the US and Britain for protection. Even under the protection of the northern no-fly zone the Kurds still find themselves attacked by the Iraqi supported terrorist group Ansar al-Islam.Look with help from the west uprising across the Soviet Union took place during the cold war but the US is not even tring the same move for Iraq.

As for protection, leave that till an the uprising.

Vietnam didn't gain their independence during WWII - they were invaded by the Japanese military and became a battleground between the alliance of Ho Chi Minh/Chinese military against their Japanese invaders.
They were free from France as France was the enemy during WWII and they had independant control of their forces as France was the enemy. Vietnam dealt with the US during WWII as if Vietnam was a independant nation since France was the enemy.

So they did have a taste of independence it was during a war but they were free of French rule during that time.


As for Saudi Arabia - they are an oppresive regime and one that I would very much like to see changed. Considering the policies that they hold toward Israel and their blatant funding of terrorism I do think that the US needs to exercise far more pressure on the nation than they have in the past and that the policies they hold need to be changed in order to stop the funding of hatred within the region. However, the problems that we have with Saudi Arabia make it a nation that is considered a friend to the other Arab nations and has worked to continue the policies of the region while attempting to hurt the more western nations of Israel and the early 1980's Lebanon.

-Joe! I say the US should fund democratic uprisings aginst Saudi Arabia. The US at the very least not get in the way of civil uprising/rebelion aginst the Saudi goverment, it sends the wrong message. It is the their nation not ours and if they want to kick the roaly family out, it is their right.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Off-topic: From the information and people I've asked, Vietnam started because the US would not help North Vietnam reunite with South Vietnam; all Ho Chi Minh wanted was a unified country. Basically, despite all of Vietnam's help in WWII, the US screwed them over. There was no one else powerful enough to turn to other than the USSR...which was a socialist state (cue gasps and shrieks of horror). The US went after the Red Menace in Vietnam. Kennedy mainly used special forces up until his death, and was even thinking of pulling out any non-special forces. Johnson shipped over 500,000 boys over to Vietnam to try to outnumber the Vietnamese on their home turf. About 50,000 never came home.

Onto "on topic-ness"

I'm personally not for this war. I know that Iraq probably does have something, but I want to keep the inspectors (and add more to their numbers) in Iraq. As long as these portable labs are in constantly motion, they can't do much work. I may be mistaken in this area, so pardon me if I am and do explain to me how.

I attended a meeting with my local congressman and a bunch of other kids from the same district. He personally voted against the idea of Bush having power to declare war because it was too broad and was waiting for the first revision on the idea at the time (this was last November). He said it resembled the Gulf of Tonkin resolution from Vietnam, which it did. And we all know how that turned out.... What blew my mind was the unawareness of my generation. Yes, we are the service generation; we do alot of good stuff...but we don't know what we're doing it for. There was this one guy who said to "cripple" Iraq with a few nukes....

HELLO! Nukes wipe out countries. These aren't the bombs from the Blitzkrieg or even napalm from Vietnam. Think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki TIMES TEN. And Iraq is a landlocked country. Do you think the radiation is gonna go up to the borderline of the country and just stop? Nope. It'll go into Kuwait, India, Turkey, and most of the countries on its border.

I agree fully that we have to disarm Sadam Hussein. We also have to get him out of power not for our hides, but for his people. They aren't as brainwashed as we think. If you speak out against Hussein, you are killed on the spot. For them, to stay alive, they can't speak out. We also can't leave a mess there like last time. We also must realize how must destruction a nuke can do on a country, whether it is ours or Iraq (this isn't a WWII shell).

And that protest picture...agh. Selfish, insensitive, and the exact opposite reason of why I don't wanna get into this war...but the protest stuff is on another thread, and that's where I'll go off on next.

I do see the reasons for war. A lot I view as selfish, such as oil. If the US went in to help the Iraqi people and help install a better government (like in Afghanistan) with as little violence as possible, I'd be like "Charge!" But humanitarianism isn't the number one thing on the US's mind, as demonstrated by that photo [shudders].

Peace out.

[ccffan01]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
But they are the most vocal and active ones right now.




They know, and we know that they could never win a nuclear war. It's like a little 13-year-old gym rat shaking his fist at Mike Tyson. Besides, Iraq has been threatening us long before North Korea. We've had twelve years, now it's time to go after them first. We can handle NK after Iraq. I'm quite sure.



The North Koreans have a bigger army, more special forces than any army in the world, and they are willing to die as long as they bring down a few americans.(Just like the Japaneese in World War Two and radical Muslim groups now)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Guitar Slayer

I agree fully that we have to disarm Sadam Hussein. We also have to get him out of power not for our hides, but for his people. They aren't as brainwashed as we think. If you speak out against Hussein, you are killed on the spot. For them, to stay alive, they can't speak out. We also can't leave a mess there like last time. The problem I find is the US has made no effort to get the people of Iraq to uprise. The US did it for the people in the Soviet Union. Yes the Soviet Union killed and imprisoned many of them but they knew the risk and it was their rebelion.

Plus Bush tells the people of Iraq to overthrough Saddam? That is not how it is done. Why hasn't Bush told the people of Iraq to strike? Why hasn't he speaken to the workers or Iraq? It would actully have an effect.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Look with help from the west uprising across the Soviet Union took place during the cold war but the US is not even tring the same move for Iraq.

So I take it the arms race between the US and the USSR didn't lead to the collapse of the USSR and allow people a chance to move away from the oppressive regime they were living under? The US does have some factions that they have talked to about creating an uprising against Saddam but without military support from our side they are very adverse to attempting such a feat. With Saddam in power there are very few that are willing to oppose him - esp when their families are at his mercy.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
As for protection, leave that till an the uprising.
They were free from France as France was the enemy during WWII and they had independant control of their forces as France was the enemy. Vietnam dealt with the US during WWII as if Vietnam was a independant nation since France was the enemy.

So they did have a taste of independence it was during a war but they were free of French rule during that time.

Once again - no they didn't. They moved from French control directly into the control of the Japanese military. It wasn't until the troops of Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese military combined forces that they began to take steps against the Japanese forces that were in Vietnam. The Japanese forces in Vietnam didn't remove themselves from Vietnam until the V-J Day. Once again, unless you consider the removal of the French government and the replacement of this leadership with Japanese forces they were not free during WWII. Also, if France was the enemy then why did Ho Chi Minh fight against the Japanese? It would be far more rational for the Viet Minh to fight with the Japanese if they were only hoping to expel the French.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
I say the US should fund democratic uprisings aginst Saudi Arabia. The US at the very least not get in the way of civil uprising/rebelion aginst the Saudi goverment, it sends the wrong message. It is the their nation not ours and if they want to kick the roaly family out, it is their right.

When was the last time there was an uprising against the Saudi royal family? The overall population of Saudi Arabia is happy to take Western money while funneling it to support the various terroristic groups in the Middle East and teach their children to hate the Jewish people. The only policies that many of their people disagree with is their ties to the US - esp ones that allow US troops on their soil (the same problem exists with factions of the Kuwaiti population). If the US were to lead any type of change in the region it would be to change the leadership into one that doesn't funnel funds to groups that support terrorism against the US and Israel.

Originally posted by Desslar
You make it sound like this is a minor issue. This is a major problem, quite possibly THE problem, and until the US more evenly divides its support between Israel and the Palestinians hatred will inevitably continue to build.

So you would expect the US to join the rest of the world in creating proclamations that tell Israel to risk her sovreignty while ignoring the massive terrorist campaigns in the "occupied territories"? The US has done everything in its power to help the refugees - even helping to create an agreement that gave Arafat his own state and 95% of the land he requested. This offer would have left Israel severly vulnerable but in the end it was rejected.

The idea that the US's support is the primary reason for terrorism against our nation is merely a scapegoat to allow for the hatred of Western life - esp those established on Judeo-Christian values. If the US's primary problems are that they support Israel then why was the nation of Lebanon, that held a joint government between the Islamic and Christian factions, eventually destroyed by the PLO camps within their borders in the early 1980's? Why should the US abandon our support for a nation established on the principals we are based upon to support nations in the Middle East that don't allow women rights or even the most basic of human rights? Why are organizations like the PLO allowed to state their goal of Israeli destruction in their charter while Israel is held accountable for the Resolutions that have not been fulfilled by the other side?

This hatred against Israel and the US stems from the leadership that breeds this violence. When people that speak out against these leaders and seek peace they suddenly disappear. When the children of any nation hopes to one day establish themselves as a murderer we need to look at why this is allowed to happen and how we can prevent this attitude from prevailing. The reason for these events isn't the presence of the nation of Israel but of an intolerance by certain factions within the region. Only by allowing the debate of peaceful ideas that are not established on hate can the Middle East ever shrug off the reliance upon anti-Semitic attitudes. Until that happens Israel, the US, Britain, Australia and all of the other Western nations will be hated and targeted. Much like WWII Germany the population must learn that the targeting of any one group as being the reason for all their problems must be rejected and that peace will only be achieved when everyone is given a voice to choose their own destiny - not trained to target people whose ideas vary from their own.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Okay then how do you explain the US overthroughing democratically elected Muhammad Mossadaq from Iran in 1953 that led to a communistic like dictator that led to the Iran uprising that truned anti-west becouse we put a communistic dictator in Iran in 1953?

I can't explain it. I was only referring to what I think American policy towards Iran was like during the 80's. From what little I've studied of Iran's history in the 20th century, the CIA and others had some pretty stupid ideas about what was best for Iran. Yeah, I'll admit, we were the cause for why Iran became so much Anti U.S. But at least they're trying to reform somewhat, (they have student protesting the overly strict Islam clerics every week or so it seems, judging from the amount of news coverage given to it).

I find Iran interesting because unlike say, Saudi Arabia, where you have a young generation growing up believing the West is evil because they see how corrupt their govt. is, in Iran, you see a young generation who sees how corrupt their govt. is, and they notice how Anti U.S. that govt. is, and so they're calling for reforms, which include stronger ties with the West.

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Desslar
You are missing the point. They hope to protect the lives of Iraqi civiliians. They don't give a damn about Saddam.






It's kinda funny: after I started discussing the protestors in this thread, I later on noticed another thread devoted to the Protestors issue. If I had spotted it, I would have added my thoughts on the protestors over there.

But, in response, if these Human Sheilds really wanted to protect the people of Iraq, they'd be calling for Saddam's ousting, because he's the one killing his own people. Yet, they're more concerned about American bombs, which are intended for military targets, and not for innocent civilians.

But clever cartoon though; I liked it! :cool:

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
So I take it the arms race between the US and the USSR didn't lead to the collapse of the USSR and allow people a chance to move away from the oppressive regime they were living under?Yes but without the labour movement to overthrough the USSR, the USSR wouldn't have collapsed as fast.

The US does have some factions that they have talked to about creating an uprising against Saddam but without military support from our side they are very adverse to attempting such a feat. With Saddam in power there are very few that are willing to oppose him - esp when their families are at his mercy.I'm not talking about an armed uprising. The labour uprising backed by the west was an unarmed uprising since there was no way the west could expect such small groups to make any dent on the Soviet Union via force.

No the US and the west backed labour movement and got them to strike and protest that led to the break up of the Soviet satellite nations.

The US could do the same with Iraq. Backing labour and getting them to strike.

Once again - no they didn't. They moved from French control directly into the control of the Japanese military. It wasn't until the troops of Ho Chi Minh and the Chinese military combined forces that they began to take steps against the Japanese forces that were in Vietnam. The Japanese forces in Vietnam didn't remove themselves from Vietnam until the V-J Day. Once again, unless you consider the removal of the French government and the replacement of this leadership with Japanese forces they were not free during WWII. Also, if France was the enemy then why did Ho Chi Minh fight against the Japanese? It would be far more rational for the Viet Minh to fight with the Japanese if they were only hoping to expel the French.
Still during WWII the US saw Ho Chi Minh as the leader of Vietnam as the French were on Japan's side.


When was the last time there was an uprising against the Saudi royal family? The overall population of Saudi Arabia is happy to take Western money while funneling it to support the various terroristic groups in the Middle East and teach their children to hate the Jewish people. The only policies that many of their people disagree with is their ties to the US - esp ones that allow US troops on their soil (the same problem exists with factions of the Kuwaiti population). If the US were to lead any type of change in the region it would be to change the leadership into one that doesn't funnel funds to groups that support terrorism against the US and Israel.
There has been a few including alot by Bin Ladden in his early years. Most protesters hate the royals as they don't see them repersenting them and they don't like how they piss the nations money away leaving Saudi Arabia near bankruptcy.

Many years ago a group even captured the palace and demanded the royals leave Saudi Arabia and never return. That was until the US troops retook the palace.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but without the labour movement to overthrough the USSR, the USSR wouldn't have collapsed as fast.
I'm not talking about an armed uprising. The labour uprising backed by the west was an unarmed uprising since there was no way the west could expect such small groups to make any dent on the Soviet Union via force.

No the US and the west backed labour movement and got them to strike and protest that led to the break up of the Soviet satellite nations.

The US could do the same with Iraq. Backing labour and getting them to strike.

The US is backing groups that are trying to get away from Saddam - as evidenced by Kurdistan that is protected by US and British troops. However, this same policy will not work in the heart of Baghdad because of the iron grip that Saddam commands in these regions and his ability to strike against his own people.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Still during WWII the US saw Ho Chi Minh as the leader of Vietnam as the French were on Japan's side.

No they weren't - the French were placed into POW camps as soon as the Japanese invaded Vietnam, they didn't fight with Japan.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
There has been a few including alot by Bin Ladden in his early years. Most protesters hate the royals as they don't see them repersenting them and they don't like how they piss the nations money away leaving Saudi Arabia near bankruptcy.

Many years ago a group even captured the palace and demanded the royals leave Saudi Arabia and never return. That was until the US troops retook the palace.

Bin Laden's policies toward Saudi Arabia have changed immensely over the years - including his own statements where he told his followers that the should not attack the interests of Saudi Arabia but the American soldiers that are stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Within Saudi Arabia there have been few portesters as many of the organizations in the Middle East see Saudi Arabia as a huge influence and financial supporter of their causes.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly

I find Iran interesting because unlike say, Saudi Arabia, where you have a young generation growing up believing the West is evil because they see how corrupt their govt. is, in Iran, you see a young generation who sees how corrupt their govt. is, and they notice how Anti U.S. that govt. is, and so they're calling for reforms, which include stronger ties with the West. I agree the people of Iran seems to actully be aware of civil disobedience while it doesn't seem to be in the vocabulary of the voices of dissent in Saudi Arabia.

They are willing to commit violent armed rebelion and acts of terrorism but very few in Saudi Arabia seem to even want to try more peaceful acts of defiance.

Kinda like noone in Saudi Arabia even read about Gandhi. If all they care about is revenge Saudi Arabia will never see change.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
The US is backing groups that are trying to get away from Saddam - as evidenced by Kurdistan that is protected by US and British troops. However, this same policy will not work in the heart of Baghdad because of the iron grip that Saddam commands in these regions and his ability to strike against his own people.The west was able to back labour movments in the heart of the Soviet Union your saying they can't do the same in Iraq?

We are talking pacifist labour not armed rebelion. Plus as like always the workers and the blood of the nation they strike Iraq stops and it is not like Saddam can kill them all since then he has no work force.

If Bin Ladden can get people to die and kill for him someone could get the workers of Iraq to put their lives on the line for a better Iraq.


Bin Laden's policies toward Saudi Arabia have changed immensely over the years - including his own statements where he told his followers that the should not attack the interests of Saudi Arabia but the American soldiers that are stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Within Saudi Arabia there have been few portesters as many of the organizations in the Middle East see Saudi Arabia as a huge influence and financial supporter of their causes.
-Joe! Saudi Arabia has not changed since then. All Bin Ladden has done is used the US as a scape goat. It is still the Royals falt for the shape of Saudi Arabia. Protests aginst the royal will start again once the people of Saudi Arabia realise they were duped by Bin Ladden

[wonderfly]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
I agree the people of Iran seems to actully be aware of civil disobedience while it doesn't seem to be in the vocabulary of the voices of dissent in Saudi Arabia.

