[doseyclwn]

I realize I'm opening myself up to massive flames for this. That's fine. Let me start off by saying I am not a demonstrator, I am not trashing the Bush Administration. I am not in ANY WAY affiliated with Al Sharpton, The Dixie Chicks, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Streisand, or the French. My position on the war is pretty much a Libertarian one (see Libertarian Party Opposition to War in Iraq (http://www.progressiveaustin.org/lp_iraq.htm) ). I love this country, will willingly go to war if called, and will defend this country with my life if need be (although my guess is that if they start drafting 32 year olds, we're in trouble). It really bothers me that it seems the most vocal of those speaking out against war are pretty much idiots, and do not speak for me. I do not want to be associated with them. I love this country, but I am against war in Iraq.

Well, that's my rant. Flame on, fellas!!!

[Chipperman]

I would say that we would not have to go to war if:

1. Saddam surrenders power and turns himself over for War Crimes Trials
2. The UN is allowed to continue weapons inspections
3. A new government is installed in Iraq

Since that ain't gonna happen, I guess Johnny's going off to war!

[tyme]

"Kilroy in Iraq - Part Deux"

[TallPine]

Is there anyone here who is not for Immediate War against Iraq???

Would it matter ... ? :)

[David Scott]

Let me join in. First off, I want to say that I think Hussein is a piece of worthless totalitarian scum, but it's not our responsibility to overthrow him. The Iraqi people are the ones to do that.

I dislike preemptive-strike mentality. The basic argument for war is that Hussein might do something nasty, so let's bop him first. Oh, my, he has weapons of mass destruction! Maybe, but he doesn't have a hundredth of the total WOMD stockpile of the US military. Are we taking the position that we can be trusted with nukes but others can't? Sounds like the argument that only cops should have guns.

I suspect that this whole war thing is a distraction from the current administration's dismal handling of domestic & economic affairs, and its inability to create a foreign policy that does not involve the expenditure of ordnance and the deaths of our uniformed personnel. I also see it as a stalking horse for a lot of other agendae -- like the recent announcement that the unrest in the oil-rich Middle East justifies waiving environmental concerns to drill for Alaskan oil. Not surprising, coming from a President owned by the oil industry.

I am also disturbed by our evolution toward a police state in the name of "homeland security". What ever happened to the Constitution?

What worries me most, though, is the mindless, rampant jingoism. Too many people see anyone not thristy for Iraqui blood as demonic traitors. Do the French object to our policy? Well, they can't have any kind of arguable position, they can't have points worth discussing, because they don't agree with us. they must be sniveling cowards, terrorist sympathizers and worthless degenerates. Let's boycott their products, let's expunge the word "french" from our language, let's go dig up the cemetaries of two world wars and disturb the resting places of valiant soldiers, regardless of any anguish we may cause their familes, and drag those honored remains back home just for the sake of insulting those demon French. (What'll you bet that Dubya won't fund plots and reinterment services if those remains are brougt back?)

We are no longer the United States of America. We are the DisUnited States of Lynch Mob. I'm afraid that after this post, millions of "patriotic" zombies will boycott Scott paper products. Fine. I hope they find themselves without toilet tissue at a critical moment.

[MPFreeman]

This war does not fall under the "Pre-emptive" doctrine. Sorry. A cease fire was agreed to in 1991. Saddam has broken that cease fire agreement.

Enough of this "Pre-emptive strike" crap already. Same goes for North Korea.

[Gary H]

You can't put a force large enough to threaten Saddam in an area about to turn into a desert frying pan and keep them there until Saddam decides to cooperate. Another eleven years of obfuscation will not do. Stop using the term 'inspectors' and call them what they are 'verifiers." Without Saddam's help they won't find his weapons. The French want to stall until we can no longer afford to maintain troops. The French pushed for Blix vs. a more aggressive individual. They have been interested in status quo.

Here is status quo:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31500

Short of having a base in this area and attempting a non-sectarian democratic model state in the region, how do we, long term, fight this war on terrorism?

[Graystar]

I oppose a war on Iraq for a very simple reason; Iraq has not attacked us.

In this country you are procecuted for acts committed, and innocent until proven guilty. That is, the State cannot limit your rights (by putting you in jail) until it is proven that you violated the rights of other in some way. This is due process.

Attacking Iraq because of what they *might* do is the same as putting people in jail without due process. It goes against a basic principle of this country.

It is not our place to judge another country's government acts. We certainly don't let anyone tell us what to do. We should not be telling other countries what to do.

If Iraq ever attacks us then we level them just like we did Afghanistan. Until then, we should stay the hell out of there.

However, having said that, I think there is an argument, that goes back to the Gulf War, that Iraq is in violation of the agreement that they entered into. If that agreement allows for military action in case of violation, then I can see going in under such a clause. But they really should have done this many years ago.

[JPM70535]

Let me say right off, I do not think war is good, and the last thing I want to see is for this country to get in to a protracted war with a bunch of 3rd rate religious zealots who see nothing wrong with terrorism as a legitimate form of warfare. I have a son who is prime age for military service and I would not care to see him, or any other parents sons and daughters sacrifice their lives needlessly.
The problem, however, with not squashing this pipsqueak dictator and his so called army now is that the longer we wait, the more likely that their WMD will be used on either the U.S. or one of its allies. I don't subscribe to the turn the other cheek philosophy. Some say that Iraq is not the most dangerous opponent we face at present, citing N Korea. While that may be true, The North Koreans did not contribute to 911 and while they certainly have no love for our country, their main concern is S. Korea and China. Left alone, (but monitored closely) The Koreans will settle their differences with each other and eventually reunuite ala the Germanies. The Iraqis have one other difference that bears mentioning. They control vast supplies of Petroleum and can create havoc in the civilized world at any time they so choose.

