Oh, BTW - the "no"s might be in for a big disappointment. US Marines have begun cutting holes in the fence between Iraq and Kuwait. Won't be long now...
How freaking gung ho are you about war?!?! We'll be in for a diappointment? I might be interpreting that wrong, but you are sick.
Preface///Da-Da...am not arguing here, I swear, am clarifying.. Tree, I don't think that most of us who voted 'no' do so thinking this won't happen...I imagine many of us are resigned to the fact that Bush made up his mind to do this a long time ago, which for me is among the reasons that I am against it; I feel that objectivity has been clouded by a fait accompli mindset.
I've flip flopped a little on this but in the end I've have to vote no. It just smells really rotten right now. Iraq has never been shown to be an imminent threat, not even close. There has been no link presented between Iraq and 9/11 despite Bush constantly linking them in his speeches. There's been no clear link shown between Bin Laden and Iraq that doesn't exist between Pakistan, Iran, etc. and Bin laden. The timing of the Bush administration's raising the issue of Iraq is suspect in that I feel it's been used to divert attention from the failure to capture Bin Laden, the failure to revive the economy, and an effort to use it as momentum for the last election. Then of course there is the consistency of US policy concerning UN resolutions. Israel is in defiance of more resolutions than Iraq yet the US runs interference for Israel and won't enforce resolutions against it. If France, Germany, et al. are guilty of not enforcing resolutions which Bush claims brings about the irrelevance of the UN then the US is just as guilty. Then from a practical standpoint, I really dislike the fact that the US will not have troops coming out of Turkey or Saudi Arabia. The failure to bring those two particular nations into a coalition could prolong any conflict and have a serious effect on American casualties. Plus, what the heck is the plan for Iraq after the war? We've seen no plan, don't know how long US forces will be policing Iraq, and we certainly can't expect the UN to swoop in and help out after we fight a war that they voted down. One more thing that concerns me here though is that it's part of a grander plan to re-shape the Middle East. Bush's speeches pretty much confirm that he hopes to have a domino effect on the Middle East with this action. I really fear that Iraq's centralized location in the Middle East will be used as a staging ground for future wars in the area. When you look at where Iraq is on the map, the fact that it's so oil rich, and consider the types of people Bush has in his administration I tend to think this might be on their agenda to some degree. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all nations known to harbor terrorists and being in Iraq gives you clear access to deal with all three militarily if you wanted to do so. I'm sure that hasn't slipped past Wolfowitz and company.
No, I'm sorry. Sadam is not a sufficient threat to legitimate a preemptive attack. Bush and Powell have tried hard, but have not convinced me, most of the world's religious or political leaders, or a majority of the people in any countires other than the US and Israel. It is interesting that the 60-40 split in favor of the wrar on this bs is fairly representative of America as a whole
Yes. Saddam is as bad or worse than Milosevic. We have a moral obligation to stop genocide if it is within our power. He is a danger to our national security, mainly a free flowing supply of oil from the region, and the subsequent pricing of the resource. Opposition from countries like France, Germany are irrelevant. They sat on the hands for ten years and did nothing while Serbia and Bosnian Serbs murdered innocents, ran rape camps, and generally practiced cultural and literal genocide. They are more concerned with the urge to protect their own interests, which includes being percieved as a 'world leader' than they are to resolving difficulties. If you add their larger allies, China and Russia, you have the four countries MOST responsible for Iraq's sanction evading trade, and also for their weapons buildup. Saddam is bad. Saddam is dangerous. Saddam should be removed. And I get to that conclusion without even talking about possible links to terrorism or to the massive danger Iraq would present with nuclear weapons, or an unhindered WMD program.