They are willing to commit violent armed rebelion and acts of terrorism but very few in Saudi Arabia seem to even want to try more peaceful acts of defiance.

Kinda like noone in Saudi Arabia even read about Gandhi. If all they care about is revenge Saudi Arabia will never see change.

Hey! We agree! :eek: I'm much more hopeful of reforms in Iran right now than I am in Saudi Arabia, (even if Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil").

As for Gandhi, I don't think too many people in Saudi Arabia are interested in his teachings. After Isreal and America, India is the country that seems to tick their people off the most over there.

Still, it is interesting that Iran has a young generation calling for reforms, yet many of Saudi Arabia's young generation seem all to eager to embrace the fanatic ideology of Osama Bin Ladin.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Hey! We agree! :eek: I'm much more hopeful of reforms in Iran right now than I am in Saudi Arabia, (even if Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil").
Same here

As for Gandhi, I don't think too many people in Saudi Arabia are interested in his teachings. After Isreal and America, India is the country that seems to tick their people off the most over there.
I dont's see why. Gandhi wanted a world where hindu and muslim work together in peace. As Gandhi said God is speaking through both.

Still, it is interesting that Iran has a young generation calling for reforms, yet many of Saudi Arabia's young generation seem all to eager to embrace the fanatic ideology of Osama Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin is like Stalin, he cares nothing for the cause or the people that follow him. Bin Ladin is too busy going after the US. Yes the US played a minor part but their own goverment is the primary reason. The US did not tell the royals to spend more money then Saudi Arabia made, nor oppressed the people of Saudi Arabia, the US just backed them. The sooner people over there realise Bin Laddin is a false idol the better.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by wonderfly

But, in response, if these Human Sheilds really wanted to protect the people of Iraq, they'd be calling for Saddam's ousting, because he's the one killing his own people. Yet, they're more concerned about American bombs, which are intended for military targets, and not for innocent civilians.
I have to agree if these Human Sheilds really cared they would try to orginize the local Iraq people to protest aginst Saddam cause if they do it the US won't kill innocent people kicking Saddam out in a war.

[Psycho Fox]

I really think the only people that can bring democracy to Iraq and other oppressed nation in the Middle East is the people in those nations.

There was a report that said the people of Iraq was willing to be casualties of war if it led to the overthrough of Saddam.

I say these people are weak minded, if they are truly willing to die to overthrough Saddam they should strike. Cause if the let the US do it, if Democracy fails to be installed in the US, They will blame the US and nothing will be done about democracy while if they do it them selves there is a much higher chance of democracy eventully being devloped in Iraq. Also as Oscar Romero said (pacifist that died for his belives during the rebellions in El Salvador) Thou Shall Not Kill Means no human may kill any other human for any reason.

[Anyone00]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The problem I find is the US has made no effort to get the people of Iraq to uprise. The US did it for the people in the Soviet Union. Yes the Soviet Union killed and imprisoned many of them but they knew the risk and it was their rebelion.

Actually back in 1995 six CIA operatives were sent to northern Iraq to stir up a Kurdish rebellion with as little US involvement as possible. They managed to contact a top Iraqi General that wanted Sadam out. The rebellion just barely started and a few groups of Kurdish troops attacked Iraqi positions, but they were told to pull back and the rebellion ended almost as fast as it begun. The Clinton administration threatened to prosecute the six CIA operatives. I'm not sure if any were actually prosecuted but 5 of them were reassigned and 1 of them resigned out of anger.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Anyone00
Actually back in 1995 six CIA operatives were sent to northern Iraq to stir up a Kurdish rebellion with as little US involvement as possible. They managed to contact a top Iraqi General that wanted Sadam out. The rebellion just barely started and a few groups of Kurdish troops attacked Iraqi positions, but they were told to pull back and the rebellion ended almost as fast as it begun. The Clinton administration threatened to prosecute the six CIA operatives. I'm not sure if any were actually prosecuted but 5 of them were reassigned and 1 of them resigned out of anger. But look at that. The people of Iraq are willing to rise up and possibly even under a passifist movement. There was a report that most Iraqi people are okay with being casulties of a US war so it shouldn't be too hard to get them to strike and put the neck on the line for their freedom and if they don't then we can't give it to them since they have to want it and be willing to stand up for it. If they are not willing to stand up now why would they sand up down the road? Are we going to hold their hand forever?

Yes currenly Saddam troops are ordered to kill 95% of all protestors and strikers but if the people of Iraq unite and do it all at once, what Saddam is going to distroy 95% of his populas? Who would he oppress? How would he generate funds? How would he pay for his security?

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox

Yes currenly Saddam troops are ordered to kill 95% of all protestors and strikers but if the people of Iraq unite and do it all at once, what Saddam is going to distroy 95% of his populas? Who would he oppress? How would he generate funds? How would he pay for his security?

He has plenty of reasons for wanting nukes and other WMDs. He can skip town while he leaves a nice present behind for the protestors. Can the protestors retaliate then? No. Saddam is a madman. He wouldn't mind killing thousands of innocent people in order to stay in power.

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
So you would expect the US to join the rest of the world in creating proclamations that tell Israel to risk her sovreignty while ignoring the massive terrorist campaigns in the "occupied territories"? The US has done everything in its power to help the refugees - even helping to create an agreement that gave Arafat his own state and 95% of the land he requested. This offer would have left Israel severly vulnerable but in the end it was rejected.

The idea that the US's support is the primary reason for terrorism against our nation is merely a scapegoat to allow for the hatred of Western life - esp those established on Judeo-Christian values. If the US's primary problems are that they support Israel then why was the nation of Lebanon, that held a joint government between the Islamic and Christian factions, eventually destroyed by the PLO camps within their borders in the early 1980's? Why should the US abandon our support for a nation established on the principals we are based upon to support nations in the Middle East that don't allow women rights or even the most basic of human rights? Why are organizations like the PLO allowed to state their goal of Israeli destruction in their charter while Israel is held accountable for the Resolutions that have not been fulfilled by the other side?

This hatred against Israel and the US stems from the leadership that breeds this violence. When people that speak out against these leaders and seek peace they suddenly disappear. When the children of any nation hopes to one day establish themselves as a murderer we need to look at why this is allowed to happen and how we can prevent this attitude from prevailing. The reason for these events isn't the presence of the nation of Israel but of an intolerance by certain factions within the region. Only by allowing the debate of peaceful ideas that are not established on hate can the Middle East ever shrug off the reliance upon anti-Semitic attitudes. Until that happens Israel, the US, Britain, Australia and all of the other Western nations will be hated and targeted. Much like WWII Germany the population must learn that the targeting of any one group as being the reason for all their problems must be rejected and that peace will only be achieved when everyone is given a voice to choose their own destiny - not trained to target people whose ideas vary from their own.

-Joe!

Um, I think you are ignoring the reality of the situation in Israel. This is a HUGE issue for the region. It is not a scapegoat in any shape or form. It is very important to understand that. Israel deserves US support, but not for all of its policies. The insistence on occupying the West Bank is counter-productive, and the casualties caused by the Israeli military are appalling. The Palestinians are very clearly being treated as second class citizens in Israel. Is that the kind of enlightened demcracy we want to support?

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by wonderfly
But, in response, if these Human Sheilds really wanted to protect the people of Iraq, they'd be calling for Saddam's ousting, because he's the one killing his own people. Yet, they're more concerned about American bombs, which are intended for military targets, and not for innocent civilians.

If there is war with Iraq, then American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians will all die in significant numbers. Everybody loses. That is why people are protesting the war, not because they love Saddam.

Do they want to get rid of Saddam?

Yes.

Do they think invading Iraq will kill fewer people than continuing UN sanctions?

No.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
He has plenty of reasons for wanting nukes and other WMDs. He can skip town while he leaves a nice present behind for the protestors. Can the protestors retaliate then? No. Saddam is a madman. He wouldn't mind killing thousands of innocent people in order to stay in power. Have your read Gandhi? Without the workers he has no power. They are the source of his power, he can kill some of them but not all. Without workers he can't pay the thugs that are only loyal becouse he pays them serious coin. Then who is there to protect him aginst his enemies like Bin Ladden and the US?

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Have your read Gandhi? Without the workers he has no power. They are the source of his power, he can kill some of them but not all. Without workers he can't pay the thugs that are only loyal becouse he pays them serious coin. Then who is there to protect him aginst his enemies like Bin Ladden and the US?

Trust me, you're not going to get all of the Iraqi people to revolt. Saddam can manage quite well with few. He's not doing bad with the ones he has.

Psycho Fox, think about what you are proposing. You say that we need to start a pacifist uprising to put Saddam out of power. Don't you know that all dissenting opinions in Iraq are met with deadly opposition? Don't you know that these people are constantly subjected to state-enforced endoctrination? Don't you know that Saddam can (and does) resort to mass murder to get what he wants? Do you think that putting millions of innocent Iraqis' lives on the line to fend off Saddam's regime without any military support would be less dangerous and deadly than military action? Either way, civilians get killed. But you can bet your bottom dollar that more innocent civilians will get killed if they try to revolt against Saddam.

Maybe it would have a slight chance of working if we had more time. But the truth is, we don't. We've wasted eight years under a president who let this situation get more out of hand than it already was. Now, with the threat of terrorism greater than it was before, we can't get that time back. Saddam has to be overthrown now. He's had too much time to prepare. And any attempts to get his people to attempt a swift regime change would end in disaster for the Iraqi people, and the security of the United States.

In short, your plan might be nice theoritically, but it just isn't practical given the urgency of the situation.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985

Psycho Fox, think about what you are proposing. You say that we need to start a pacifist uprising to put Saddam out of power. Don't you know that all dissenting opinions in Iraq are met with deadly opposition? Don't you know that these people are constantly subjected to state-enforced endoctrination? Don't you know that Saddam can (and does) resort to mass murder to get what he wants? Do you think that putting millions of innocent Iraqis' lives on the line to fend off Saddam's regime without any military support would be less dangerous and deadly than military action? Either way, civilians get killed. But you can bet your bottom dollar that more innocent civilians will get killed if they try to revolt against Saddam.Britian did the same thing in India and the Soviet Union did the same thing with their labour uprising but it just grew in strenght. Every mass killing of protesters and strikers brough more strikers and protestors. By the protesters and strikers not even rasing a single fist in anger they did not give their oppressors any excuse to feed the massess.

The point of pacifism is not about less people getting hurt or killed it is about stoping the cycle of violence and not killing since god said your suppose to forgive your enemy.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind
- Gandhi


Maybe it would have a slight chance of working if we had more time. But the truth is, we don't. We've wasted eight years under a president who let this situation get more out of hand than it already was. Now, with the threat of terrorism greater than it was before, we can't get that time back. Saddam has to be overthrown now. He's had too much time to prepare. And any attempts to get his people to attempt a swift regime change would end in disaster for the Iraqi people, and the security of the United States.

In short, your plan might be nice theoritically, but it just isn't practical given the urgency of the situation. But all it will do is fule violence in the middle east. You can blow the world in pieces but you can't blow it into peace. Already there is talks of the US army staying in Iraq for 5 years that scares the people of Iraq. The is a very good possiblity that the US might eventully be unwelecomed there aftwards and how do you want them to voice that? Via pacifism or violence?

War brings more violence, ignorance and hate. War never brings peace.

War can't give life, it can only take it away.
-Edwin Starr

[Lucky Bob]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Britian did the same thing in India and the Soviet Union did the same thing with their labour uprising but it just grew in strenght. Every mass killing of protesters and strikers brough more strikers and protestors. By the protesters and strikers not even rasing a single fist in anger they did not give their oppressors any excuse to feed the massess.

The point of pacifism is not about less people getting hurt or killed it is about stoping the cycle of violence and not killing since god said your suppose to forgive your enemy.

So that's why India is living in perfect peace with Pakistan and Russia is living in perfect peace with Chechnya and the mafia, right? A "pacifist solution" will never end all violence.


But all it will do is fule violence in the middle east. You can blow the world in pieces but you can't blow it into peace. Already there is talks of the US army staying in Iraq for 5 years that scares the people of Iraq. The is a very good possiblity that the US might eventully be unwelecomed there aftwards and how do you want them to voice that? Via pacifism or violence?

War brings more violence, ignorance and hate. War never brings peace.

War can't give life, it can only take it away.
-Edwin Starr

You know, you're looking at hypothetical situations, here. Most countries in the Middle East have expressed a desire for regime change in Iraq. (That's a step up from Afghanistan, which they didn't care about, anyway.) Taking out Saddam wouldn't be likely to cause any more violence in the Middle East, due to the fact that:

1. This is about our safety, and the safety of all the countries (mostly Arab) in the region. This has very little to do with Israel.

2. Taking out Saddam will mean that Al-Qaeda itself will have one less road to WMDs.

Like I said, your pacifist solution might have worked had it been started a long time ago, but that's between you and Clinton. (After all, he did prosecute those CIA agents.) The time to act is now. The threat is too high for us to take high risks.

Ideologies are fine, but there is ultimately practicality and reality to contend with. Saddam is not going to happily step down, and his people are too scared stiff to do anything about it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
So that's why India is living in perfect peace with Pakistan and Russia is living in perfect peace with Chechnya and the mafia, right? A "pacifist solution" will never end all violence. The problem was while the muslims went for the pacifist route India did the same things to muslims that Britian did to them. They failed to stay pacifist once they obtained their goal. So it half worked, the muslims were non violent till India stoped being pacifist.

Very few of Gandhi's followers knew Gandhi ment they had to pacifist all the time even in peace.


You know, you're looking at hypothetical situations, here. Most countries in the Middle East have expressed a desire for regime change in Iraq. (That's a step up from Afghanistan, which they didn't care about, anyway.) Taking out Saddam wouldn't be likely to cause any more violence in the Middle East, due to the fact that:

1. This is about our safety, and the safety of all the countries (mostly Arab) in the region. This has very little to do with Israel.

2. Taking out Saddam will mean that Al-Qaeda itself will have one less road to WMDs.

Like I said, your pacifist solution might have worked had it been started a long time ago, but that's between you and Clinton. (After all, he did prosecute those CIA agents.) The time to act is now. The threat is too high for us to take high risks. The problem is not taking Saddam out, even Al-Qaeda wants him out of power and just dealing with him for their own short tearm intrests. The problem is after the war. The US army says it plans to stay in Iraq for 5 years after the war, this is what scares people in the middle east.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The problem was while the muslims went for the pacifist route India did the same things to muslims that Britian did to them. They failed to stay pacifist once they obtained their goal. So it half worked, the muslims were non violent till India stoped being pacifist.

Very few of Gandhi's followers knew Gandhi ment they had to pacifist all the time even in peace.

It's like I've always said. Men are inheritly evil. You're never going to get everyone to be perfect, so the idea that any one course of action is going to solve all problems is flawed. One of two things usually happens:

1: Someone or some group rebels against that course of action and makes life miserable.

2: The course of action is exploited by someone to cause even more damage.

War isn't the perfect proposition either, but it has a better chance than pure mindgames that take more time than we have left.

The problem is not taking Saddam out, even Al-Qaeda wants him out of power and just dealing with him for their own short tearm intrests. The problem is after the war. The US army says it plans to stay in Iraq for 5 years after the war, this is what scares people in the middle east.

Yes, the military will have to stay over there a while. (Even the UN sent "peacekeepers" to Afghanistan after we ran the Taliban out.) What's wrong with a military presence there? We have plenty in other "hot spots" around the world!

I think it'll be another Afghanistan situation. The UN will send peacekeeping troops to the region, like it was their plan all along. Iraq will get an interim leader who in turn will get lots of foreign aid, and some sort of legitimate government will be set up in Iraq. It happened in Afghanistan, and they were in a right old mess! Iraq has more resources for reconstruction than Afghanistan ever did.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
It's like I've always said. Men are inheritly evil. You're never going to get everyone to be perfect, so the idea that any one course of action is going to solve all problems is flawed. One of two things usually happens:
Pacifism is not an action it is an ideology. The fact that it is seen as an action is what got India in trouble. Gandhi resigned from the goverment after no one there understood that they can't oppresses or censor Muslims as it goes aginst Pacifism.

Still even then Gandhi stuck with his belief that man is inheritly good.


