Were they pro war or anti-Saddam? For some reason this issue has gotter very polorized. Either you are for peace or for war. But that doesn't take into account that Saddam is not a very "peaceful" guy or that some kind of action might ensure a longer, more secure peace in the future. It's not that simple guys! There are many possible outcomes that do not involve all out war or any war at all. Does the fact that Saddam is not living up to his surrender terms mean anything? Does the fact that Saddam is not living up to U.N. resolution 1441 calling for him to disarm (again) mean anything? I think the people who want peace are forgetting the facts here.
Were they pro war or anti-Saddam? For some reason this issue has gotter very polorized. Either you are for peace or for war. But that doesn't take into account that Saddam is not a very "peaceful" guy or that some kind of action might ensure a longer, more secure peace in the future. It's not that simple guys! There are many possible outcomes that do not involve all out war or any war at all. Given that Saddam is not voluntarily disarming, there are really two likely outcomes here: (1) We go to war and disarm him (2) We don't go to war and don't disarm him The "anti-war" protesters aren't simply against all-war. Notice that few of them protested us going after Al-Queda. The primary belief set is that Iraq is not an significant threat to us and not worth going to war over. The "pro-war" crowd feels that Iraq is a threat and that we should do what is necessary -- which is almost certainly war -- to disarm him. The labels are simplistic, but they are the easiest to use to refer to these two primary groups of people.
I think you nailed it here. The people protesting war would protest war even if Saddam lobbed a nuke at Israel. They simply do not want war...PERIOD. Their current contention (which changes daily) is that Saddam is not a threat to us. Then again...how would they even know? Colin Powell presented evidence to the contrary. Further evidence was presented to Congress recently that left even some left wing Dems convinced that Saddam must be dealt with. This is a situation where if one takes the stance that Saddam will not be a threat to the US...we can't afford for them to be wrong.
Oh come on Ref, you can do better than that. I don't remember any significant protests when we went into Afghanistan looking for the Al-Queda and Osama. (Did we find them, by the way?) The VAST majority of people believed in that military operation and thought it was justified in light of the atrocities committed. I'm not against ALL war. There are times when the use of force is justified. But many of us aren't convinced that this is one of those times. P.S. Glad to hear you found a job.
They simply do not want war... Not true - they didn't protest our invasion of Afghanistan nor our global manhunt for AlQueda. Their current contention (which changes daily) is that Saddam is not a threat to us. Then again...how would they even know? Colin Powell presented evidence to the contrary. No he didn't. He presented evidence that Iraq may have or be developing WMD. Perhaps some people don't think that is a threat worth going to war over? After all, we're not attacking North Korea or China because of it. Whether he's a threat is based on whether you believe he'd try to use them on us, or simply hold them as deterrents. Keep in mind he had them in 1991 and didn't use them then, nor is there any evidence that he has supplied them to terrorists over the past 10 years. Further evidence was presented to Congress recently that left even some left wing Dems convinced that Saddam must be dealt with. The problem is still that Bush is not making the case very well to the American public. If people are going to support sending American troops into combat, they want damn good reasons to do it and Bush hasn't connected the dots. He's said they violated UN resolutions. He's said they had Al Queda ties, but the CIA disagreed - that didn't help his credibility. He's said they might be developing some illegal weapons. But he hasn't made a convincing case that this is an immediate threat. A good chunk of our population that remembers Vietnam and "because our leaders say so" is no longer a good enough reason to support a war. This is a situation where if one takes the stance that Saddam will not be a threat to the US...we can't afford for them to be wrong. Agreed. Yet we take this same stance against a number of other countries as well.
That seems to be YOUR stance. But there are quite a few people out there who are simply against war - regardless of how justified it may be. Thanks. Hellish week...but that's a different story for a different day.
Not true. The current prevailing thought in medicine today is that Gulf War Syndrome is actually the long term result of chemical weapons utilized by the enemy in 1991. I have no problem with people wanting to be sure that we are doing the right and just thing, but we cannot compromise our servicepeople by plastering classified information all over CNN. As information is being declassified, it is being disseminated. Our Congresspeople (which I alluded to earlier) were presented with further information which is currently still classified. It seems to be enough to have convinced some Congresspeople who previously were staunchly against the proposed military action against Iraq.