I said no for the time being. I do think they are a potential threat but I don't think they are an immediate threat. They are not throwing threats at anyone unlike North Korea who is testing long range missles and have nuclear capabilities as we speak. We should exhaust every means of disarming Iraq before we engage. War is not something to take lightly. We are risking thousands of lives on both sides. Innocent people will die no matter what precautions and intelligence we have. I would gather that more innocent people die during this war than in the WTC attack. Most people forget that people die in wars. Americans die in wars. This will not be cake walk like Afghanastan where they are still fighting or the first war with Iraq. This will be a war like Vietnam or Russia's war with Afghanastan. We are going to try to take over a place and our soldiers will get shot at even after Saddam surrenders. We should take every step to avoid a war first before engaging. Also we should gain more support which we are not doing. It is easy to say "Screw France, Screw Germany" but in the age of the global economy, they have more of an effect on you than in any other time in history. Another issue is terrorism, what we do now will have a direct effect on terrorist activities in the US. It will cause people to hate us even more than they already do. Regardless of precautions, you can not stop all terrorist attacks. Do you want the US to become like Israel or Northern Ireland before Clinton brokered peace. Do you want the US to become more of a hatefull nation. Sometimes war can not be avoided, but this is not that time. What alot of people don't remember is that Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq on several occasions to force inspectors back into Iraq. Iraq is weaker now than they were during the first war and even pose less of a threat than they did then. I don't rule the use of force but War should only be use as a last resort.
Maybe i gave the war too much support above. A new CBS poll shows 47% think Bush has made the case for war; 44% think he hasn't. 47% to 44%
Timing does make a good point. Why are we going all out to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq but allowing Israel to go rampent.
Sharon is bad. Sharon is dangerous. Sharon should be removed. I'm sure with little research I could add at least 10 more names. You want to go after all of em? If not then why Saddam?
I agree with Timing's analysis, as I stated above. He is dismayed that we are staging phase one of a regional action, but I think it's a positive use of force, long overdue. Regional order, pipeline security and control of the world's biggest reservoir of oil are acceptable grounds for military action.
i think this war going to happan no matter what ,its pointless to debate argue here if this war is just , moral , leagal or whatever when none of the peoples in here can stop it ! the scariest part of this war is no one can stop it not even the untied nation , not even the majority of the world can stop it....... to stop the world's most powerful military to do whatevre they want..... maybe people should start a new topic here who's next.
DaDakota, those who take the pro-active stance on the Iraq conflict do not want war but feel compliance won't happen. This position has been taken based upon the actions of Saddam. After I finish if I missed something you want addressed I will answer it for you because I know what its like to be "on the fence" on issues such as this one. Lessons Of Inaction When WW1 ended the Treaty of Versailles was signed. It called for Germany to compensate the allies after the war and to ensure Germany could not strike again. (Also called for Germany to become a republic and to release POWS.) Soon after Hitler was elected Chancellor, he began to rearm Germany. Hitler tested the League Of Nations by retaking Saarland.(The Treaty of Versailles demilitarized this region of Germany and placed it into French hands.) The French, did nothing, as did the League of Nations. Hitler renounced the treaty publicly and so the League Of Nations continued to do nothing. Of course after annexing the countries of Austria, and Czechoslovakia the world community did nothing. After Neville Chamberlain, who was the British Prime Minister, at the time met with Hitler and decided on a policy called “appeasement”. Chamberlain returned home waving the Treaty of Munich, declaring that he believed it brought “peace in our time.” Afterwards the invasion of Poland took place and the rest is history as they say. Saddam doesn't have the military capability of Nazis Germany. Not even close and I'm not saying Saddam has the intention of invading another country. But the lesson here is to be skeptical until proven otherwise. Everyone is aware of the weapons in his possession. After murderering his own people, as did Hitler did to the Jews in Germany, one has to ask why is Saddam so hell bent on hiding his weapons? It doesn't make sense. I would like to correct myself on the number of Al Samud missles he has. He has 130. 