Yes, the military will have to stay over there a while. (Even the UN sent "peacekeepers" to Afghanistan after we ran the Taliban out.) What's wrong with a military presence there? We have plenty in other "hot spots" around the world!
The problem is that the people of Iraq wants the US to come in kill Saddam then leave as they don't like the US.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Desslar
Um, I think you are ignoring the reality of the situation in Israel. This is a HUGE issue for the region. It is not a scapegoat in any shape or form. It is very important to understand that. Israel deserves US support, but not for all of its policies. The insistence on occupying the West Bank is counter-productive, and the casualties caused by the Israeli military are appalling. The Palestinians are very clearly being treated as second class citizens in Israel. Is that the kind of enlightened demcracy we want to support?

Yes it actually is a scapegoat. The West Bank was originally captured by Jordan during the Independence War after the Arab community rejected the UN Resolution that created Israel and Palestine. Following the 1948 war Jordan annexed these partitions and changed their name from Transjordan to Jordan. It wasn't until the 1967 War that Israel took the West Bank for security purposes. Following the war Israel even offered the territory back to Jordan in exchange for recognition and a peace agreement with the nation - this of course was rejected and Israel established the West Bank as an area under their protection but never annexed this territory (a luxury that is given to the victor of any war - in this case Israel would have had the right to annex this territory). The PLO was created in 1964 as an organization that attacked Israel - 3 years before Israel even controlled the West Bank.

Also, you failed to mention that the reason for the IDF presence in these areas has been caused by the constant homocide bombers that have targeted Israeli men, women and children. That the schools within these areas preach anti-Semitism, that Arafat helps finance the terrorist factions of Fatah and Hamas and that the television broadcasts within these areas tells children to become homocide bombers and to bring honor onto their families in the process. You failed to mention that In Israel, Arabs have full rights as citizens, equal to Jews. They can vote in Israel's democratic system, they have their own political party in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, with ten percent of the seats. They've even served in high-level government positions. No Arabs anywhere else in the Middle East have as much freedom and opportunity as Arabs who are citizens of Israel. In 2000, this freedom also lead thousands of Israeli Arabs to sign a petition asking to remain citizens of Israel if a Palestinian nation was created.

I also noticed that you completely neglected to mention all of the murders that have been aimed at the Israeli nation. This of course being the same Israeli nation that created work programs for the Palestinian people in an effort to improve their standard of living - an effort that can not be made by the corrupt PLO, an organization who's very charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli people have always strived to help the Palestinian people and have worked to improve their condition - something that even their Arab neighbors have failed to do, esp. when we consider that the majority of the population of Jordan is Palestinian.

The establishment and continuation of an Israeli nation is not the reason for the problems within the Middle East - it is the attempts by the leaders of these nations to continue preaching anti-Semitic attitudes and scapegoating the nation of Israel that is key to the violence that continues in this area.

For example, last year an Italian TV correspondent in Ramalah filmed an example of this type of hatred. Two Israelis, who by mistake took a wrong turn, found themselves among a mob of Palestinians. They were brought to the Palestinian police station where they were lynched and their mangled bodies were thrown out of the window, to the cheering crowds below. They kicked them and beat them until they were an unrecognizable mess of flesh. The Italian TV crew, who filmed that scene, had to run for their lives to escape the mob. Fortunately, they were able to sneak the film out and show it to the world, one of the few films that were ever shown of the Arab atrocities. But the world doesn't seem interested in these atrocities - instead being far more intent on blaming the ills of the Middle East on Israel and not on the anti-Semitic attitudes that are taught to generation after generation.

-Joe!

[Chris Wood]

The West Bank was originally captured by Jordan during the Independence War after the Arab community rejected the UN Resolution that created Israel and Palestine.

It's very understandable that they would reject that UN resolution.

The Israeli people have always strived to help the Palestinian people and have worked to improve their condition - something that even their Arab neighbors have failed to do, esp. when we consider that the majority of the population of Jordan is Palestinian.

That's surely overstating things a bit. There's understandably a lot of hate on both sides.

The establishment and continuation of an Israeli nation is not the reason for the problems within the Middle East - it is the attempts by the leaders of these nations to continue preaching anti-Semitic attitudes and scapegoating the nation of Israel that is key to the violence that continues in this area.

It is the lack of self-determination, and brutal military crackdowns that the Palestinians have to contend with that are very real problems. If you think Israel is a scapegoat, then you must surely think the same thing of Saddam. Albeit for somewhat different reasons, both nations engage in very real violence toward residents.

But the world doesn't seem interested in these atrocities - instead being far more intent on blaming the ills of the Middle East on Israel and not on the anti-Semitic attitudes that are taught to generation after generation.

But anti-Muslim attitudes are no better than anti-Semitic ones. Both sides need to stop the hate.

Here are some news clippings of relevance:

Troops Kill Palestinian in West Bank
Thu Feb 20, 5:24 AM ET

By GREG MYRE, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Israeli soldiers shot dead a Palestinian in a West Bank town and carried out house-to-house searches in another Thursday. Troops also divided the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) into three parts, restricting the movement of more than 1 million Palestinians.

In London, William Burns, a U.S. State Department official, met Palestinian Cabinet ministers on Wednesday to discuss a U.S.-backed peace plan that envisions the creation of a Palestinian state in about three years.

Burns told the Palestinians that formal discussions on the plan would not resume until after Israel forms a new government — a process that could take several more weeks — and would also depend on developments in Iraq, said Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat, one of the participants.

The Palestinians asked the United States to send international monitors in the meantime to protect Palestinian civilians during Israeli military offensives, but Burns said Washington did not support such an idea.

Yeah, we wouldn't want any monitors in there for fear of what we might find out.

Eight Palestinians killed as truce efforts advance
Sun Feb 16, 3:37 PM ET

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Nine Palestinians were killed Sunday — six in a mysterious explosion in Gaza and three by Israeli army fire in the West Bank — while Palestinian and Israeli officials prepared to send teams to London for a new international effort to end 29 months of Mideast violence....

The two incidents brought the death toll since fighting erupted in September 2000 to 2,109 on the Palestinian side and 727 on the Israeli side.

There are no angels here, but who really has more blood on their hands?

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Desslar
It's very understandable that they would reject that UN resolution.

How so? Considering that they got a nation out of the original Palestine mandate in 1922 and acquired more land from what was originally sanctioned as a Jewish Palestine they should have been happy receiving a second nation out of the deal - esp considering it was still British land at the time.

Originally posted by Desslar
That's surely overstating things a bit. There's understandably a lot of hate on both sides.

It's not an overstatement when Israel allows for Palestinians to become members of their society and have representation in the government yet Jewish people within the "occupied" areas are constantly attacked and require troops for their own safety.

Originally posted by Desslar
It is the lack of self-determination, and brutal military crackdowns that the Palestinians have to contend with that are very real problems. If you think Israel is a scapegoat, then you must surely think the same thing of Saddam. Albeit for somewhat different reasons, both nations engage in very real violence toward residents.

The lack of self-determination has come at the hands of it's own government - lest we forget the Oslo Accords that promised Arafat 95% of the land he wanted but was ultimately rejected. Not only that but Arafat has secretely kept funds that were given to him for the PLO - setting up many accounts that have totaled billions of dollars of personal wealth.

Originally posted by Desslar
But anti-Muslim attitudes are no better than anti-Semitic ones. Both sides need to stop the hate.

Once again - look at the democracy of Israel and the rights that are given to Arab citizens. Also look at the work programs that have been in place that allowed Palestinians to earn money and create a better living environment for themselves. Now look at the messages that are spread by organizations like Hamas, the PLO, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc.

Originally posted by Desslar
Here are some news clippings of relevance:

There are no angels here, but who really has more blood on their hands?

I see that you've fallen for the CNN fallacy - the comparision of terrorists with those of innocent civilians. Whenever CNN reports a homocide bombing in Israel its reported as a suicide bombing that claimed the life of 1 Palestinian and 14 others. The Israeli population is not identified - only the homocide killer, who on many occassions is not even stated as being the murderer. The news clippings that you present very much follow this policy as it fails to discuss if the man shot by IDF forces was a terrorist or if he was firing at the IDF troops. The six dead in a mysterious bombing didn't say that Israeli forces were at fault but this of course is to be assumed. And the three that were shot dead by the Israeli Army - why did the Israeli Army find the need to shoot at these individuals? Were they being attacked by these individuals?

The common practice for much of the media seems to be that Israel is guilty - irregardless of the evidence that exists. If the evidence doesn't show this follow the policy of presenting the information so that it does. Reuters, CNN and the AP are all good examples of the ability to consistently blame one side (Israel) while alieviating the crimes of the other (The PLO).

Originally posted by Desslar
Yeah, we wouldn't want any monitors in there for fear of what we might find out.

This sounds like the arguement that was made about the city of Jenin last year - when the PLO accussed Israel of killing 500 citizens. A couple of months later (after evidence was presented that showed Palestinians pulling up dead bodies and placing them at the wreckage) the PLO stated that they had lied to about the event. When the figures were finally released it was found that those killed were terrorists or, in a couple of cases were civilians that were being used as human shields by these terrorists (about 50 deaths all together) and were less than the Israeli losses. Even after this was presented the UN still mandated that they wanted to conduct an investigation into the attrocities of Jenin - even though it had already been disproven. Also, notice that it said international monitors - meaning the UN, which is already on the scene and has been known to hide Palestinian terrorists in their camps. The US doesn't support this action because it believes that the PLO must first re-organize under new leadership that isn't dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
[B]Pacifism is not an action it is an ideology. The fact that it is seen as an action is what got India in trouble. Gandhi resigned from the goverment after no one there understood that they can't oppresses or censor Muslims as it goes aginst Pacifism.

Still even then Gandhi stuck with his belief that man is inheritly good.

See, that's the trouble. When you take action as a pacifist, you have become an activist. If you try to cause a regime change through pacifist means, you are pursuing a course of action. In its proper definition, it's a pacifist action. After all, didn't Ghandi start the famous "fast unto death?" Is that not an action? You said that we need, as you quaintly put it, "a pacifist Bin Ladden". Is that not asking for an activist? Sure, it's an ideology, but don't say that it doesn't have ties to activism because that's just not true.

The problem is that the people of Iraq wants the US to come in kill Saddam then leave as they don't like the US.

I'd take that opinion with a grain of salt. If the people of Iraq "don't like the US" then why are we getting so many defectors? The people who cannot make it out of Iraq are spewing hatered, yes. But if someone over there says that they love the US, their tongue is cut out. And there are still others who are scared. Not because of what we have done, but because they have been endoctrinated by one opinion. They don't have free press over there. Check out this Iraqi news site. (http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm) All I see is news extolling Hussein and villifying the U.S. Where's the non-bias? Where's the dissenting opinion?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
See, that's the trouble. When you take action as a pacifist, you have become an activist. If you try to cause a regime change through pacifist means, you are pursuing a course of action. In its proper definition, it's a pacifist action. After all, didn't Ghandi start the famous "fast unto death?" Is that not an action? You said that we need, as you quaintly put it, "a pacifist Bin Ladden". Is that not asking for an activist? Sure, it's an ideology, but don't say that it doesn't have ties to activism because that's just not true.Correct. But you can't expect Pacifism to stop the cycle of violence if you only use it as an action. Pacifism really to stop the cycle of violence has to be used as an ideology towards handling and preventing conflicts else it is just a tool.

This is why it both worked and failed for India. It worked in that Britian granted them independance in a far better mood then if they resorted to violence. It failed becouse the first independant goverment of India didn't use Pacifism to solve their problem with the Muslim minority.

I'd take that opinion with a grain of salt. If the people of Iraq "don't like the US" then why are we getting so many defectors? The people who cannot make it out of Iraq are spewing hatered, yes. But if someone over there says that they love the US, their tongue is cut out. And there are still others who are scared. Not because of what we have done, but because they have been endoctrinated by one opinion. They don't have free press over there. Check out this Iraqi news site. (http://www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm) All I see is news extolling Hussein and villifying the U.S. Where's the non-bias? Where's the dissenting opinion? Right but the partys that will fight for control of Iraq afterwards (that are outside Iraq now) don't like the US and stated that but hate Saddam. All of them has publicly voice they conseren of the US staying after the war. One ex-citicen of Iraq appeared on CBC stating while he don't like the fact the US will be an occupying army (in the fact that odds are high they will not be welcomed by the new Iraq goverment) he feels it would be far easier to kick the US out of Iraq then Saddam.

There is a chance if the US army stays there too long after the war they might be protested aginst and if things get out of hand pelted.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Correct. But you can't expect Pacifism to stop the cycle of violence if you only use it as an action. Pacifism really to stop the cycle of violence has to be used as an ideology towards handling and preventing conflicts else it is just a tool.

This is why it both worked and failed for India. It worked in that Britian granted them independance in a far better mood then if they resorted to violence. It failed becouse the first independant goverment of India didn't use Pacifism to solve their problem with the Muslim minority.

It may be because total pacifism doesn't work in our flawed world. Our own Maxie Zeus has some interesting things to say about this issue:

http://www.scrye.com/~jallman/freecake/boiledcelery.html#antiwar


Right but the partys that will fight for control of Iraq afterwards (that are outside Iraq now) don't like the US and stated that but hate Saddam. All of them has publicly voice they conseren of the US staying after the war. One ex-citicen of Iraq appeared on CBC stating while he don't like the fact the US will be an occupying army (in the fact that odds are high they will not be welcomed by the new Iraq goverment) he feels it would be far easier to kick the US out of Iraq then Saddam.

There is a chance if the US army stays there too long after the war they might be protested aginst and if things get out of hand pelted.

So? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. SOMEbody's gonna have to stick around and find all those WMDs.

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
I see that you've fallen for the CNN fallacy - the comparision of terrorists with those of innocent civilians. Whenever CNN reports a homocide bombing in Israel its reported as a suicide bombing that claimed the life of 1 Palestinian and 14 others. The Israeli population is not identified - only the homocide killer, who on many occassions is not even stated as being the murderer. The news clippings that you present very much follow this policy as it fails to discuss if the man shot by IDF forces was a terrorist or if he was firing at the IDF troops. The six dead in a mysterious bombing didn't say that Israeli forces were at fault but this of course is to be assumed. And the three that were shot dead by the Israeli Army - why did the Israeli Army find the need to shoot at these individuals? Were they being attacked by these individuals?

The nature of the deaths in the articles I posted is irrelevant, I did not post them for that purpose. I am well aware both sides are engaging in various nasty practices. Like I said, there are no angels in this matter. The reason I posted the article was for the following figures:

The two incidents brought the death toll since fighting erupted in September 2000 to 2,109 on the Palestinian side and 727 on the Israeli side.

If the Palestinian dead are all murderous criminals, how come there are so many more of them than Israeli dead? It doesn't make sense to have more killers than victims. Clearly, many of these deaths are not the result of terrorist attacks, but of Israeli military attacks. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
It may be because total pacifism doesn't work in our flawed world. Our own Maxie Zeus has some interesting things to say about this issue:

http://www.scrye.com/~jallman/freecake/boiledcelery.html#antiwar

Total pacifism has not really been tried much. It is a semi-unproven ideology as it has been rarly used to defuse confict before it starts. I don't mean in anti-war protest, I mean defusing it before conflict (either violent or non violent) is even considered.

Also anti-war protest now is not Gandhi style protests, you see flag burning and hate signs. Yet Gandhi style pacifism clear states you are not allowed to hate, not even the people your protesting. That is why back during the India uprising, protestors put necklaces of flowers around the necks of police and soilders. It was to show that they didn't hate them and forgave them for being tools of oppression evem if they killed someone they loved.

Even today people forget that pacifism is not only non violent but non hate.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Total pacifism has not really been tried much. It is a semi-unproven ideology as it has been rarly used to defuse confict before it starts. I don't mean in anti-war protest, I mean defusing it before conflict (either violent or non violent) is even considered.

Also anti-war protest now is not Gandhi style protests, you see flag burning and hate signs. Yet Gandhi style pacifism clear states you are not allowed to hate, not even the people your protesting. That is why back during the India uprising, protestors put necklaces of flowers around the necks of police and soilders. It was to show that they didn't hate them and forgave them for being tools of oppression evem if they killed someone they loved.