I've met her. She even sat in my truck so I could record a support statement for the mayor from her. She was EXTREMELY nice to me. I have absolutely nothing against her personally. But, I don't like her politics because I believe the way she approaches them makes liberals (and African Americans) look bad. It has little to do with the substance of her beliefs and a LOT to do with the style of her approach. Shelia won't do ANYTHING unless there is a camera out there. Period. Everyone knows it. Ask any one of her assistants - she's fired like 20 in the past two years. She is a grandstander. I remember being at a political rally during the mayoral campaign. She wasn't even supposed to be there. There was a list of politicians given 2 minutes each to speak - council members, state reps, etc. There was a large local media contingent on hand because it was near the end of the election. Shelia just showed up and spoke for 15 minutes. This is really typical stuff for her. I find this type of behavior the real problem with politics. She makes it more difficult for those of us who support her positions to be effective in convincing anyone else. It's like animal rights. PETA makes it really difficult to convince anyone of the benefits of vegetarianism or the plight of animals when they show up at grade schools dressed up as bloody cows. It doesn't mean I don't support their ideology. It DOES mean I will not support the means by which they deliver their message. My company worked for Lee Brown because we were PAID to work for Lee Brown. We didn't work for him for free, nor would we have. Granted, his politics were closer in line with my own than Sanchez or Berry or a number of the other candidates, but that isn't the reason my company took the work. I do think the mayor is oftentimes ineffective. I don't think he is perfect - far from it. However, if I had my choice between him and a right wing conservative, guess which one I'll choose. Besides, local politics are remarkably dissimilar to national politics. There are plenty of issues locally that cross party lines which is why party politics don't play nearly the role in the local races that they do in the national one's. Mayor Brown supports many of the things - rail, parks to standard, downtown revitilization, bikeways program, super neighborhoods, inner city neighborhood infrastructure - that I support, so I voted for him. If I had thought someone else could have been more effective at handling these initiatives, I would have voted for him/her. Period. And that includes members of different political parties. I'm not talking about the substance of Sheila's words because you know where my politics stand. I'm talking about being an effective leader, which she is not. She often makes liberals look ridiculous. I know plenty of African Americans who also find her to be ridiculous. But, she's what we have at the moment and the best we can do apparently. If someone better comes along, I'm all for it.
Not true. The current prevailing thought in medicine today is that Gulf War Syndrome is actually the long term result of chemical weapons utilized by the enemy in 1991. Maybe there's something new out there, but last I heard: (1) We don't know with much certainty if GWS even exists. (2) If it does, it is likely caused not by chemical weapons used by Iraq, but from by-product vapors of the battlefield (ex, blowing up a chemical factory). http://www.chronicillnet.org/news/releases/release_10.html#anchor895629 <I>One critical factor may be the exposure of veterans to chemical agents. "This was the most toxic battlefield in the history of modern warfare. Studies since World War I show that individuals exposed to chemical agents and related poisons have manifested symptoms similar to those of the Gulf War veterans," said James J. Tuite, III, an international security consultant and former director of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee investigation into the arming of Iraq and the health effects of the Persian Gulf War. "The high explosive weapons used to destroy Iraqi chemical munitions sites and secondary fires forced skyward vapors and toxic by-products from chemical agents. Weather patterns moved them as fallout over U.S. and coalition soldiers. As favorable conditions developed, the heavier-than-air gases fell to the ground where their presence was confirmed by multiple scientific techniques," he added. Tuite noted that other factors, including some preventive medicine measures and other occupational hazards could have exacerbated the effects of this toxic fallout. Supported by a growing body of literature, these exposures may have caused many of the veterans to develop a chronic autoimmune neurologic disease. </I> Here's that guy's full report: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/science6.html <B>I have no problem with people wanting to be sure that we are doing the right and just thing, but we cannot compromise our servicepeople by plastering classified information all over CNN. As information is being declassified, it is being disseminated.</b> Making that case would definitely be helpful, and as you know, I've argued a lot for that. However, right now, I'm just talking about making the connection between the WMD and his being an immediate threat. The majority of Americans believe he has or is developing WMD; 1441 has only reinforced that. Now, make the connection from why his developing WMD makes him an immediate threat to us. Keep in mind, he's been doing this for 10 years - he's had WMD before. Why is it instantly urgent that we attack today as opposed to trying a peaceful solution for another 6 or 12 months? That's a critical argument that he needs to make which hasn't been done. A while back, Bush tried with his "6 months away from developing a nuke" until that was proven to be false. He needs to make the immediate-threat argument right now.
