[telewinz]

Looks like in 10 days or less we will be going into Irag. The evidence Bush and Powell have been talking about will turn-up by the barrel full. Just warn your friends and hold them to account for their irresponsible position on the Irag War. Those against the war are fools, but then they have the right to be fools if they wish.:fire:

[Standing Wolf]

Long before the evidence is in hand, the leftist extremists will have moved on to some other topic. They've been using guerrilla tactics against truth and America for a long, long time.

[4570Rick]

Just warn your friends and hold them to account for their irresponsible position on the Irag War.

Most with those opinions will not change there views even when slapped up side the head with the truth.:(

[Blackhawk]

Keepin' it as usual. :D

[Vladimir Berkov]

Evidence of what?

That Saddam isn't complying with UN inspections? I think that is obvious beyond doubt. I can't think about anything else that is possible to prove, mainly since the administrations other arguments are also equally transparent. Wow, I guess we will FINALLY prove that Saddam is a ruthless dictator! Or maybe, I will get that concrete proof that he has mustard gas!

The administration has yet to make any sort of argument which invasion would need to prove.

[sm]

Keepin' it as usual

[Justin]

I have very little room for faith.
While I have very reservedly come around to supporting US action in Iraq, don't forget, this is not a black-and-white situation (no matter how much I wish it were.)

The Federal Government had their hand in creating the monster that is Saddam. Like when we sold him Anthrax back in the 1980's.:(

[Khornet]

can we get over this "Uncle Sam created Saddam" nonsense? Alliances are made for calculated reasons, sometimes in error, sometimes not. And alliances are always changing. But if you equip someone whom you think is your ally and they then become a threat, you are under no obligation to roll over and die. Or to let others die. That we may have assisted Saddam at one time is irrelevant. There may be reasonable arguments against the war, but this ain't one of 'em, and to base one's opposition on it is to mark oneself as unserious.

[Leatherneck]

Leatherness has a theory that the administration knows something we don't and they can't/haven't/won't admit to the public. Ex post facto, this evidence will be discovered, to the great embarassment of the opposition around the world.

While I'll readily admit to knowing less than the WH, I don't believe GWB could have taken the heat he has to date without letting something slip out, regardless of the consequences for the intel sources and methods. There may well be some serendipitous discoveries of nasty stuff in mobile labs and such after we invade; but I'm skeptical that there are known nasties that we're not disclosing and/or bird-dogging for the inspectors.

In fairness I should state that there have, in the past, been occasions when Leatherness was right and yours truly was *ahem* incorrect. :D

TC
TFL Survivor

P.S. I am fairly certain that evidence of French and possibly German and Russian complicity in Iraq's WMDs will be discovered.

[hammer4nc]

Just warn your friends and hold them to account for their irresponsible position on the Irag War.

Keeping the faith, fine. We can do better than the above admonition, though. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but being opinionated serves no useful purpose, except to lose these "friends" and create further rancor. This isn't like cheering for the super bowl, where the outcome fits within prescribed boundaries...one team wins, and one team loses; and a little good natured "I told you so" can be exchanged.

Assuming the best possible outcome...there will be plenty of constructive things to be done after a war, whether one had supported the war prior, or not. Opportunities for healing.

Assuming the worst possible outcome...(like WWIII nuclear exchanges, North Korea, China, etc.), I'd imagine those who were against the war prior would be holding us to account? How pointless does that sound?

Just my opinion.

[pax]

Those against the war are fools, but then they have the right to be fools if they wish.
Why, thank you. How kind of you to say so.

Actually, I'm not quite against the war, in terms of making a big stink about it. I'm just quietly and thoroughly unhappy about it. I've mostly kept quiet about the war, because while I think it is a Very Bad Idea, I also think (sigh) that since we have threatened and threatened and threatened and threatened, we oughtta carry through with it even though it wasn't such a grand idea to start with.

At this point, I think that if we don't go to war, we will have lost what little is left of our national sovereignty. All this scurrying backandforth and backandforth and backandforth to the UN, hat in hand, asking, "Mother may I?" seems a bit ... desperate. Either we have a just cause to go to war, or we do not. If we have a just cause, we do not need the UN to rubber stamp our plans. If we do not have a just cause, we should stay home.

Flip side, (again sigh) I really don't think we have a just cause against Iraq. If we want to bomb someone, we coulda (shoulda?) bombed the Afghanis or our non-friends the Saudis in the days after 9/11. But attack Iraq? *scratches head* I dunno.

We have made some progress against Al Qaida and will continue to do so. Is bombing Iraq supposed to take care of Al Qaida? I don't see how ... even the Pres has backed away from that claim. Now everything I hear seems to say only that Iraq is a threat to us because it is developing or has developed biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and because its leader hates us.

Guess what. The United States has every item it is accusing Hussein of developing. Every one. And we have plainly said that we hate the gov't of Iraq and want to bomb the snot out of Iraq. Using Bush's logic, under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack, Iraq has every right to attack the US at this point!