Even today people forget that pacifism is not only non violent but non hate.

Didn't you read the article? Maxie touched on all those points, and why he theorized they wouldn't work. He wasn't talking about protests, he was talking about ideology.

[Delia]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Which is worse, a country that is lying to you about their illegal weapons, or a country that's being honest about it?


hmmmm thats a good question

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Didn't you read the article? Maxie touched on all those points, and why he theorized they wouldn't work. He wasn't talking about protests, he was talking about ideology. I did but there was flaws in Maxie points. For example he says pacifism condems 3rd parties that try to protect them. If your read Gandhi that is untrue since your not even suppose to condemn the oppressor let alone those tring to protect you.

Maxie talks about the half ass pacifism that we mostly see in the devloped world today not what Gandhi preached.

Gandhi is civil disobedience in the fact that without workers the oppressors have no power and no leader can rule without consent from the workers.

Bascily Gandhi is refusing to support the oppressor in any way and making that clear. Your not going to work for him nor do what he says even if it means death.

And if it doesn't work then explain India winning its independence from Britian.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Desslar
If the Palestinian dead are all murderous criminals, how come there are so many more of them than Israeli dead? It doesn't make sense to have more killers than victims. Clearly, many of these deaths are not the result of terrorist attacks, but of Israeli military attacks. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

There is an infrastructure for these organizations that allows for this. When the IDF is fighting against campaigns like Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah as well as various other terroristic groups (including some linked to al Queda) it's entirely feasible to see how this happens. When Hamas attacks a bus full of Israeli school children the IDF targets Hamas which includes thousands upon thousands of people - all of whom are willing to fight against the IDF when they come to arrest them. When we look at the figures of how much of the population actually belongs to these various factions it becomes far easier to see why these figures are misleading.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
I did but there was flaws in Maxie points. For example he says pacifism condems 3rd parties that try to protect them. If your read Gandhi that is untrue since your not even suppose to condemn the oppressor let alone those tring to protect you.

Maxie talks about the half ass pacifism that we mostly see in the devloped world today not what Gandhi preached.

Gandhi is civil disobedience in the fact that without workers the oppressors have no power and no leader can rule without consent from the workers.

Bascily Gandhi is refusing to support the oppressor in any way and making that clear. Your not going to work for him nor do what he says even if it means death.

And if it doesn't work then explain India winning its independence from Britian.


First, Maxie is not wrong. If you oppose violence, you should oppose those who engage in violence on your behalf. No "picking and choosing" is allowed here.

Second, as to the India/Britain thing, Britain still has some sense of virtue and freedom. (Namely, you don't kill everybody that gets in your way but does not physically threaten you.) Plus, Britain had just come off a big war in which it punished Germany for doing essentially what they were doing in India. A lot of territories were relinquished after WWI. Finally, Saddam's regime is not like Britain. Saddam has no qualms about killing anybody that stands in his way. It's an entirely different mindset than the Commonwealth. He has no sense of justice or virtue at all. He has forcibly stopped all concurring opinions in Iraq, making the people scared to do anything about him. Try to start something over there, the activists will be killed, and Saddam will publicize it as a consequence of American dogma. Nothing will be changed. Saddam has too strong a grip to do anything about right now. Getting the message in would be hard enough. Spreading it would be impossible.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
First, Maxie is not wrong. If you oppose violence, you should oppose those who engage in violence on your behalf. No "picking and choosing" is allowed here.

Yes but that does not mean you have to fight them. Gandhi never got mad at the British nor the violent people supporting him. Gandhi did fast till all the violence on the independant India side stoped but he did not get in their way yet or got mad at them or the British.

Second, as to the India/Britain thing, Britain still has some sense of virtue and freedom. (Namely, you don't kill everybody that gets in your way but does not physically threaten you.) Plus, Britain had just come off a big war in which it punished Germany for doing essentially what they were doing in India. A lot of territories were relinquished after WWI. Finally, Saddam's regime is not like Britain. Saddam has no qualms about killing anybody that stands in his way. It's an entirely different mindset than the Commonwealth. He has no sense of justice or virtue at all. He has forcibly stopped all concurring opinions in Iraq, making the people scared to do anything about him. Try to start something over there, the activists will be killed, and Saddam will publicize it as a consequence of American dogma. Nothing will be changed. Saddam has too strong a grip to do anything about right now. Getting the message in would be hard enough. Spreading it would be impossible. You have a point but the British did kill protestors on site at first till they learned it made bad press at home and around the world. Also Soviet Union had pasifist movements too. The most famous was the stand off between the people of Moscow vs the Soviet Army trying to capture the capital to put the Soviet Union under Army control. People stood in the way of troops that were trained and had before killed protestors without hesitation.

Also you do forget that the workers are the power behind ever nation. Not even Saddam can kill all his workers since if he does he can't pay his troops to protect him.

[wonderfly]

Why are we going to give Turkey 26 Billion dollars, just so we can use their army bases???? Does this not sound outrageous to anyone else? I mean, I probably wouldn't complain if it was say half a billion, or maybe even 1 Billion, but 26 Billion???? C'mon! That's a good chunk of money that could be used on the U.S. economy. I think if Turkey really wanted compensation that bad, we should have just said: "Look, we're removing a madman from you corner of the Earth, isn't that enough? "

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but that does not mean you have to fight them. Gandhi never got mad at the British nor the violent people supporting him. Gandhi did fast till all the violence on the independant India side stoped but he did not get in their way yet or got mad at them or the British.

Fine, but what worked in India is not a law of the universe. Plus, like I said, there were other factors besides Ghandi that brought about Indian independance. It wasn't a single-handed effort, though it helped.

Just a thought, did passive resistance (or passive ANYTHING for that matter) work in Belgium during both world wars?

You have a point but the British did kill protestors on site at first till they learned it made bad press at home and around the world. Also Soviet Union had pasifist movements too. The most famous was the stand off between the people of Moscow vs the Soviet Army trying to capture the capital to put the Soviet Union under Army control. People stood in the way of troops that were trained and had before killed protestors without hesitation.

Also you do forget that the workers are the power behind ever nation. Not even Saddam can kill all his workers since if he does he can't pay his troops to protect him.

That's fine in theory, but we're talking about reality. You've said yourself that the method has never been "fully tested." You're not going to get everyone in Iraq to stand up and be slaughtered. What few you could convince to do it would be killed on site and be branded as Western propagandaists. That would further scare the Iraqi people. Historical precedent demands it.

But there's an even bigger issue which I've frequently brought up and you have failed to address. Any internal uprising takes time. We no longer have time. We have wasted well nigh a whole decade playing "let's talk this out" with Saddam. We have evidence that he's further developing his WMDs. His terrorist friends have started a new phase of domestic terrorism that is unprecedented in our history. In that decade, he's scared the entire population of his country (if you don't count the powerless Kurds) into submission. Things are at the breaking point. Do we have time for a legnthy process in which innocent Iraqi civilians will be mindlessly slaughtered by a dictator while we just sit back and hope that the plan works? I think not. The time to act is now.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Fine,
Just a thought, did passive resistance (or passive ANYTHING for that matter) work in Belgium during both world wars?
Umm Belguim was not passive during WWI. Rebels sniped troops so I don't call that passive.

WWII again they were not very passive, Britain was heavly into funding underground fractions in Nazi Germany they hit weakly protected infrastructure and installations. Britaian was not into pacifism and locked Gandhi up for the duration of the war to prevent him from spreading pacifism during the war.

That's fine in theory, but we're talking about reality. You've said yourself that the method has never been "fully tested." You're not going to get everyone in Iraq to stand up and be slaughtered. What few you could convince to do it would be killed on site and be branded as Western propagandaists. That would further scare the Iraqi people. Historical precedent demands it.True without a pacifist leader, the people of Iraq will not likey be able to orginaize a nation wide movement.

But there's an even bigger issue which I've frequently brought up and you have failed to address. Any internal uprising takes time. We no longer have time. We have wasted well nigh a whole decade playing "let's talk this out" with Saddam. We have evidence that he's further developing his WMDs. His terrorist friends have started a new phase of domestic terrorism that is unprecedented in our history. In that decade, he's scared the entire population of his country (if you don't count the powerless Kurds) into submission. Things are at the breaking point. Do we have time for a legnthy process in which innocent Iraqi civilians will be mindlessly slaughtered by a dictator while we just sit back and hope that the plan works? I think not. The time to act is now. You have a point, this should have been done years ago and I would support military action if the US actully had a game plan for what to do when(if) they win. So far we only know they are going to park the US army there for 5 years and Iraq will become a democracy (yet the US won't say how) nor will the US comment on what they will do if the new Iraq goverment orderes the US army to leave Iraq. Nor will the US comment on if they will remove Saddams system of oppression. Just becouse Saddam is gone doesn't mean the next goverment won't use his system of oppression he left behind.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Umm Belguim was not passive during WWI. Rebels sniped troops so I don't call that passive.

WWII again they were not very passive, Britain was heavly into funding underground fractions in Nazi Germany they hit weakly protected infrastructure and installations. Britaian was not into pacifism and locked Gandhi up for the duration of the war to prevent him from spreading pacifism during the war.

Belgium was officially a neutral country. Both times. That would make them pacifist, as they didn't want to take a stand for or against German expansion. Guess what? They were invaded.

True without a pacifist leader, the people of Iraq will not likey be able to orginaize a nation wide movement.

The problem is keeping that leader alive for more than 48 hours. And, standing up to the Iraqi propaganda machine which would portray him as an infidel.

You have a point, this should have been done years ago and I would support military action if the US actully had a game plan for what to do when(if) they win. So far we only know they are going to park the US army there for 5 years and Iraq will become a democracy (yet the US won't say how) nor will the US comment on what they will do if the new Iraq goverment orderes the US army to leave Iraq. Nor will the US comment on if they will remove Saddams system of oppression. Just becouse Saddam is gone doesn't mean the next goverment won't use his system of oppression he left behind.

If they do, then we'll deal with them, too. You're basically saying the same thing everyone said about Afghanistan. That hasn't turned out too badly, especially considering the shambles the whole country was in. Iraq has a greater capacity for recovery than Afghanistan ever did.

[Drachentöter]

Originally posted by wonderfly
Why are we going to give Turkey 26 Billion dollars, just so we can use their army bases???? Does this not sound outrageous to anyone else? I mean, I probably wouldn't complain if it was say half a billion, or maybe even 1 Billion, but 26 Billion???? C'mon! That's a good chunk of money that could be used on the U.S. economy. I think if Turkey really wanted compensation that bad, we should have just said: "Look, we're removing a madman from you corner of the Earth, isn't that enough? "

I know, it angers me too.

Basically, they need to make lots of friends in the region just in case the outcome does not end up smelling like roses. They try real hard not to step on any middle east power's toes.

Recently Ari Fleischer stated that the administration "understood Turkey's position" when they expressed their hesitance in helping the US.

But when France and Germany decide not to risk anything themselves, suddenly it's a LOT harder to understand. Apparently you have to be hostile and imposing to be friends with the US.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Belgium was officially a neutral country. Both times. That would make them pacifist, as they didn't want to take a stand for or against German expansion. Guess what? They were invaded.
There is a diffence from being pacifist and being neutral.


The problem is keeping that leader alive for more than 48 hours. And, standing up to the Iraqi propaganda machine which would portray him as an infidel.Hey it worked in the Soviet Union & kinda in South Africa and El Salvador


If they do, then we'll deal with them, too. You're basically saying the same thing everyone said about Afghanistan. That hasn't turned out too badly, especially considering the shambles the whole country was in. Iraq has a greater capacity for recovery than Afghanistan ever did. Afghanistan is not even a nation any more. The state has no real power and rule of law doesn't mean a thing outside the capital without UN support.

The US can't do the same with Iraq, the people will expect some soft of order.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
There is a diffence from being pacifist and being neutral.

How? To avoid any violence at all requires you to not side up with any party that uses violence.

Hey it worked in the Soviet Union & kinda in South Africa and El Salvador

There were other factors in the Soviet Union that lead to its downfall, too. (Namely, the system doesn't work. Look at the state North Korea is in.) And "kinda" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Afghanistan is not even a nation any more. The state has no real power and rule of law doesn't mean a thing outside the capital without UN support.

Afghanistan wasn't a nation when we went in there. The Taliban ahad most of the region, yes, but the government was always officially classified as "in transition". Besides, whoever said that rebuilding a country would be easy? They have some sort of legitimate government in there, which is a huge step forward from two years ago.

The US can't do the same with Iraq, the people will expect some soft of order.

So, you're saying that we can't put an interim Iraqi leader in Iraq, and we also can't have our military over there? You gotta make up your mind, here.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
How? To avoid any violence at all requires you to not side up with any party that uses violence.Being neutral is avoiding conflict all together being pacifist is to avoid your side being violent even if the other side is violent. As I said Gandhi didn't get in the way of the violent side of his cause he simply fasted till they became active pacifist. (without stoping his cause aginst the British)


There were other factors in the Soviet Union that lead to its downfall, too. (Namely, the system doesn't work. Look at the state North Korea is in.) And "kinda" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. North Korea has nothing in common with the system Soviet Union had except both were corrupt and oppressive.

Soviet Union had a one party system.
North Korea is a dictatorship that has worse QL and civil right then even the Soviet Union had.

Also if you look Soviet Union broke up and the people stoped the army's attempt at taking over what was left of the empire. North Korea has had no uprising.


Afghanistan wasn't a nation when we went in there. The Taliban ahad most of the region, yes, but the government was always officially classified as "in transition". Besides, whoever said that rebuilding a country would be easy? They have some sort of legitimate government in there, which is a huge step forward from two years ago.



So, you're saying that we can't put an interim Iraqi leader in Iraq, and we also can't have our military over there? You gotta make up your mind, here. The point I'm making is Iraq is not Afghanistan, from the looks of it the parties of Iraq wants more of a Japan transition. Quick with a consitution and elections.

And they have a point, Iraq has oil and the means to a quickly rebuild if the US does it right.

[Lucky Bob]

Okay, Psycho Fox. I'll admit that the Belgian comparison was a bad idea. But give me a break, I wrote that early! (for me) :D

I've got to go to Germany for a few days, but let me just sum up why I don't think that a pacifist solution will work in Iraq at this point.


1: The main concern right now is disarming Iraq. Iraq will not be disarmed while Saddam is still in power. Thus, regime change must be our primary concern.

2: A pacifist movement would be too time-consuming and dangerous to the innocent civilians of Iraq as opposed to swift military action.

3: Saddam has the nation of Iraq under heavy control and would swiftly punish any uprising before it began and would endoctrinate his people against such an opinion that would cause an uprising.

4: Pacifism, by your own admittance, has never really been tested much. And you readily admit that in the countries where it has been tested, problems are still happening. (Whereas pacifism is theoritically supposed to stop all the cycles of violence.) Active pacifism is just another course of action that has its advantages and disadvantages. It is not the "perfect" system, and it will never be perfectly adhered to because man is inheritly imperfect.

5: What happens after Saddam is gone has yet to be decided. We can't exactly ask the Iraqi people what they want right now, because their tongues would be cut out. But, the main priority is disarmament and regime change. After that's done, we should move quickly to resolve the problem of the government. But we need to focus on one problem at a time, IMHO, so we don't look too far ahead that we stop concentrating on the matter at hand. Afghanistan's government wasn't worked on until after the fall of the Taliban. Iraq is an organized country, they can cope a lot better than warlord-filled Afghanistan.

That's my opinion, everyone can draw from it what they wish. Lucky Bob out!

[Chris Wood]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
When Hamas attacks a bus full of Israeli school children the IDF targets Hamas which includes thousands upon thousands of people - all of whom are willing to fight against the IDF when they come to arrest them.

My point exactly. The Israeli military doesn't just try to arrest suspected criminals, it often sends tanks and gunships to kill them and anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby. They need to be using more handcuffs and fewer bullets.

[ninjagirl]

I read this speech given by a 12 year-old on whatreallyhappened.com (http://whatreallyhappened.com) . I thought it was relavent to the topic.