Al Qaeda was trained in Iraqi terror camps GWYNNE ROBERTS EVIDENCE is now emerging of a shadowy military alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden which involves training al Qaeda fighters to use chemical and biological weapons in sabotage operations in Europe and the United States. US claims of a direct link between bin Laden and Saddam have fallen on deaf ears in Europe. But an investigation I conducted for PBS, the American state broadcaster, reveals such a connection really exists. Iraq's ruling Ba'ath Party was indeed once hostile to Islamic fundamentalism. But times have changed. The Iraqi media often refer to their leader as the great Mujahed (holy warrior) Saddam Hussein. His speeches are peppered with Koranic references; his regime has launched a "faith campaign"; senior Ba'athists are learning the Koran by heart, and religious instruction is being stepped up in schools. In the late 1990s, senior Iraqi defectors reaching Lebanon, Turkey, northern Iraq, and Europe even began to suggest that Saddam's embrace of Islam and his hatred of America had caused a seismic shift in Middle Eastern politics, resulting in an alliance of convenience. The first hint that something unusual was happening was picked up in 1997 by Jane's Intelligence Review. It reported that Saudi and Palestinian dissidents were being trained in Iraq at secret camps run by a Iraqi military intelligence group known as Unit 999. Abu Khalil arrived in Ankara last year after escaping from Iraq. His first post was as a Unit 999 trainer. In 1994, Unit 999 was tasked with training non-Iraqis from all over the Middle East and North Africa. "Many of them were very Islamic, very religious and very radical," he said. "I knew the head of the camp and he told me they came from countries like Sudan, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine. "They were trained in many different techniques - how to lay bombs and how to use chemical weapons. They were taught to do operations outside Iraq, never inside." In 1994, Unit 999 also started training Saddam's Fedayeen, a brutal militia. Abu Mohammed,who fled to Turkey three years ago, told me that in 1997 and 1998 Islamic extremists were being instructed to use poison gas and biological weapons in behind-the-lines operations in the Middle East and the West. Unit 999 ran a course for a number of extremist Middle Eastern groups, including al Qaeda. Mohammed said he was recruited into Saddam's Fedayeen in 1997. His first encounter with bin Laden's fighters occurred that same year when he went to Salman Pak. "I went there with 70 other officers. I noticed people queueing for food. The camp manager said to me, 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group, and the PKK and the Mujahidin e' Kalq.' So, I knew at the beginning who we were training with." Mohammed said a year later he attended another training course at Salman Pak and Unit 999 where he encountered al Qaeda fighters. "There was also training in the use of biological and chemical weapons there but they were not Iraqis doing it - only foreigners. In the training areas there is a field especially for weapons of mass destruction. Here, experts hold lectures and conduct biological experiments, theoretical experiments, of course, on how to place explosives, or how to pollute specific areas." Mohammed added: "They had maps of the USA, Britain, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia." The training described by the defectors raises the dreadful spectre that Iraq was passing on expertise learned from the East Germans during the cold war. At Massow, a camp just south of Berlin, secret police instructors taught Iraqis, Yemenis and Palestinians, among others, how to attack civilian targets. A former Stasi lieutenant colonel said: "The courses emphasised chemical weapons which attack the nervous system such as yperit, the nerve gas, Sarin, and binary chemicals. They were also taught how to deploy bacteriological weapons - influenza, anthrax, pneumonia and yellow fever." Fighters were taught to terrorise civilians by attacking railways stations, airports and public gatherings. The contamination of water sources, roads and large surface areas was also emphasised. Gwynne Roberts is an Iraq specialist and documentary film maker -Feb 13th http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/13-2-19103-0-10-27.html I have repeatedly asked many of you here to look up a place called Salman Pak for a reason. Major: Just a tidbit - there were over a million documented chemical and biological alerts set off during the 1991 war, most of them with Fox NBC vehicles. I have been told by chemical warfare specialists that the Gulf War syndrome was not due to depleted uranium or any of the other hypothetical US-induced causes the extreme left tries to bandy about, and that most of the alerts were neither false alarms nor due to our destruction of Iraqi WMD. Read that however you want.
US support for a possible war is greater now than it was for the first Gulf War. The case has been made.