Nope, I won't beat the drums of war. I'll just sit here in the corner with my hands over my ears and hope that this isn't WWIII in the making. I fear it is.

pax

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."
-- S. Wilfred Owen

[Blackhawk]

If we have a just cause, we do not need the UN to rubber stamp our plans. True. The only reason for involving the UN is our agreement in 1949, and we're not seeking permission. We're just going through the agreed protocol of diplomacy.But attack Iraq? *scratches head* I dunno.
No problem there either. It's not your responsibility to "know". Think maybe those whose responsibility the safety and security of the U.S. is might "know"...?

How about this? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ratted out a dozen or so Al Quida mfwics in the U.S. that were ALREADY under surveillance. Maybe, just maybe, competent adults ARE in charge in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government...?Nope, I won't beat the drums of war. I'll just sit here in the corner with my hands over my ears and hope that this isn't WWIII in the making.That might be a good plan for you :D

[2dogs]

Maybe, just maybe, competent adults ARE in charge in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government

Well, yeah- the Klintonites left in 2000.:D

[Khornet]

check logic. I have a rifle--does that mean I'm wrong for wanting Malvo locked up?

All are free to oppose the Bush plan. But you need better arguments than that.

[Russ]

Iraq will make a fine base to invade Iran and Syria from which we should do post haste. These regimes are up to their eyeballs in evil and support the very people that came over here and killed 3,000 Americans. Better we take it to them then sit back and wait for another 9/11. I don't give a rip if the Islamic world hates up till dooms day, at least we will have removed most of their teeth.

[stellarpod]

Russ, do you have any idea how many BILLIONS of Muslims there are in the world? I suspect there will be plenty of teeth left.

No one said it would be easy or painless, but those things most worth doing seldom are.

Fortunately, most of those billions are as sick of the fanatical fundamentalist Islamic movement as we are.

stellarpod

[pax]

True. The only reason for involving the UN is our agreement in 1949, and we're not seeking permission. We're just going through the agreed protocol of diplomacy.
Sure we're not.

"We are going to war, regardless," is not the message being delivered to the UN. It's more like, "Please please please tell us it's okay to go to war now. Please."

Agreeing to present to the Security Council is not the same thing as agreeing to be bound by their decisions, but we're acting as if it is. That's just flat wrong, and it'll come back to bite us in the butt one of these days.

Heh. Incidentally, speaking of being bit in the butt. Has no one else noticed that we want to bomb Iraq for "not complying with UN resolutions"? Has anyone else realized that this is a Bad Precedent?
I said: But attack Iraq? *scratches head* I dunno.
And Blackhawk repliedNo problem there either. It's not your responsibility to "know".
Blackhawk, that was what we call a "rhetorical device." I was expressing disbelief in the omniscience of our erstwhile leaders. As you say,
Think maybe those whose responsibility the safety and security of the U.S. is might "know"...?
Frankly, no. I don't. I think that the Pres decided to go after Iraq because Hussein is an obnoxious, overbearing, tinpot dictator with a solid history of staying in office and alive despite the ill will of millions of Americans.

For the record, I think it is firmly established that Iraq has or is developing dangerous weapons, but I flatly refuse to believe that the mere possession of such weapons means that we must initiate a war. Does anyone else even remember the Cold War and why it was cold instead of hot?

How about this? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ratted out a dozen or so Al Quida mfwics in the U.S. that were ALREADY under surveillance. Maybe, just maybe, competent adults ARE in charge in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government...?
Yes, it is good that we are making progress against Al Qaida. So we should bomb Iraq. Huh? I missed the logic, somewhere.

Anyway, I'll go back to being quietly unhappy now. For those of you in the Armed Forces, I do thank you for being willing to go to war on behalf of our country. I appreciate what you do and hope you do it well and come home safely.

pax

I wouldn't worry too much about the redoubtable Taliban forces. We're sending in men, not Washington Post columnists. -- Ann Coulter

[Blackhawk]

Does anyone else even remember the Cold War and why it was cold instead of hot?I remember it quite well. In fact, I spent several years of my life right in the middle of it including a couple of combat tours in a hot chapter of that cold war.

But please, tell me why you think it was cold instead of hot.

[pax]

It was cold instead of hot because we were willing to launch when the Russians launched.

It would have been hot indeed if either side had believed in pre emptive attack merely because the enemy was in possession of dangerous weapons and hated the other side.

And yes, I know there were hot chapters. Point remains, the war was cold.

pax

The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions. -- Robert Lynd

[Blackhawk]

Sweet and simplistic, but not quite, pax.

In the early days we worked out an agreement with the USSR whereby each nation agreed to keep the other more or less informed of its capabilities thereby ensuring that if either nation were attacked by the other, it retained the capability to retaliate. The policy was named "Mutual Assured Destruction," and it rendered nuclear war unwinnable.