Presque Isle, Maine Peace Rally Speech
Before 150 Aroostook county residents from around the County February 15, 2003 - St. Mary’s Church

by Charlotte Aldebron

When people think about bombing Iraq, they see a picture in their heads of Saddam Hussein in a military uniform, or maybe soldiers with big black mustaches carrying guns, or the mosaic of George Bush Sr. on the lobby floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel with the word “criminal”. But guess what? More than half of Iraq’s 24 million people are children under the age of 15. That’s 12 million kids. Kids like me. Well, I’m almost 13, so some are a little older, and some a lot younger, some boys instead of girls, some with brown hair, not red. But kids who are pretty much like me just the same. So take a look at me—a good long look. Because I am what you should see in your head when you think about bombing Iraq. I am what you are going to destroy.

If I am lucky, I will be killed instantly, like the three hundred children murdered by your “smart” bombs in a Baghdad bomb shelter on February 16, 1991. The blast caused a fire so intense that it flash-burned outlines of those children and their mothers on the walls; you can still peel strips of blackened skin—souvenirs of your victory—from the stones.

But maybe I won’t be lucky and I’ll die slowly, like 14-year-old Ali Faisal, who right now is on the “death ward” of the Baghdad children’s hospital. He has malignant lymphoma—cancer—caused by the depleted uranium in your Gulf War missiles. Or maybe I will die painfully and needlessly like18-month-old Mustafa, whose vital organs are being devoured by sand fly parasites. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mustafa could be totally cured with just $25 worth of medicine, but there is none of this medicine because of your sanctions.

Or maybe I won’t die at all but will live for years with the psychological damage that you can’t see from the outside, like Salman Mohammed, who even now can’t forget the terror he lived through with his little sisters when you bombed Iraq in 1991. Salman’s father made the whole family sleep in the same room so that they would all survive together, or die together. He still has nightmares about the air raid sirens.

Or maybe I will be orphaned like Ali, who was three when you killed his father in the Gulf War. Ali scraped at the dirt covering his father’s grave every day for three years calling out to him, “It’s all right Daddy, you can come out now, the men who put you here have gone away.” Well, Ali, you’re wrong. It looks like those men are coming back.

Or I maybe I will make it in one piece, like Luay Majed, who remembers that the Gulf War meant he didn’t have to go to school and could stay up as late as he wanted. But today, with no education, he tries to live by selling newspapers on the street.

Imagine that these are your children—or nieces or nephews or neighbors. Imagine your son screaming from the agony of a severed limb, but you can’t do anything to ease the pain or comfort him. Imagine your daughter crying out from under the rubble of a collapsed building, but you can’t get to her. Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes.

This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq. Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as “guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much.” Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that “A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret.”

Back in elementary school I was taught to solve problems with other kids not by hitting or name-calling, but by talking and using “I” messages. The idea of an “I” message was to make the other person understand how bad his or her actions made you feel, so that the person would sympathize with you and stop it. Now I am going to give you an “I” message. Only it’s going to be a “We” message. “We” as in all the children in Iraq who are waiting helplessly for something bad to happen. “We” as in the children of the world who don’t make any of the decisions but have to suffer all the consequences. “We” as in those whose voices are too small and too far away to be heard.

We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.

We feel angry when people want to kill us or injure us or steal our future.

We feel sad because all we want is a mom and a dad who we know will be there the next day.

And, finally, we feel confused … because we don’t even know what we did wrong.

Charlotte Aldebron, 12, attends Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Comments may be sent to her mom, Jillian Aldebron: aldebron@ainop.com

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

The president of this country filled with innocent children has no qualms about killing said children, and doesn't care about the welfare of the kids or their parents. If he did, they--and we--wouldn't be in this situation right now.

Miss Aldebron has raised many interesting points.

The problem: the world governments have tried to reason with the president of Iraq for over 12 years. He hasn't done a thing the other governments asked him to do, and meanwhile plots to kill innocent people in his own country, and in other countries.

One country's president, along with another's prime minister, is pushing for war; some other countries disagree, feeling that by sending more inspectors in, they can make Iraq's president disarm without a war.

And meanwhile, Iraq's president continues to rule over said nation, killing anyone who questions how he runs it. Whoever he doesn't like, he can kill; and he doesn't care if that person's a kid or an adult.

The president of Iraq is prepared to burn his own country to the ground, condemning the whole country to starvation and poverty. All while said president sits safely underground in his bunker.

It's true the kids of Iraq don't know why the horrors of war have happened to them. The problem is that the president of Iraq doesn't care.

- - - -

My other question: Do you really think a 12-year old girl wrote this?

Don't get me wrong; it's possible. It's just not likely. Is that website the source of the letter, or is there a school website that has said letter?

Just want to make sure.

Then again, it was at a peace rally speech. So she may have simply read the opinions of Mrs. Aldebron(the mom).

[much like the Million Man March, where Minister Farrakhan had a young boy reiterating his mantra.]

So you see, I have to take this with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, the speech raises an honest objection that must be taken into account. Who IS thinking about the kids, if the population figure cited in the speech is true?

Those here that believe the US is on the right track should make an effort to rebut the points in this letter. And in so doing, presume that we are in fact talking to this concerned 12-year old.

[that would be Mr. Wagner's cue.]

It's only fair.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Desslar
My point exactly. The Israeli military doesn't just try to arrest suspected criminals, it often sends tanks and gunships to kill them and anyone unfortunate enough to be nearby. They need to be using more handcuffs and fewer bullets.

You're wrong on this point because the reason for the military coming in is often to arrest these individuals and it is this policy that leads to the gun fights between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli army. There have been a few occassions where Israel has used targeted killings against terrorist leaders but for the most part it comes down to Israeli soldiers that seek and hunt down the various terrorist factions within the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.

Perhaps this is the most tell-tale sign of the entire letter - the people of Iraq should feel scared because of the regime which they are forced to suffer under. Instead of blaming America for the ills of Iraq the writer of this letter should really look back at the policies of the Iraqi government - a government that has taken the food and medicine from the oil for food program and sold it to other nations in order to line Saddam Husseins pockets and continue his weapons program. Instead of blaming America perhaps the letter writer should look into the policy of lining up innocent civilians near military installations that are struck by missiles and bombs (this is a current problem for the human shields that recently entered Iraq - they want to stand in front of hospitals and schools, Saddam wants them to stand in front of military installations and chemical factories).

Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes. This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq.

What the author is trying to convey is a sense of agony found in the Iraqi people but what is truly being conveyed is the oppression these people have been forced to endure under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. The scene that is described in here is one that is not taken during the war but one that can be seen everyday on Iraqi streets. The true scene of poverty and poor living conditions has been made by the strict policies of a regime that has failed to abide by international resolutions for 12 years. A regime that continues to support worldwide terrorism and has launched attacks upon their neighbors. A regime that has used chemical weapons against its own population.

The case that is being made fails to show the true face of present day Iraq while attempting to paint the US and her allies as a greater evil to these citizens - even as US and British warplanes continue to protect Kurdish and Shi'ate populations in the north and south from the policies of Baghdad. Even as many of Iraq's own citizens have secretly defected and have told of the evils of this regime. I sincerely doubt that the author was a 12 year old girl or an Iraqi citizen. In a nation where political opponents watch their families tortured and killed before their eyes and meet the same fate for simply uttering a word against Saddam we must wonder why there is such a drive for the protection of this regime, even when the results of secret polls from within Iraq indicate that a large majority of Iraqi citizens would support any regime change that removed Saddam.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Heard a funny thing on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. The guest host was doing a kind of skit showing what the human shields were up to in Iraq:

Human Sheild #1: "Okay, we're here to protect you from the evil American bombs, Saddam. We'll be standing around your countries hospitals and schools to protect all the sick and wounded, and of course the poor unprotected children."

Saddam: "That's great, but could you come and stand over here in front of this military base? Or in front of this Chemical factory? That's where we really need you."

Human Sheild #2: "Huh? What do you need us there for? We're here to protect the innocent children who'll be killed by Evil American Bombs. And what's this about a chemical factory?"

Saddam: "Oh, that's just where we keep the uh, Anthrax and Small Pox. But, you see, that's the thing: the American's aren't going to be aiming for the hospitals and schools, they'll be aiming for our military bases."

Human Sheild #1: "But we're not here to protect the military. They can fend for themselves. We're here to protect the innocent children from the Evil American Bombs"

Saddam: "YOU WILL DO AS I SAY, OR I'LL TAKE YOU OUT BACK AND SHOOT YOU! PERHAPS YOU HADN'T HEARD, BUT THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME DISAPEAR QUICKLY!"

Human Shield #2: "Ooh-okay, Mr. Saddam, just don't hurt us. *whispers to Human Shield #1* Gee, I don't get it: Whenever we complain about something in America, they just let us have a protest in the street. But this Saddam guy, he doesn't take no for an answer!"

Human Shield #1: "Maybe this is what they were talking about when they were trying to tell us what a Dictatorship is?"

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

[to joe:]

The letter was written by a 12-year old girl. (at the least, we're supposed to presume this for the argument.) Thus, she wouldn't have access to info on Iraqi policies that a kid in her age group could readily digest.

Also, her concern is over the kids in Iraq.

A thought of mine to answer a statement in that letter:

Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as “guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much.”

Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that “A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret.”

The bold text is the part I was thinking about. Yes, President Bush probably would regret it. The issue here is President Hussein wouldn't care in the least; particularly if the situation were reversed. In fact, said president of Iraq has no problem with killing Iraqi children, Kurdish children, or any other mass of kids.

= = =

Outside of the letter:

I want any young kid to think about this carefully. (or, for the adults and teenagers here, to pretend they're 10 years old.) If you felt that your country's president was a poopy-head, and you got the chance to say so to that president, who would you be less afraid to tell off:

A. Hussein, of Iraq

B. Bush, of the United States

If you chose A, you're a very brave kid. Of course, now you're also a dead kid, and any family you have is also dead, maimed, et cetera.

If you chose B, you're a very silly kid. Your parents would ground you for a month after making you apologize to the president. (unless they agreed, though they'd still make you apologize.) You and your family would look back on this ten years later and laugh.

Playing those odds, if I were a 10-year old kid and I though either one was a poopy-head, and knowing my mother would probably be severely displeased either way, I'd still be less afraid to call Bush a poopy-head than Hussein.

Why? Because in America, people can call the president mean-spirited names. We can make fun of him, and draw pictures of him wearing stupid cowboy hats. :D

I honestly think adults in Iraq would kill for the chance to call their president every obscenity the Qu'ran permits. Without fear that said president would not only kill you, but every relative within a 10-mile radius.

I can't speak for all the kids in Iraq. But I bet there may be more than a few that REALLY want to call Saddam a poopy-head. [or they would if they knew the reasons the US wants to attack Iraq were connected in part to how said Iraqi president runs the country. as for the oil: yes, president bush is a greedy poopy-head, too. and that was meant in a facetious tone, to admit that we are in this for the oil as well.]

But the full truth of these undertakings won't be realized for another sixty years; and by then the Internet will become as outdated as the telegraph.

[Angel_Baby]

I totally agree with Joe, I mean people open your eyes!!! :rolleyes: Just look at how Saddam is running that country! America needs to take him out, if those people that live in Iraq want any kind of freedom they need to get him the heck out of there!!!!!! :p Any way our troops will be training with the Israeli Army ( which is the best in the world @ urbin warfare) so our guys are going to be prepared and their going to fight as hard as they can and WIN!!!!!!!! :bubbles:

[Psilon]

An article from a socialist website

The Bush administration has offered three main reasons for war with Iraq. First, Iraq has developed and may possess weapons of mass destruction, has a history of aggression against its neighbors, and has sponsored international terrorism. The administration argues that since Iraq might share such weapons with terrorists, only war can eliminate this threat to the United States.

Second, the Iraqi regime is a brutal dictatorship that has used lethal weapons against its own citizens. The administration argues that only war can ensure its removal and the installation of a democratic successor, opening up, they say, a whole new era of democracy throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iraq has repeatedly violated U.N. Security Council resolutions. The administration says that since Iraq is now in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, recently passed, the United States would simply be enforcing international law by going to war to remove its regime.

Rarely have false conclusions flowed so smoothly from sound premises. Iraq did use poison gas against Iran and its own citizens, had nuclear and biological weapons programs, and aggressed against Iran and Kuwait. Most credible observers believe, however, that Iraq has no prospect of developing nuclear weapons or delivery systems in the foreseeable future.

Moreover, this same Iraqi regime possessing the very same weapons systems was strongly supported by the United States in its war on Iran. It was supplied by the United States and its allies with the wherewithal for its most lethal non-conventional weapons. None other than Donald Rumsfeld himself was in Baghdad as President Reagan’s envoy while Iraq was using poison gas against both Iranian troops and its own Kurdish citizens—without him or a succession of U.S. envoys emitting so much as a peep.

International terrorism has been sponsored by Iraq. It was directed primarily against other Arab countries, against Iran, against the PLO and against Israel. There has been no proven case where it was used against the United States, or where Iraq has offered non-conventional weapons to terrorists, nor is it likely to do so. Iraq no longer scares its neighbors, as is proven by the fact that virtually none of them supports this war. In fact, Iraq today poses no credible threat to the United States, its vital interests or its allies.

The Iraqi regime is a ruthless dictatorship. In spite of its atrocious human rights record before its invasion of Kuwait, however, this regime was the darling of the Carter, Reagan and first Bush administrations. It is highly questionable whether the occupation of a complex, divided country like Iraq and the installation of a new regime will lead to a rapid flowering of democracy. And it requires a breathtaking combination of naiveté and wishful thinking to believe the occupation of Iraq will lead to the peaceful spread of democracy in the Middle East.

Iraq, I would remind you, is not the only serial violator of Security Council resolutions with nuclear weapons. But no one proposes using force against either Israel or India or, for that matter, North Korea—all three of which have workable nuclear weapons and lethal delivery systems, unlike Iraq. Moreover, the Security Council alone can authorize the use of force and it, and not any member state, even the United States, is the sole judge of whether to do so.

Even if it does make such a decision regarding Iraqi arms violations, it is inconceivable that the Security Council will sanction the overthrow by the U.S. military of a member state’s government, even one so atrocious as that of Iraq. None of these are matters for the United States to deal with alone. No one elected us world policeman, and no one elected us the sole judge of international law.

--------------

Let me quickly examine the real reasons and the likely consequences of this war. First, it will be fought because of an aggressive, ideological vision of America’s place in the world, propagated by the neoconservatives who dominate the commanding heights of the American bureaucracy. Their vision proposes unfettered world hegemony for the United States, to be consecrated by the demonstration of U.S. power crushing a weak Iraq.

Second, this war will be fought because of an obsession with control of the strategic resources (read: oil) and geography offered by the Middle East, with the view of neutralizing potential challengers to American hegemony in the 21st century (meaning primarily China). Fantastic as it sounds, after an unconditional U.S. victory in the Cold War, and given that our defense budget is bigger than those of the next five great powers put together, these ideas are fervently believed by those who surround our president.

What are the potential consequences of a war in Iraq likely to be fought without U.N. sanction and without significant support from American allies? Irrespective of its cost or length, this war will mark not the end, but the beginning, of our problems in this region. Because, however much Iraqis loathe their regime, they will soon loathe the American occupation that will follow its demise.

No expert on Iraq believes the United States can simply invade and then rapidly withdraw without a bloodbath and a regional power vacuum ensuing. None believes that the creation of a democracy in Iraq will be a swift or simple matter; some believe it is not possible as a consequence of an American military occupation. And no one with any sense could believe a one-person-one-vote democracy in a country with a 60 percent Shi’ite majority is the Bush administration’s objective. Think about that.

--------------

So we will not have democracy in Iraq. We will have a long American military occupation that will eventually provoke resistance. It took two years before the Iraqis revolted against British forces in 1920. They then almost chased them out until unrestricted air attacks restored British rule. Via a lengthy and bloody occupation of Iraq, via the establishment of U.S. bases there, via the direct control of Iraqi oil, we will be creating legions of new enemies throughout the Middle East.

For those who believe that “all of them” in the Middle East hate us anyway, this will be fine. It will provide the pretext for them to execute the next phase of their crackpot schemes, which involve marching on to Tehran and Damascus. It will provide them with new enemies to justify fattening a defense budget that can never be big enough for them.