20 are being destroyed which the inspectors discovered. This is the compliance Blix is talking about. Little to nothing else is being done by Iraq. After being given months to disarm this is what we have been waiting for. And this was no voluntary action by Saddam. He didn't open the curtain and exclaim, "here are my missles, now destory them!" Remember the Dan Rather interview Saddam said he wouldn't but of course everyone ignored him when he said he wouldn't. Saddam most likely would had gotten away with it even if he hadn't. Thats a shame. Only exploiting the little case against physically disarming Iraq. Resolutions For 12 years they have defied UN resolutions. Those that argue Israel is defying theirs need to do some research as to why. These resolutions call for them to withdraw from Palestinian cites but they do not call for the halt or let alone mention Palestinian-sponsored violence or terrorism. So therefore, they are one-sided. What The US Plans To Do But does Saddam have an agressor that challenges him and provokes him to the point that he feels he has to arm himself despite resolutions? No. The parallels between the two are unfounded and bogus. Instead of attempting to detract attention from Saddam we have to realize this issue won't solve itself. Oil Some have claimed we only help countries to consume their natural resources. Couldn't be further from the truth. Just more socialist propanda to feed the machine. Tell me if Somalia was about oil. Yugoslavia? Of course not. There is oil in the region. But only a plus rather than a minus if you consider how much it will cost to rebuild Iraq and feed its people. If we needed the oil that bad, sanctions would be lifted. That simple. Less cost to the tax payers. Fewer cost of lives. Not only the more quicker resolution to get oil but a smaller consequence. But this isn't the 1970s. Over 90 countries import oil to the United States. Oil is a factor but not the entire rationale for war. Oil is the result of simplicity. We Sold Him Weapons What a great excuse for not fighting him. Only greater reason to do away with the Hitler of the middle-east. This makes him our responsibility. Saddam Hussein may have killed his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us. Hitler didn't do anything to us either. Although he did kill millions of Jews, in Germany, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany. The Jews were afterall in Germany so its none of our business right? Of course American lives are superior to anyone living in Iraq. Isn't the left always bringing up human rights violations but never accuse Saddam for what he has done? There are other threats but it begins in Iraq. There are documents and evidence that claims Al Queda may have dirty bombs and other WMD. To end terrorism we have to do away with the state sponsors who are arming them. Saddam is sending 25 grand to families of suicide bombers. What makes you think he won't finance terror against America? Hypothetical of course, but what other countries do we know that finances terror? Its a short list. This alone is appalling and inexcusable. Containment Has Worked If this is your arguement then why did Clinton bomb Iraq and why have they ignored resolutions? Clinton - "First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years." CNN The last time an inspection team was in Iraq was four years ago. I'm sure some weapons were destoryed during strikes but there has been more than enough time to continue development. Saddam didn't just throw his hands up in the air and exclaim, "Oh, I give up already!" Containment only allowed Trotsky to murder 20 million. It did little to stop Hitler. How many will it allow Saddam to murder? United Nations The United Nations has been used as a tool by those who oppose actions in Iraq. But not once, during Clinton's Iraqi conflict, ask why not get U.N. approval? Bombing raids took place despite U.N. approval. The same countries: France, Russia and China were against the raids. Hmmmmm. Again America teamed with Britian to bomb Iraq. What not even a coalition of the willing? At least Bush should get applause for that, no? Of course not. He also ignored the U.N. on Kosovo. Now many are ready to crucify the president because he may not get approval as well. But this president has made a great effort to gain U.N. and congressional support. In October, resolution 1441 was adopted and it gave inspectors one last chance but warned failure by Iraq to comply would bring severe consequences. What happened to that resolution? Bush wanted Blix to answer one question. Is Iraq complying? That is it. Months later we get Blix claiming Iraq is "actively complying". Does that mean they are fully complying? If 20 of 130 Al Sadoud missles being destroyed sounds like full compliance then sure. Otherwise 1441 has been largely ignored. The U.N. has done little to prevent crimes against humanity in the past. This is the same U.N. that admitted failing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. The U.N. has a recent history of failures dealing with dangerous regimes and groups. They don't have my confidence. Just-War? The church again has been used as some kind of moral leverage to gain support for the reluctance to stop Saddam. Of course everyone is entitled to their enterpretation of their religion and I respect that. The Pope feels the war is not necessary. The Pope is one of the more respectible men in this world. A figure of hope and peace. The last war the church supported, and that one reluctantly, was against Hitler. And I apologize to the Clinton Crew too but the church did not support Clinton's raids of Iraq and Kosovo either. But support was large for these. I supported them as well because I felt Clinton meant the best. I simply am pointing out the inconsistencies those who support those conflicts and that of the one now. Again I respect the church of course since I attend it every Sunday but the Just War theory can be used just as well to justify this conflict. For one, the Just War theory asks if success in war is feasible. And so forth. It would be easy for me to partake in the Bush bashing and sceam the war is motivated by greed. But for me, its easier if I discover my position with coherent reasoning and answer questions that have been on my mind since the war talk has begun. I respect the position and opinion of other people. Supporters and non-supporters of action. Rockets and Nets is looking very good so I'm out.