Ironically, the only time the US and USSR were in a hot war together, they were allies. Another irony is that the Cold War is the only time in history where two opposing nations developed massive weapons systems designed to use against the other and which were NOT used.

However, the US and USSR did oppose each other many times in surrogate wars.

The pre-emptive strike policy is no different except for magnitude than the SD situations we discuss here on THR. If I perceive that a BG is going to shoot or do violence upon my person, I don't have to wait for him to shoot first because I have a natural and Constitutional right to launch a pre-emptive strike.

Iraq has made no secret of its intentions under Saddam to inflict great harm on the U.S. That's okay. So has NK, Iran, and a bunch of other countries. Likewise many people have threatened me with all kinds of harm over the years, and that was okay too for the same reason the ill will of those countries is okay. None of them had the capability of doing the harm they threatened.

The reason Iraq must be dealt with is that it DOES have the capability to follow through, according to our best information. If we're wrong, all Saddam has to do to prevent our attacking is show us Iraq does not have that capability.

Don't you find it ironic that Saddam is destroying missiles that he says he doesn't have?

I'm not going to or trying to convince you of anything, so I'm giving up. We'll see soon enough anyway.... :D

[Russ]

Stellerpod,

Actually, there are approximately 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. Not BILLONS. You sound like Carl Sagan. Do you realize how many Christians, Jews, Buddists, Taoists or whatever else there are in the world? The point is, who cares. The entire Muslim world can hate the U.S. forever as far as I'm concerned. The Muslims have hated the Crusaders, which is code for Christians, since the 11th Century. So what? They can go on hating the Christian world for the rest of eternity and it won't mean much. It's a tenent of their religion. They may have a few teeth left but they will be filed down or blown off because just as they always have been, most of those countries are stuck in the 8th Century. We can help them out or leave them to their despotic leaders who are happy to have them in the 8th Century.

Russ

[Baba Louie]

War against Iraq? For what?

Didn't SH invade Kuwait back in 90?

Wasn't he then soundly defeated by the Coalition Forces in 91?

Wasn't the major tenant in the denoument that the entire United
Nations agreed upon that he disarm?

Didn't everyone think that was a great idea at the time?

Wasn't it, like, a unanimous vote?

Didn't the next US and UN administration watch as he played his games and ultimately disposed of the UN inspectors to go back home wagging their fingers and muttering vague threats?

Haven't there been some 15 - 17 different UN resolutions since then all saying basically the same thing... Disarm your bizarre killing toys and prove to the world that you did/are or sanctions WILL BE IMPOSED?

Hasn't he flipped the finger to the rest of the world all these years?

Aren't people actually suffering in Iraq because of it (sanctions) and yet, still he plays the game?

Isn't it NOT A GAME?

Hasn't he shown his willingness to use these weapons against Israel (SCUD), the Kurds (his own people, of sorts), the Iranians (we backed him up... oops)... in other words, screw you, I'm top dog and the UN, backed by the only country to actually have big dogs of war with cojones that can do the job, can go suck an egg?

I guess pacifying a bully is OK to some here. I know its causing great distress in my household where GF has decided that the US IS the EVIL ENEMY here.

P.S. Hasn't it also been noted that top Al-Quaida types have conferred with SH's top people in the not so far past, they've trained there, they've lain low there, they're backed up there by SH's support?

I vaguely recall OUR PRESIDENT saying something in mid to late Sept of 01 that countries that harbor....

Oh never mind.

Why waste bandwidth?

Adios

[stellarpod]

The Muslims have hated the Crusaders, which is code for Christians, since the 11th Century. So what? They can go on hating the Christian world for the rest of eternity and it won't mean much. It's a tenent of their religion.

Broadbrush nonsense.


They may have a few teeth left but they will be filed or blown off becuase just as they always have been because most of those countries are stuck in the 8th Century.

8th century jet pilots??? :rolleyes:

8th century soldiers who have more than once proved their ability to survive against overwhelming "modern" odds? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong. This is a war that I believe needs to be fought. And it's one I believe we will win overwhelmingly. But, there is a fair percentage of the Muslim world that also agrees that it's time to see Sadam removed.

I do not subscribe to your only-good-muslim-is-a-dead-muslim mentality. And hopefully, the rest of the thinking world would dismiss it as well.

stellarpod

[Russ]

Stellerpod,

I think you missed my point. I obviously didn't express it clearly and I don't feel like elaborating on it more at this point. Been a long week.

Have a nice weekend.

Russ

[Leatherneck]

Pax For the record, I think it is firmly established that Iraq has or is developing dangerous weapons, but I flatly refuse to believe that the mere possession of such weapons means that we must initiate a war.
That, I wrestle with, is the most cogent summary of the rationale to hesitate right now. :confused:

TC
TFL Survivor