But for those of us for whom empire is not part of our vision of the destiny of the United States and who do not want our children, our grandchildren, our brothers and our sisters fighting in places none of us can even find on a map, perhaps it is time to say, enough is enough.

It is time to ask hard questions that never seem to be asked in Washington. Such as, if for decades during the Cold War, when facing a nuclear-armed superpower with clients throughout the Middle East, the United States could protect its vital interests with an over-the-horizon military presence, now, with the Cold War over, why must there may be American bases in so many countries there? Or, why do we need an ever bigger defense budget to support conventional and nuclear forces designed to deal with enemies that have already disappeared, when the most dangerous enemies we’ve faced in the last decade were armed with box cutters?

Against those who attacked the United States on September 11, the Pentagon’s hundreds of billions are not only useless, they are counterproductive, since they provide the circular, self-justifying logic for bases and for the heavy-handed control of far-off places that engender hatred against us. But those billions can produce—and, if there is a war, will produce—an overwhelming victory over a fifth- or 15th-rate power like Iraq. So our leaders propose a war on Iraq, a war that will only create enemies among people who could be our friends, but for the actions we are about to take against them. I propose that we withhold our consent and stop this unjustified and unjustifiable war before it begins.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttal for Oil arguement:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index.html

[Lucky Bob]

Hi, Psilon. Glad to see that your emotions won out! :D

Your article was quite amusing, but it really doesn't present any new arguments.

Rarely have false conclusions flowed so smoothly from sound premises. Iraq did use poison gas against Iran and its own citizens, had nuclear and biological weapons programs, and aggressed against Iran and Kuwait. Most credible observers believe, however, that Iraq has no prospect of developing nuclear weapons or delivery systems in the foreseeable future.

The argument is not that Iraq MAY have WMDs, but the fact that Iraq DOES have WMDs. Resolution 1441 clearly recognizes this.
Plus, who are these "credible observers?" For all we know, a "credible observer" might be your neighbor Phil! Besides, Powell has clearly shown the evidence that Iraq is trying to obtain materials to produce nuclear weapons. And our own intellegence sources report that Saddam is trying to acquire them, too. What I want to know is, what does your source use for the CIA? If they don't trust the testimony of Powell our our intellegence, then who are they listening to?

Moreover, this same Iraqi regime possessing the very same weapons systems was strongly supported by the United States in its war on Iran. It was supplied by the United States and its allies with the wherewithal for its most lethal non-conventional weapons. None other than Donald Rumsfeld himself was in Baghdad as President Reagan’s envoy while Iraq was using poison gas against both Iranian troops and its own Kurdish citizens—without him or a succession of U.S. envoys emitting so much as a peep.

Again, where is the evidence? Even if it did happen, how does that change the fact that Iraq has been ordered to disarm? If we're gonna point fingers, we could also point out that Germany and France have been selling nuclear secrets and materials to Iraq. But God forbid that we should say anything about them.

International terrorism has been sponsored by Iraq. It was directed primarily against other Arab countries, against Iran, against the PLO and against Israel. There has been no proven case where it was used against the United States, or where Iraq has offered non-conventional weapons to terrorists, nor is it likely to do so. Iraq no longer scares its neighbors, as is proven by the fact that virtually none of them supports this war. In fact, Iraq today poses no credible threat to the United States, its vital interests or its allies.

So all those threats about Saddam defeating America in the "Mother of all Battles" was fake? The U.S. is the only reason that Saddam is not pursuing his goals. We whooped them big time in the first Gulf War, and they aren't too eager to go through that again. Please tell me with a straight face that Saddam would not like to see the United States nuked.

The Iraqi regime is a ruthless dictatorship. In spite of its atrocious human rights record before its invasion of Kuwait, however, this regime was the darling of the Carter, Reagan and first Bush administrations. It is highly questionable whether the occupation of a complex, divided country like Iraq and the installation of a new regime will lead to a rapid flowering of democracy. And it requires a breathtaking combination of naiveté and wishful thinking to believe the occupation of Iraq will lead to the peaceful spread of democracy in the Middle East.

First off, calling Iraq the "darling" of the Reagan and Bush administrations is laughable. Especially the Bush claim. I mean, do the history. Who was president during the Gulf War? Second, is leaving a dictator like Saddam in power going to establish democracy? Did it work with Hitler in Germany? Mussolini in Italy?Did it work with the Taliban in Afghanistan? I mean, this argument is mere speculation.

Iraq, I would remind you, is not the only serial violator of Security Council resolutions with nuclear weapons. But no one proposes using force against either Israel or India or, for that matter, North Korea—all three of which have workable nuclear weapons and lethal delivery systems, unlike Iraq. Moreover, the Security Council alone can authorize the use of force and it, and not any member state, even the United States, is the sole judge of whether to do so.

None of these countries has violated as many resolutions and been so flagrantly disobediant as Iraq. Plus, these countries are not a threat to our national security. (With the exception of North Korea, whom we'll most likely deal with later.) And the U.S. has every right to use military action outside the U.N. (Again, Afghanistan.) I'm surprised the administration has even bothered with them this long. Every time the U.N. has directed U.S. led military action, it's ended up a fiasco.

Even if it does make such a decision regarding Iraqi arms violations, it is inconceivable that the Security Council will sanction the overthrow by the U.S. military of a member state’s government, even one so atrocious as that of Iraq. None of these are matters for the United States to deal with alone. No one elected us world policeman, and no one elected us the sole judge of international law.

Who else is doing it? The U.N.? France? Germany? Is it a crime that we should look out for our own safety? Since when is that being "the world's police?"

Let me quickly examine the real reasons and the likely consequences of this war. First, it will be fought because of an aggressive, ideological vision of America’s place in the world, propagated by the neoconservatives who dominate the commanding heights of the American bureaucracy. Their vision proposes unfettered world hegemony for the United States, to be consecrated by the demonstration of U.S. power crushing a weak Iraq.

That's just opinion. The hard facts are that we've been hit hard by terrorists, and we should take measures from preventing them from doing more damage. Has everyone forgotten 9/11 already? And we're supposed to believe that Al-Qaeda won't try to get WMDs?

Second, this war will be fought because of an obsession with control of the strategic resources (read: oil) and geography offered by the Middle East, with the view of neutralizing potential challengers to American hegemony in the 21st century (meaning primarily China). Fantastic as it sounds, after an unconditional U.S. victory in the Cold War, and given that our defense budget is bigger than those of the next five great powers put together, these ideas are fervently believed by those who surround our president.

Again, sources? Seems like these socialists have a lot of insider information that nobody else knows. (And we thought Martha Stewart was bad.) :D

What are the potential consequences of a war in Iraq likely to be fought without U.N. sanction and without significant support from American allies? Irrespective of its cost or length, this war will mark not the end, but the beginning, of our problems in this region. Because, however much Iraqis loathe their regime, they will soon loathe the American occupation that will follow its demise.

First, we already have UN sanction. Read 1441 again. They clearly stated that this was Saddam's last chance. And we do have significant support. If anybody, France and Germany are acting unilaterally. Many other countries are behind us.

Second, the argument that Iraqis will loathe their liberators is pure speculation. Again, it's the old Afghanistan argument. It didn't come true then, so why should it suddenly be fact now?

No expert on Iraq believes the United States can simply invade and then rapidly withdraw without a bloodbath and a regional power vacuum ensuing. None believes that the creation of a democracy in Iraq will be a swift or simple matter; some believe it is not possible as a consequence of an American military occupation. And no one with any sense could believe a one-person-one-vote democracy in a country with a 60 percent Shi’ite majority is the Bush administration’s objective. Think about that.

Again, Afghanistan was supposed to be a long, drawn-out war. Come on! Historical precedent surely counts for something. But the truth is, nobody has a crystal ball, so presenting mere specualation as fact is folly.

So we will not have democracy in Iraq. We will have a long American military occupation that will eventually provoke resistance. It took two years before the Iraqis revolted against British forces in 1920. They then almost chased them out until unrestricted air attacks restored British rule. Via a lengthy and bloody occupation of Iraq, via the establishment of U.S. bases there, via the direct control of Iraqi oil, we will be creating legions of new enemies throughout the Middle East.

For those who believe that “all of them” in the Middle East hate us anyway, this will be fine. It will provide the pretext for them to execute the next phase of their crackpot schemes, which involve marching on to Tehran and Damascus. It will provide them with new enemies to justify fattening a defense budget that can never be big enough for them.

But for those of us for whom empire is not part of our vision of the destiny of the United States and who do not want our children, our grandchildren, our brothers and our sisters fighting in places none of us can even find on a map, perhaps it is time to say, enough is enough.

It is time to ask hard questions that never seem to be asked in Washington. Such as, if for decades during the Cold War, when facing a nuclear-armed superpower with clients throughout the Middle East, the United States could protect its vital interests with an over-the-horizon military presence, now, with the Cold War over, why must there may be American bases in so many countries there? Or, why do we need an ever bigger defense budget to support conventional and nuclear forces designed to deal with enemies that have already disappeared, when the most dangerous enemies we’ve faced in the last decade were armed with box cutters?

Against those who attacked the United States on September 11, the Pentagon’s hundreds of billions are not only useless, they are counterproductive, since they provide the circular, self-justifying logic for bases and for the heavy-handed control of far-off places that engender hatred against us. But those billions can produce—and, if there is a war, will produce—an overwhelming victory over a fifth- or 15th-rate power like Iraq. So our leaders propose a war on Iraq, a war that will only create enemies among people who could be our friends, but for the actions we are about to take against them. I propose that we withhold our consent and stop this unjustified and unjustifiable war before it begins.

And all the unfounded speculation is presented as hard fact yet again. But they main problem with this article is the fact that it doesn't provide a solution to the Iraqi crisis. Sure, you can rant all day, but where's the solution? At least Psycho Fox tried to come up with an alternate solution by suggesting a pacifist uprising. I believe that it would be pretty near impossible to create one in the short time we have left, but I admire him for actually TRYING to come up with a solution. That's something I have yet to see from the mainstream anti-war crowd.

Plus, why didn't we see all these articles and protests when Clinton sent troops to Yugoslavia, or launched missiles at Iraq?

[Outlander00]

Okay time for my cynicism to take control at this point...

You know... No one has yet to make the conclusion as to how or why Iraq, as of right now, is a threat to us OR has attacked our way of life. Yeah, they have all these weapons and can a potential threat... But no one in the administration has convinced me that doing this will benefit us.

So far, the only reason why we are doing it is:

1)Saddam isnt following W.'s daddys surrender treaty (which makes it a personal vendetta)
2)To take the publics mind off of the economy and slipping in crap as legislation, and
3)To take the peoples mind off the fact the administration has yet to find the Osama and the others behind the WTC and Pentagon.

Thats it! I have watched, continuously, the coverage on the news shows... And no one has yet to prove anything that this is, in the end, worthwile for our country (and this crap about the War on Terrorism is an excuse). If anything, it will be a major burden! Just remember how this talk of Iraq came about: when the questions about "wheres Osama" started to pop up from the people and Congress.

Another reason why I wont support this is because we would set a dangerous precedent to the rest of the world thats okay to use pre-emptive strike. China will invade Taiwan, eventually using "pre-emptive strike"... other nations will do that and I am sure one nation will do it to us. And all because they claim that they are threatened. I think the administration should think about what they do before doing it.


So, until someone from the administration can make a rational and conclusive reason to why this will benefit us (you know, like we would find Osama this way or something like that), I refuse to support any military action in Iraq.

I now return you to my non-cynical self :D

[wonderfly]

Heh...this thread is still going. Maybe cause there's always something new to report! :D Or rather, some new opinion to be voiced. In my never ending quest to be "fair and balanced" :p here's another article from a liberal news commentator, (or whom I take to be a liberal). You think the article is about Howard Dean, and what he said at the Democrat's rally last week, about this whole Iraq War thing. But the articles real target is Tom Delay, one of the Republican leaders in the House. Here it is:

"Sunshine Patriot
Tom DeLay and the party of appeasement.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 2:22 PM PT


On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called Democratic opponents of war in Iraq "reckless." DeLay assailed last weekend's "outrageous" speech by former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., to the Democratic National Committee. The applause that greeted Dean's speech "proves who the Democrat Party is," DeLay told reporters. "They are fast becoming the appeasement party."

It's easy to see why DeLay is angry. In his speech, Dean called the war a "quagmire" and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would "drag on," costing billions of dollars. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw them "before the body bags start coming home."

Maybe if Dean had stopped there, his remarks could have been shrugged off. But he went further. He accused the president of double standards and twisted priorities, implying ulterior motives. "North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged. And despite the bombing of Afghanistan, he observed, "Osama Bin Laden still represents a threat to thousands of American lives."




That was bad enough, but Dean wasn't finished. He suggested that the United States should curb its warlike impulses to avoid offending other countries. "The White House has bombed its way around the globe," he sneered. "International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for the current war plan, Dean complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's crusade "has made the Russians jittery and has harmed [our] standing in the world."

Then there was the creepy way Dean kept referring to the president. He called the showdown "Bush's undeclared war" and "Bush's bombing campaign." He described it as something "the president has put us into" and warned his audience, "We should think very, very seriously whether we are going to take ownership of the bombing"—as though the president weren't the nation's commander in chief. He urged Congress to de-fund the war and "pull out the forces we now have in the region."

Dean essentially called the United States the war's villain. Once a U.S.-led coalition "starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?" he asked. He charged that we were "starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army" and portrayed our mission as an "occupation by foreigners."

Dean even defended the enemy's defiance of the international community. It was unfair and unrealistic of the United States, he suggested, to demand that a dictator "agree to allow foreign troops … to have free rein over the entire country." This was like asking him to "slit his throat with his own people," said Dean. "No wonder" the dictator refused.

Maybe DeLay is right. Maybe any politician who said these things is, in DeLay's words, unfit for national leadership. If so, DeLay has the power to remove that politician from office today. These things were never said about Bush's war in Iraq. They were said on the House floor four years ago—on March 11, April 28, and May 6, 1999—about President Clinton's war in Kosovo. And they were said not by Howard Dean, but by Tom DeLay."

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Outlander00
Okay time for my cynicism to take control at this point...

You know... No one has yet to make the conclusion as to how or why Iraq, as of right now, is a threat to us OR has attacked our way of life. Yeah, they have all these weapons and can a potential threat... But no one in the administration has convinced me that doing this will benefit us.

So far, the only reason why we are doing it is:

1)Saddam isnt following W.'s daddys surrender treaty (which makes it a personal vendetta)
2)To take the publics mind off of the economy and slipping in crap as legislation, and
3)To take the peoples mind off the fact the administration has yet to find the Osama and the others behind the WTC and Pentagon.

Thats it! I have watched, continuously, the coverage on the news shows... And no one has yet to prove anything that this is, in the end, worthwile for our country (and this crap about the War on Terrorism is an excuse). If anything, it will be a major burden! Just remember how this talk of Iraq came about: when the questions about "wheres Osama" started to pop up from the people and Congress.

Another reason why I wont support this is because we would set a dangerous precedent to the rest of the world thats okay to use pre-emptive strike. China will invade Taiwan, eventually using "pre-emptive strike"... other nations will do that and I am sure one nation will do it to us. And all because they claim that they are threatened. I think the administration should think about what they do before doing it.


So, until someone from the administration can make a rational and conclusive reason to why this will benefit us (you know, like we would find Osama this way or something like that), I refuse to support any military action in Iraq.

I now return you to my non-cynical self :D

I have to contend with the points that you make here - 1) this isn't a war for Bush's father especially when we consider that the resolutions that Saddam has broken were created by the UN - more specificially the Security Council. Because of their failure to enact these policies the US has decided that Saddam can no longer violate the cease fire agreement he agreed to and his promise to disarm - even if the US has to act without the UN. This is not a war for Bush's father - but an effort to make Saddam disarm. Secondly the economy is not as bad as you would like to believe, as indicated by the rapidly rising stock market and the growth of the housing market. Thirdly the War on Terrorism has not been forgotten and this is very reminiscint of people saying that the US could not fight the Japanese, Germans and Italians during WWII. The truth is that Saddam and the terrorist organization behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks are linked. Saddam has allowed al Queda agents into his country while supporting Ansar al-Islam (a terrorist group established on al Queda funds) with weapons. Not only that but Saddam has also supported the terrorist groups within the West Bank and Gaza Strip - groups that have attacked and killed American and Israeli citizens.