Just a tidbit - there were over a million documented chemical and biological alerts set off during the 1991 war, most of them with Fox NBC vehicles. I have been told by chemical warfare specialists that the Gulf War syndrome was not due to depleted uranium or any of the other hypothetical US-induced causes the extreme left tries to bandy about, and that most of the alerts were neither false alarms nor due to our destruction of Iraqi WMD. Read that however you want. So you're telling me the US Government has outright lied to the American people (specfically, the veterans afflicted with GWS symptoms) about the cause of these illnesses?
I have read extensively about Salmon Pak, and the information is clear. Iraq helped train and fund Al Queda. This, and much more information, will be highlighted before we attack, in my opinion. We can't show our hand now though, because any secret information shared with the UN security council will be leaked by the French and/or Russians to the Iraqis.
As the country marches towards an inevitable attack on Iraq, let us not forget how Saddam Hussein acquired his weapons of mass destruction in the first place. Thank you, Ronald Reagan.
That is incorrect. According to the BBC (whose documentaries are very reliable imo), Saddam's primary source of technology and material was East Germany. The United States was not even mentioned as a supplier.
That is the single most absurd thing I have heard you or any one post in here on the subject of what is going on. I am at a loss... you actually think anyone in here has had a "PRO WAR" attitude? The only thing I have heard anyone state is they support our country's stance on what action should be taken, I have yet to hear anyone say they are "pro war." What do you suppose should be done? There is a resolution that was signed by the UN council that authorizes action if Iraq does not comply. Though Blix did not say he had evidence that supported what Powell said, he did say there have been violations found including missiles with range exceeding that which is allowed by the UN laws (set 12 years ago), as well as many items including large amounts of Anthrax, VX, and other chemical and biological agents which have not been accounted for. What the hell do you think we should do? Keep inspecting until we find them? Damn, I guess the polls are wrong and the anti-war protesters overshadow pro-sanction supporters by 333 to 1. I do not know you, but I assume you are an intelligent individual who is trying to further your point by “labeling” the opposing side. Take a minute and remove your blinders and read the three posts after this one you made. I honestly think you understand that to be the case, and if not, and you do think that anyone who is not actively protesting war is pro-war then I really feel sorry for you. Of course there were not protests, one of the two worst acts of violence on US soil had just happened. If our government knew there was the threat of Sept 11th happening, would you have taken the stance that we should try to call Osama and reason with him, or should we have taken action to prevent the action? Do the Iraqis have to carryout something to that degree against us on Sept 11th before you and the others will accept what needs to be done? I would hope and assume not. I don’t nor do I think you expect Saddam to take out an ad in the USA Today stating his intentions of carrying out acts of terror against us, so our options are to act, or react. Play right into Saddam’s hands: "Time is in our favor, and we have to buy more time hoping that the U.S.-British alliance might disintegrate because of ... the pressure of public opinion on American and British streets," Saddam told the Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa.
During the height of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the US government supplied Saddam with a variety of biological weapons. These weapons were used by Saddam against his own people. The President of the United States during the Iran-Iraq war was Ronald Reagan, and Donald Rumsfeld was his Special Envoy to the Middle East. East Germany may have been a supplier of "technology and material" but the United States was a supplier of biological weapons. It is hardly "incorrect", and is very much the truth. Whether you care to believe the truth is your problem.
Play right into Saddam’s hands: "Time is in our favor, and we have to buy more time hoping that the U.S.-British alliance might disintegrate because of ... the pressure of public opinion on American and British streets," Saddam told the Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa. That isn't the question I asked. If we're set on attacking now, then yes, delay will hurt the effort. The question is why now. As you can see, our attempt to push down the timeline is actually what's disintegrating the various alliances. The question is why we're so insistent on attacking now. What is the <I>national security</I> reason that makes an immediate attack so absolutely necessary? What is the <I>national security</I> reason that trying the French/German plan or allowing 6 additional months of inspections is unacceptable? If Bush is going to justify a war, he HAS to answer those questions. I'm not at all opposed to this war -- but Bush has to make this case of why we have to do it and why we have to do it immediately, and he hasn't done so yet.
Sorry, I should have read what you stated more clearly. The case is being made (right or wrong) is in 1441 that calls for specific compliance from Iraq including access to scientists (which if we want them to speak openly can't be done in Iraq), as well as Saddam to disclose to the UN what was done with a long list of items, and he has not done that.