All of the known human species live on this one blue planet. If we screw it up we are in a heap of ****. So far we really haven't had to evolve very much from the tribes of the primordial planes. I join up with you and we kick that other guys ass and take his stuff. But we will join up with that other guy if the people across the valley come to take all our stuff and so it's been for 100,000 years. But now were getting to the point where you can't really do as much of that because weapons of mass destruction make the impact exponentioally greater amd extinction is now a real possibility. I personally think the only way we will avoid a catastrophic future is through the formation of a federation of democratic states that deal with each other through diplomatic cooperation and together support the liberation of all peoples exixting under tyranny. The United States can not oust all the dictators that exist in the world today, but we can oust Saddam Hussein and we can do it now. If the rest of the so called free world would get off their hypocritical asses and help, we could probably do it without actaully firing a shot and the United Nations would look like a real force for good on this planet. Actually , I think it's Ok that democracies make their own decisions even if if they don't always agree with the US. I just don't think the right PR has been emphisized to these people. We are not attacking Iraq ,We are liberating Iraq. They need to understand the world has to get a new plan, We work together to curb WMD's or we are going to go away with the dinosaurs War is terrible thing but so is living under tyranny (left wing or right wing). And so is living a growing threat of genocide from a tyrant with a proven propensity for it. And for me Religeon has no bearing on the issue. Tolerence and an adherence to general ethical code seems doable. Isreal knows it will have to eventually abandon the settlements to the Palestinians and support their autonomy; so what's the hold-up? Do it now or get no more American aid. Then they can wall themselves off from Palestine completely if they want. The Holy Land will have to be autonimous also , like the Vatican. Personally , I would let Disney just run the whole thing. The time for action has come. We cannot afford to wait any longer . Al Queda was/is first, then we take out Saddam . Then Kim Il Song, and we will have to have the world help to liberate North Korea. The any other tinhorn tyrants. Russia has come around, Iran will come around, China will come around eventually. There is a real chance, but not if we don't act.
My question is, are you using the results of this thread to decide which side of the fence you are going to go?
Back the United States or get the hell out of this country, especially if you are part of the population that reaps the rewards of living in a free society, and is from that part of the region. I understand it's a sticky situation, but we have no choice. It's either back our leaders or go **** yourself.
Roc, so you are calling me in essence "un-patriotic". It is my right to criticize our r****ded leaders and going to Iraq isn't protecting that right but taking part of it away...
X-pac, I nominate that for post of the year. Very informative, and states the case a lot better then George W has done. DD
I know, especially since this BBS is just so overwhlemingly liberal that we forced Clutch to only allow one new conservative poster a month. Even though he himself is conservative, the liberals outnumber the conservatives so bad, he had to concede. Yes to the original question.