As for the threat that Saddam has created for the US - it was announced this week that Saddam has sent miniture aircrafts into the US that can be built to release chemical and biological weapons. Saddam also sent Iraqi agents into the US during and the first Persian Gulf War to set up terrorist cells within the US and create mass damage within the US. Numerous reports have linked one of these groups to the Oklahoma City Bombing - placing Iraqi operatives in meetings with Timothy McVeigh and disappearing the day of the blast.

On a side note - I would like to contend the idea that this war is based upon oil and I implore anyone to back this statement up. To do this I want to see all of the evidence - I want to see when and where President Bush made the agreements to sell Iraqi oil fields to American companies, I want to see the signed agreements for these deals, I want to see where President Bush specifically said that oil was a reason for going into Iraq. Also, the arguement that it's because of the untapped reserves of Iraqi oil that the US is going in is significantly flawed because it completely negates three things - following the 1991 Persian Gulf War the US did not 1)annex Kuiwait (which has oil reserves), 2) take over and hold the Iraqi oil fields under terms of environmental protection (a policy that could have been initiated very easily and allowed the US to retain control of these fields) and 3) the US did not attempt to remove the sanctions on Iraq - a move that would bring millions of barrels of oil into the world community and allow for the purchase of oil without the cost of a single American or Iraqi life.

Also, the arguement that the reserves of Iraq is a reason is doubly flawed considering the low amount of oil we get from the region and that in terms of militaristic planning a conquering of Venezuela would make far more sense based upon their reserves, the amount of oil imported to the US from this nation, the present turmoil and the locality of their nation from ours. Once again I implore those that believe this war is for oil to back up their statements.

-Joe!

[Psilon]

Socialists hate everyone...Clinton was heavily attacked by them.

I was merely showing the other side...the link to salon.com, a very liberal site shows why the blood for oil arguement is poor.

Essientially this arguement is similar to Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Some believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were showcasing American military might and scare the Soviets into submission. Like a sort of a declaration that we are Superpower and Russia you better stay on your side or else. There are arguements that back this stance up, I dont want to go off topic. There is also others who believe that Hiroishima and Nagasaki bombings were done because it would save American casualities. (I believe more evidence points to the first arguement).

Now the Iraq problem is this. There are others who are saying that this America trying to establish itself as the dominant superpower. And on the other side we have the WMD arguement.

However, one interesting point in the article

Trying to predict what is going to happen in the middleeast is impossible...

Though this is interesting...
"It is time to ask hard questions that never seem to be asked in Washington. Such as, if for decades during the Cold War, when facing a nuclear-armed superpower with clients throughout the Middle East, the United States could protect its vital interests with an over-the-horizon military presence, now, with the Cold War over, why must there may be American bases in so many countries there? Or, why do we need an ever bigger defense budget to support conventional and nuclear forces designed to deal with enemies that have already disappeared, when the most dangerous enemies we’ve faced in the last decade were armed with box cutters?"

Anyways, thats all wanted to say, I return you to already prescheduled program.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
I have to contend with the points that you make here - 1) this isn't a war for Bush's father especially when we consider that the resolutions that Saddam has broken were created by the UN - more specificially the Security Council. Because of their failure to enact these policies the US has decided that Saddam can no longer violate the cease fire agreement he agreed to and his promise to disarm - even if the US has to act without the UN. This is not a war for Bush's father - but an effort to make Saddam disarm.

But none of this was a concern to the administration until Congress was making noise about the success of the operations in Afghanistan. It came out of left field, as a way to take the attention off of that.... I mean, no one finds that the least bit wierd?


Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Secondly the economy is not as bad as you would like to believe, as indicated by the rapidly rising stock market and the growth of the housing market.

Trying telling that to investors who are wont invest due to the uncertainty of the situation (and have been for months) which has made the stockmart stagnant, the consumer confidence report at its lowest in 12 years, and the fluxuating unemployment numbers. The only thing not making worse is the housing market boom.

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Thirdly the War on Terrorism has not been forgotten and this is very reminiscint of people saying that the US could not fight the Japanese, Germans and Italians during WWII. The truth is that Saddam and the terrorist organization behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks are linked. Saddam has allowed al Queda agents into his country while supporting Ansar al-Islam (a terrorist group established on al Queda funds) with weapons. Not only that but Saddam has also supported the terrorist groups within the West Bank and Gaza Strip - groups that have attacked and killed American and Israeli citizens.

The only logical case that could be made is if Saddam and his ministers have supported terrorists organizations with finances and free passage, and even then that has not been thoroughly proven (I feel). However, so have other countries... We havent talked about going after them. Perhaps it is because we far more vested interests in those countries?

I, also have not heard, read, or seen anything about miniture aircrafts, involvment with Oklahoma City, or any other clandestine plans. I feel that these reports from the administration are smoke and mirrors, prying off the fears of the citizens in order to gain acceptance of this.

Osama and co. would benefit from an occupation in Iraq because our concentration would not be on him, allowing Al-Queda to come up with new strategies for communications, planning, and restructuring.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Outlander00
But none of this was a concern to the administration until Congress was making noise about the success of the operations in Afghanistan. It came out of left field, as a way to take the attention off of that.... I mean, no one finds that the least bit wierd?

After Afghanistan the president singled out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as being nations that are actively seeking nuclear weapons and would threaten the US and its interests around the world. Today this has held true as North Korea and Iraq are seeking to build nuclear weapons and Iran is in danger of falling to groups actively seeking stronger ties with the US while creating a democratic government.

Originally posted by Outlander00
Trying telling that to investors who are wont invest due to the uncertainty of the situation (and have been for months) which has made the stockmart stagnant, the consumer confidence report at its lowest in 12 years, and the fluxuating unemployment numbers. The only thing not making worse is the housing market boom.

Yesterday USA Today ran an article marking the good and bad of the economy and the market has responded the last few days with significant ups. Considering the very nature of the economy ups and downs are expected and it looks like our economy is once again heading in a positive direction.

Originally posted by Outlander00
The only logical case that could be made is if Saddam and his ministers have supported terrorists organizations with finances and free passage, and even then that has not been thoroughly proven (I feel). However, so have other countries... We havent talked about going after them. Perhaps it is because we far more vested interests in those countries?

The case has already been made and the checks can be tracked from Baghdad to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip where Saddam has paid the families of homocide bombers $25,000 a piece for killing Israeli and American citizens. Not only that but US and British inteligence agencies have been able to track the shipment of weapons from the Iraqi military to Ansar al-Islam as well as the current stationing of various al Queda personnel within the Ansar al-Islam organization. As for other countries that support terrorism - the US has already launched a campaign in Yemen where they killed members of the al Queda organization, US military personnel are currently being deployed to the Philippines to fight Abu Sayyaf (a group with ties to al Queda) and other military personnel are currently in Colombia where they are helping the Colombian government fight the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) a terrorist group that has launched numerous campaigns within the country as well as capturing three Americans and declaring them POW's. This is only a couple of the places that US troops have been deployed to fight terrorism and I didn't even mention the most obvious example - Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Outlander00
I, also have not heard, read, or seen anything about miniture aircrafts, involvment with Oklahoma City, or any other clandestine plans. I feel that these reports from the administration are smoke and mirrors, prying off the fears of the citizens in order to gain acceptance of this.

Osama and co. would benefit from an occupation in Iraq because our concentration would not be on him, allowing Al-Queda to come up with new strategies for communications, planning, and restructuring.

Some articles relating to Middle Eastern and more specifically Iraqi ties to the Oklahoma City bombing can be found here (http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/OKC,%20911%20link/connecting_the_dots.htm), here (http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/iraq_link_911.htm) and here. (http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/oklahoma_mystery.htm) As for the article about Iraqi drones within the US, it can be found here. (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html)

Also the idea that the US cannot focus upon al Queda and Iraq at the same time is without merit - especially when you consider that the two are very much linked and that by removing the support groups for these terrorist organizations it will hurt the entire infrastructure of these groups.

-Joe!

[Psilon]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner

Yesterday USA Today ran an article marking the good and bad of the economy and the market has responded the last few days with significant ups. Considering the very nature of the economy ups and downs are expected and it looks like our economy is once again heading in a positive direction.
-Joe!

http://www.aapress.com/webfeb28/bmisdirected.htm

Nobel Laureates, 450 Other Economists Fault Bush Tax Cut Plan: Dividend Tax Cut Called 'Misdirected'


WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Ten Nobel laureates, joined by more than 450 other economists from all over the country, today cautioned that the tax cut plan proposed by the Bush administration will not only fail to help the economy in the short run, but will also weaken it over the longer term by deepening projected deficits.

The warning note was sounded in a joint statement unveiled at the National Press Club today by three of the Nobel economists: Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University), Franco Modigliani (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and Lawrence R. Klein (University of Pennsylvania). The statement, along with the names of all of its endorsers, appeared as a full-page ad in the February 11 issue of the New York Times.

The economists' statement notes that there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession, and that the tax cut plan proposed by the administration is not the answer to our current economic problems.

It further notes that the proposed tax cuts would not produce adequate growth or jobs and would lead to fiscal deterioration that would, in turn, "reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research" and will "generate further inequalities in after-tax income."

Kenneth Arrow, a Nobelist from Stanford University who is one of the statement's signers, summarized it this way: "The Administration's tax cut proposals will probably have a negative effect on the current economic situation. The large anticipated deficits mean increased government competition in the capital market and possible inflation and, therefore, higher long-term interest rates. These higher rates, in turn, will inhibit new investment. There is no compensating advantage in encouraging consumption."

In addition to Drs. Klein, Modigliani, Stiglitz and Arrow, other Nobelists joining in criticism of the Bush plan are Daniel McFadden and George Akerlof, both of the University of California at Berkeley, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and William Sharpe of Stanford University.

The statement acknowledges that the economy is experiencing some slow growth, but notes that it is too slow to prevent unemployment from rising. To stimulate the economy, the statement says, "a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment."

The Economic Policy Institute coordinated the gathering of endorsements for the statement on behalf of the Nobel laureates and other leading economists. The letter attracted widespread support, garnering over 450 signatures in only a week.

"The enormous response we have seen among economists reflects deep concern that our economy's problems are not being recognized or adequately addressed by policymakers," said EPI's president, Lawrence Mishel. "Our economy needs jobs, and the President's proposal will not create jobs either in the short or the long term."

The full text of the Economists' Statement follows: Economic growth, though positive, has not been sufficient to generate jobs and prevent unemployment from rising. In fact, there are now more than two million fewer private sector jobs than at the start of the current recession. Overcapacity, corporate scandals, and uncertainty have and will continue to weigh down the economy.

The tax cut plan proposed by President Bush is not the answer to these problems. Regardless of how one views the specifics of the Bush plan, there is wide agreement that its purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term. The permanent dividend tax cut, in particular, is not credible as a short-term stimulus. As tax reform, the dividend tax cut is misdirected in that it targets individuals rather than corporations, is overly complex, and could be, but is not, part of a revenue-neutral tax reform effort.

Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.

To be effective, a stimulus plan should rely on immediate but temporary spending and tax measures to expand demand, and it should also rely on immediate but temporary incentives for investment. Such a stimulus plan would spur growth and jobs in the short term without exacerbating the long-term budget outlook.

-I know this is a tad bit off topic...

[pencilsharp]

Psilon:

Quick. Name how many government anythings have ever been temporary.

Except tax cuts... :(

Anyhoo... my 2 cents: I am a Desert Storm Vet. I have seen what Saddam has done to his own people first-hand.

He's a monster.

Many of us Americans have forgotten what old Tommy Jefferson wrote long ago. "ALL men are created equal..." Americans, French, and Iraqis. We have a duty to oppose tyranny and oppression, no matter how much it hurts.

[James]

Just slightly off topic, but on the same base, could someone give their opinion to why America (and UK I suppose) is not targeting North Korea as major issue?

I'm sure this has come up before but there is a lot of thread to look through now! :)

With North Korea with near or definite strike capability and I do recall a report saying they would be happy to make a pre-emptive attack AND I hear they are now making missille tests why people seem more preoccupied with Iraq which has little to no weaponary, regardless of intent. Surely North Korea is more of an immediate concern before Iraq?

I agree with Pencilsharp, there is a major humanitarian issue in Iraq (as I suppose can be argued elsewhere in the world), but if America is concerned about threats, surely Korea is currently offering a more immediate concern to it's and other countries security?

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

1. What would drive a young man [or woman] to terrorism?

A sense of overwhelming powerlessness. Poverty, oppression, and confusion tend to do this.

2. Who would recruit such a young man?

Terrorist organizations, who give promises about a better future if he joins them.

3. Why would the conditions exist for this person?

Corrupt, brutal, self-serving leaders rule over him and his people.

4. How did these evil rulers come to power?

Varies.

5. How did the rulers STAY in power so long?

An alien nation's support, methods of repression the rulers used, and distraction.

6. With these feelings of powerlessness comes rage, so wouldn't the young man most likely attack that which oppressed him?

It would.

7. [see #4]

The rulers would direct the rage towards another target, to divert the young man's attention from the real perpetrators.

== == ==

Thus we have young, frustrated men and women who can't do anything about the wicked rulers in their own nations; they assign blame for their woes to the powerful, distant nations that keep their evil rulers in power.

Enter the terrorist group, espousing a better path to freedom. By sacrificing their lives to destroy the wealthy nations that fuel their oppressors' power, the youth can free their people.

But there's a twist. The terrorist groups are supported by the oppressors themselves.

And we have a steady cycle of oppression and a steady stream of human weapons to destroy any alien nations that would question the rulers' way of running their countries.

But that day on THIS planet must end. The United States has allowed this stupid vicious cycle of oppression and terror to go on and on only at the behest of the UN or Americans who want to wage this diplomatically.

This is the last diplomatic solution for the other corrupt regimes in the ME that pervert their own faith and cling blindly to power at the expense of their own people.

I hear questions about: how does a war on Iraq affect terrorism?

It's actually quite simple: Terrorism is a symptom of the nasty disease called oppression. True, we could fight the symptoms for all eternity. But the only way you will ever stop terrorism is to end the underlying reasons for terrorism--the oppression that the terrorists feel themselves from the brutal regimes.

The biggest offender here: Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.

No one in the ME even likes Saddam. Not even Osama B-L. (who is probably already dead, and his followers are just pretending he's alive.) The ME nations Saddam has attacked in the past want him blasted into oblivion. [especially Kuwait. They're practically frothing at the mouth to get at him themselves.]

The Iraqi people are crying for freedom. The Kurds' only lingering questions: will the US back its talk with action this time, and will they keep Turkey as far away from them as possible.

If the UN sanctions this, the whole world would go in, take out the root of oppression, free the Iraqi peoples, install a provisional Iraqi/Kurdish government that the two Muslim races agree to, and leave.

If not, the US-led team will do the same--it would just take longer and be more expensive for the US.

[believe me, the US wants the UN's help; that's why we're "bothering with them". they're our allies--we should ask them for help.]

Iraq is such a great example of what's wrong--and what could be right--in the ME. With that precious oil that the US does want access to, Iraq has something to offer in the global marketplace. With a popular political system, the Iraqi people themselves decide how to use their resources.

And seeing how prosperous and peaceful the new Iraq is, the other ME nations might see Iraq as a target...or as an opportunity to make changes to help their nations prosper.

If it would be the former, though, the UN(or the US and UK) can just give(say, Saudi Arabia) a hard, meaningful look. I say SA because that's where many of Al-Qaida's boys came from, where Osama WAS from(until they disowned him), and where AQ gets their money. But the Saudis have been our allies in the past. We would need diplomatic pressure with them at that point.

But all of this "new Iraq" speculation is moot as long as Saddam stays in power--barring a divine miracle arranged by God, Allah, and YHWH that pulls a Saint Paul conversion on him.

== == ==

North Korea.

The question was asked: Isn't Kim Jong Il the immediate threat?

Actually, yes. My question is: Isn't CHINA the nearest country? And a fellow Communist state as well?

Yes, the US is the lone superpower, but China's no slouch. They have a military and nukes. China should lead any coalition to deal with NK. China should help rebuild NK. China should use its clout to take Kim out of office--before Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and other Pacific nations do it for them.

The US will help, as NK's another issue that we must deal with. But again, where's China in all this? [I bet the Japanese would demand that China do something before the US decides to proactively attack Iraq and NK at once.]

One crisis at a time.

[prepares to have points picked apart at the seams.]

[Atoon]

For an article in Cnnenespañol.com (http://www.cnnenespanol.com) about the Festival de Viña del Mar (http://www.elfestival.cl)
This weekend [2/23/03], was days of successes for the group of Chilean rock, Los Prisioneros, who in an controversial, irreverent and fit presentation in the musical comedy obtained three prizes: torches of silver and gold, and the appraised gull of silver.

The vocalist of the legendary band, Jorge González, shot against the catholic church and the sexual abuse against minors, the United States and their objective to attack Iraq , against the private company and contrary to which it thought, attacked the own organization of the Festival.

Even so, Los Prisioneros made be delirious to the 25 thousand people who jammed the Quinta Vergara in Viña del Mar.

Chile with you, Jorge

[Lucky Bob]

To all who feel that this is just an excuse for the U.S. to defeat and occupy a weak nation, please read this speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Comments?

[Salvor]

You know, a French politician was interviewed last night on TV and he raised a good point (which is quite surprising for any politician :)). He's in favor of war not because Saddam represents a danger to the US ( :rolleyes: ), but because something needs to be done in the Middle-East. I mean, let's face it, the Israelo-palestinian crisis is at a standstill, the situation in countries like Syria or Lybia doesn't look too good either, and up until now, all we've done is "laisser faire". Well maybe it's time to shake things up.

I'm against the war against Iraq because I think Bush is manipulating the American people by making them feel threatened (therefore he makes the most of post-9/11 grief), which they're not! Saddam has very few weapons and he's just agreed to destroy the few "dangerous" ones he's left. But a regime change in Iraq is absolutely necessary. And not just in Iraq, like I said, in most countries where democracy isn't ensured, and dictatorship prevails.

So I don't know. On the one hand, these people would be happy if we did enforce democracy in their countries, but on the other hand they'd be devastated if a war struck them...what should we do?

I don't have a definite answer to this question...

[Drachentöter]

Salvor makes a lot of sense. A lot of American citizens have to get it through their head that Iraq, North Korea, not even Al-Qaeda are as threatening as the adminstration makes them out to be. This is the way the game is played. Politics is nothing more than lies and distortions fed to a public with the sole purpose of re-election.

So, I'd learn to understand the game.

There's obviously a lot of things I think Bush should be doing to improve our country, most importantly the economy (tax cuts aren't going to do it). But I'm CERTAIN that no action will be taken this term to restore the US to the Clinton era. Bush is putting all his strength and effort behind this war effort. And for once, I agree with him.

I may think that he's doing it only so he's approval ratings keep afloat and to distract the American public from more pressing issues, but what am I going to do? Look how the media slams protestors. It just doesn't help anything if you voice dissent against something that billions of people have come to accept. I'm not against the actual protests, I believe they have the right. But in my opinion, it's not going to change the president's mind. So why bother?

My point is, you sometimes have to get over your prejudices and bias and look at the possible good that can come from the actions of the president. Getting rid of a dictator who hurts his own people should be a priority in the United States' agenda. Maybe not the top priority, but that's what it's become. So I support it, because I strongly believe that if it's done right, the Iraqi people will be much better off.

We've ignored the middle east for too long now. It took an attack close to home to raise awareness. Some may see it as being intrusive and impulsive, but in the long run, preventing a volatile region from transforming into a hostile threat definitely has its advantages.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Salvor
I'm against the war against Iraq because I think Bush is manipulating the American people by making them feel threatened (therefore he makes the most of post-9/11 grief), which they're not! Saddam has very few weapons and he's just agreed to destroy the few "dangerous" ones he's left. But a regime change in Iraq is absolutely necessary. And not just in Iraq, like I said, in most countries where democracy isn't ensured, and dictatorship prevails.

I disagree with the analysis that Iraq isn't a threat especially when we look at his ties to terrorism and his backlog of chemical and biological weapons, not to mention his purchasing on German equipment to build nuclear weapons. Saddam is not in the process of destroying his weapons - only a couple of missiles that the UN has found. This fails to account for the entire nuclear weapons program that was moved underground after the first Persian Gulf War, the tons of VX and anthrax that has been documented as being in Saddam's possession and the movable cehmical and biological weapons factories that Saddam is known to have.

Every item that the UN has found that was not included on his 12,000 page presentation to the UN should be considered in violation of 1441 - this would include the warheads that were found in crates a couple of months ago and the discovery that his missiles go beyond the UN sanctioned range.

Having grown up in the military and seeing the steps that are taken to protect the country I do not think that President Bush is overestimating the ability of Iraq to attack the US or our allies and interests throughout the world. Much the same way that no one would have believed that Al Queda would prove to be the threat to American society I think many continue to underestimate the Iraqi regime - sweeping away his past trangressions in hopes of a peaceful resolution, even though every resolution to date has been broken and ignored.

I pray that the world does not have to experience another event of 9/11 scale to recognize that the threat is present. At this point in time Saddam has soldiers and drones within our borders - elements that could be used to attack our homes and threaten our safety. Much like Al Queda he understands the importance of infiltrating your target and has set up cells that are ready to be called to action. If on September 10, 2001 President Bush warned the American public that Al Queda must be removed immediately or the US's security would be seriously challenged who would have listened to him? If on December 6, 1941 FDR warned the American public about a potential strike from Japan who would have taken steps to ensure our safety? The answer to both of these is that a majority of the respective populations would have ignored these warnings and continued their daily lives, believing the leadership to be insane for suggesting that a threat existed. Today President Bush has forewarned the American public and the world of yet another threat and has sought to remove it before it to can launch a devestating attack upon our soil.

A majority of the American public supports his call to remove Saddam yet many throughout the world are not interested - much like the majority of the US was uninterested in entering WWII, much like President Clinton was unwilling to fight for the protection of US citizens in Yemen, Kenya and even New York against a threat that few believed would ever truly threaten the United States - the same threat that would later take the lives of 3,000 of my countrymen. Let's not make the same mistake again.

-Joe!

[James]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner


I pray that the world does not have to experience another event of 9/11 scale to recognize that the threat is present. At this point in time Saddam has soldiers and drones within our borders - elements that could be used to attack our homes and threaten our safety. Much like Al Queda he understands the importance of infiltrating your target and has set up cells that are ready to be called to action. If on September 10, 2001 President Bush warned the American public that Al Queda must be removed immediately or the US's security would be seriously challenged who would have listened to him? If on December 6, 1941 FDR warned the American public about a potential strike from Japan who would have taken steps to ensure our safety? The answer to both of these is that a majority of the respective populations would have ignored these warnings and continued their daily lives, believing the leadership to be insane for suggesting that a threat existed. Today President Bush has forewarned the American public and the world of yet another threat and has sought to remove it before it to can launch a devestating attack upon our soil.

Just a quick point that there is a great deal of information that points to central intelligence and President Bush knowing about a potential threat way before 9/11, in fact earlier that year. There were even detailed public access information on the net which pointed towards a strike.


A majority of the American public supports his call to remove Saddam yet many throughout the world are not interested - much like the majority of the US was uninterested in entering WWII, much like President Clinton was unwilling to fight for the protection of US citizens in Yemen, Kenya and even New York against a threat that few believed would ever truly threaten the United States - the same threat that would later take the lives of 3,000 of my countrymen. Let's not make the same mistake again.
-Joe!

I don't think this is a political issue that you can lie at Clinton's door. If you want to lumber the 9/11 disaster on any President, it's Bush. From a Presidential perspective, those 3,000 are on Bush's hands - not Clinton's. He was the President and he had the information.

There is also an interesting POV I heard from a well respected journalist through a family connection that believed reason the Bush is gunning for Iraq is on a religious basis. Not unheard of in politics. He is a fundementalist I'm told (as is Al Gore - never knew that!) and I believe one of the literal Biblical texts calls for the destruction of the Arab states or something that can be translated as the like. Now, with that in mind, there is a suggestion that from a biblical POV, it would be Bush's duty through faith to come down on Iraq.

Another POV is that a good war is always good for politics - especially if the enemy is in no condition to fight back... as simple and cynical as it sounds, both those conditions are on the whole true. A war only turns sour in the opinion polls if you lose. I can't really see that happening...

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by SJJ
Just a quick point that there is a great deal of information that points to central intelligence and President Bush knowing about a potential threat way before 9/11, in fact earlier that year. There were even detailed public access information on the net which pointed towards a strike.

There was information that terrorists were plotting to attack US interests but there was never anything specific within these threats. These are also the same reports that were presented to former President Clinton before he left office.

Originally posted by SJJ
I don't think this is a political issue that you can lie at Clinton's door. If you want to lumber the 9/11 disaster on any President, it's Bush. From a Presidential perspective, those 3,000 are on Bush's hands - not Clinton's. He was the President and he had the information.

There is also an interesting POV I heard from a well respected journalist through a family connection that believed reason the Bush is gunning for Iraq is on a religious basis. Not unheard of in politics. He is a fundementalist I'm told (as is Al Gore - never knew that!) and I believe one of the literal Biblical texts calls for the destruction of the Arab states or something that can be translated as the like. Now, with that in mind, there is a suggestion that from a biblical POV, it would be Bush's duty through faith to come down on Iraq.

Another POV is that a good war is always good for politics - especially if the enemy is in no condition to fight back... as simple and cynical as it sounds, both those conditions are on the whole true. A war only turns sour in the opinion polls if you lose. I can't really see that happening...

While I was not blaming the events of 9/11 on either President I do think that President Clintons failure to protect the United States from terrorism after the WTC attack of 1993, the bombing of US embassys in Kenya and Tanzania, the lynching of US troops in Samolia, the bombing of the USS Cole and the attempts to bomb LA International Airport on New Years Eve of 1999 are very much responsible for the survival of Al Queda to continue these attacks. Once again the information presented to President Bush was never specific upon targets and was also presented to Clinton, who choose to do nothing about the information other than order the CIA to not have questionable individuals on their payroll.

Also, the Bible does not talk about the need for the destruction of the Arab states but it does talk about an attack occurring against Israel by a coalition of Arab states and (what is believed to be) Russia. Prior to this battle though there will rise a leader that will be the head of a New Roman Empire and will suggest a peace process that will solve all of the problems of the Middle East for 3.5 years - until the leader decides to attack Israel. This battle will be so large that upon Israeli's victory it will take them seven months to bury the bodies of the dead and seven years to destroy all of the weapons that will be scattered on the battlefield. After the Tribulation though it does talk about Jordan becoming a desolate waste land and that a strong relationship being built between Egypt and Assyria (Current day Iraq and parts of Syria) where the peoples of Egypt and Iraq will worship the same god as Israel and will enjoy strong economic ties as well as divine protection for their strong friendship. The only way this conflict could be related back to religion is because of the duty of the nations leader to protect its citizens against all threats.

Also, while war may be good for the polls you are talking about a President that sought to avoid international conflicts prior to 9/11 and only changed the policy of the administration after these events - realizing the threats that the US is faced with and the ability of Iraq to threaten the US and our allies and interests. When combined with his failure to follow UN Resolutions and support terrorism throughout the region the President found a large threat to American security.

-Joe!

[James]

Thanks for the Biblical clarification there Joe. Let people make what they want with it.

As for Bush I recall about 5 months after the attack there were some pretty damning reports which were directly pointing at his administration over the handling. I'm not going pretend to recall the specifics so I suppose it's moot, but they were from an independent source.

The Bush administration had an aggressive FP before 9/11. I remember being slight concerned by it. Its moved forward not just for the change of events, but the popularity such a stance creates. When people fear, they rally. Talk of strength and war are very strong builders on the opinion polls. Always have been, the danger comes when the war is active - and going no where. I think Bush - as does Blair - knows this won't be a difficult war to win - from that POV there is little to lose, but much to gain..

CyncialJames ;)

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by SJJ
The Bush administration had an aggressive FP before 9/11. I remember being slight concerned by it. Its moved forward not just for the change of events, but the popularity such a stance creates. When people fear, they rally. Talk of strength and war are very strong builders on the opinion polls. Always have been, the danger comes when the war is active - and going no where. I think Bush - as does Blair - knows this won't be a difficult war to win - from that POV there is little to lose, but much to gain..

CyncialJames ;)

I think that a lot of Bush's foreign policy prior to 9/11 has been misconstrued. In truth though Bush was very much interested in removing the US from many of their previous initiatives around the world. During the 2000 election Condoleezza Rice, suggested the U.S. might withdraw its peacekeeping troops from the Balkans. The Bush team also adopted a hands off policy toward the Middle East - leading many nations to openly criticize the new policy. Bush also announced that he would work on a new missile defense system for the US - irregardless of European and Russian concerns and he withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile accord because of its outdatedness. The policy of prior to 9/11 was to virtually isolate America and focus on domestic problems - a policy that completely changed after the events of 9/11 - forcing the administration to adopt policies that focused more upon international concerns and coalition building while also becoming once again involved in the Middle East situation.

-Joe!

[wonderfly]

Eek! I'm hesitant about the thought of religion being brought into this thread...but Joe's right, nowhere in the Bible does it call for the destruction of the Arabs, (or Muslims, or whomever). If this was truly about Bush having something against Muslims on a religious basis, he wouldn't keep referring to Islam as a religion of peace in his speechs. Over and over he's said this is not a war against Islam, it's a war against Terror. And if someone says that he's lying to cover himself so he can wipe the Muslims off the face of the Earth, I'll just *sigh* and walk away disapointed...

Now I will grant you some Christian Fundamentalists are using the Post 9/11 enviorment to stoke the flames of hate against Mustlims. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are particularly repugnant to me. Everytime I tuned into Roberton's show, he's talking about how Muslims are not peace loving people. He needs to turn the other cheek or whatnot...

I think the distinction needs to be made as Bill Oreilly made it, (look: I brought him up again! :p ) He said that our main enemy is Islamic extremists, not Islam itself. The two are related but not equal by any means.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by SJJ
As for Bush I recall about 5 months after the attack there were some pretty damning reports which were directly pointing at his administration over the handling. I'm not going pretend to recall the specifics so I suppose it's moot, but they were from an independent source.

I remember those. I believe the press became quiet on that issue when it turned out that the reports were just a couple out of the many reports the CIA has to sort through, and that Clinton had receieved the same warnings during his administration. Besides, blaming 9/11 on anybody but the hijackers and Al-Qaeda is just playing politics. It was a tragedy beyond what everybody (even, to his glee, OBL) thought possible.

The Bush administration had an aggressive FP before 9/11. I remember being slight concerned by it. Its moved forward not just for the change of events, but the popularity such a stance creates. When people fear, they rally. Talk of strength and war are very strong builders on the opinion polls. Always have been, the danger comes when the war is active - and going no where. I think Bush - as does Blair - knows this won't be a difficult war to win - from that POV there is little to lose, but much to gain..

All I can remember were:

Kyoto: A treaty that, if ratified, would have caused almost irrepairable damage to the economy.

"Star Wars" Defense Shield: It's funny, because critics portrayed it as an agressive action, when it's about defense! I mean, what's wrong with protecting our people from nukes? Now, with North Korea becoming a serious threat, it's essential that we do so.

The spy plane in China: Simple. China had one of our spy planes and our pilots and would not turn them over. Of course you've gotta act tough in that situation. And the spy plane was nothing new. That sort of thing has been going on for years.

[Boy Wonder]

We are not fighting for oil!!!!!!!!!! We are fighting Iraq because it is a proven fact they have terroism written all over it. Afghanistan: why did we bomb it? Oh well, we have to fight, just Iraq and America, and take no prisoners!

[Chosen Raven]

Uh, Angel_Baby, SJJ is just donig his best to make a point. Just because he doesn't know everything is no reason to get on his case like that. I don't agree with him in any way, shape, or form, but he debates fairly and curteously. You should do the same. And do try to make coherent sentences so we actually know what your saying.