The only logical solution to the problem is the elimination of Saddam and his cronies and their replacement with a more moderate and stable government. IMO the time to defang Iraq is now. Hit them hard and fast and without restriction as to targets of oppertunity.

Sorry if I seem to ramble, I guess it comes from getting older.

[Pilgrim]

If you wait for an attack by Iraq, you will be waiting for a long, long time.

In 1986, Libya was the acknowledged host and supporter of terrorism. After President Reagan sent the F-111s and the Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft after Qadaffi, he has been meek and very quiet. I wonder why. If we had waited for a direct attack by Libya, who knows what mischief Qadaffi would still be up to?

It is nice to be noble and say we are the good guys. We won't attack until attacked first. Just what it is it that will qualify as an attack for some of you people? Wasn't the World Trade Center enough? Wasn't the attack on the Pentagon enough? Wasn't the attack on the USS Cole enough? Wasn't Pan American Flight 103 enough?

You will never see Iraq take credit for those and other attacks because Saddam Hussein isn't a fool. He knows how to use clients and agents to their best effect and still be able to deny responsibility. Just like the Soviet Union used North Korea to attempt a takeover of South Korea in 1950. Josef Stalin provided the equipment and money, and later China provided the soldiers. North Korea couldn't have done squat without the go ahead from the USSR.

Saddam Hussein agreed in 1991 that he would give up his weapons of mass destruction programs and would submit to inspections. He continues to stall and obfuscate. Is that much different from Germany and the Treaty of Verseille after World War I?

After Hitler came to power he renounced the Treaty of Verseille and rearmed Germany. The British and the French did nothing. Hitler reoccupied the demilitarized Rhineland and France did nothing. Hitler's generals were terrified that France would kick their butts over the Rhineland. Hitler knew different.

We ended up with World War II because the leaders of the League of Nations gave Hitler everything he demanded. Austria, Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia. Emboldened, Hitler thought he would get away with Poland. He was wrong. But by that time the German military was much, much stronger, and in a better position to fight. Had Hitler been more patient, allowed the military six more years to prepare, we Americans wouldn't have had England as a staging area to invade Europe. We also would have been alone against Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Now, are some of you people willing to let Saddam develop his weapons of mass destruction, which he has already proven capable of using on his own people? A man who has apparently also proven capable of killing his own family members if they show any signs of being disloyal to him? I hope not. Because he will never confront us directly again. He will provide Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and any other terrorist group that hates us with all the weapons they need to sneak across our borders with Canada and Mexico. And he will laugh his backside off as Wall Street becomes radioactive slag or entire cities are quarantined because of some terrible epidemic.

Do you still want to wait for an attack?

[hansolo]

Well, Pilgrim, you nailed it! All these folks saying, "...the rest of the world would call us meanies if we hit first.." should increase their medication: Hussein won't disarm or turn into Mr. Nice Guy out of empathy for Anti-War Blissninnies. And, hey, Mike Farrell, et al, from Hollywood: how about sticking a flower in one of Iraq's missile silos...that ought to turn Saddam into a peace-loving guy :rolleyes:

[trooper]

He will provide Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and any other terrorist group that hates us with all the weapons they need to sneak across our borders with Canada and Mexico. And he will laugh his backside off as Wall Street becomes radioactive slag or entire cities are quarantined because of some terrible epidemic.

Nah. He won't, for the same reason why he won't openly initiate a direct confrontation with WMD: he knows that in this case Baghdad will be turned into radioactive waste also.

He is not driven by any kind of ideology, only by his own ego. His sole agenda is survival and staying in power.


Regards,

Trooper

[Sergeant Bob]

Here is a very interesting post by Preacherman
Saddam's ideological background - VERY interesting stuff... (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13596)
It's a long one, but may shed some light on Saddam's motivations.

[trooper]

Even if he does base his actions on some kind of ideology (which I still doubt) he's not suicidal.


Regards,

Trooper

[Ninj500]

The only way I'm for War with Iraq is if it's based on Hussein breaking the terms of the cease-fire agreement signed after the first Gulf War. However, if tomorrow I was elected King my approach to this problem would take a decidedly different path than our last three Presidents. First, I'd increase the production of oil at home and through other sources than the Mid-East, and pull every American troop out of the region. Saddam would run over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, killing, raping and destroying everything in his path. When the Saudis came crying for help I wouldn't jump in right away so they'd know exactly what we defend them from. At some point we'd go back in and send the Iraqis packing and then would dictate the terms to the Saudis. Yes, I know it's all wishful thinking. Yes, I know it will never happen. But it would be nice if it did happen just once.

[Quartus]

it's not our responsibility to overthrow him. The Iraqi people are the ones to do that.

Agreed. You can't force people to be free, and if you think the general Iraqi population is thirsting for our brand of freedom, you have some gettin' educamacated to do.


Are we taking the position that we can be trusted with nukes but others can't?


Yes. Rightly so. The track records on both side are clear.


I suspect that this whole war thing is a distraction from the current administration's dismal handling of domestic & economic affairs,


Dismal handling? Of what? I don't know you other than this post, so I have to ask, are you one of those idiots who seriously thinks our present economy is Bush's fault? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not a blind Bush supporter (or much of a Bush supporter at all) but that idea is too ridiculous to do anything but spit on it.


unrest in the oil-rich Middle East justifies waiving environmental concerns to drill for Alaskan oil.


Let's see, the proposed drilling area is 1% of the preserve. If we spill crude on the entire proposed drilling area - just trash it (which we've never done) - we've ruined, uh, lessee, 100% * 1%, uh, that's uh, 1 %.

So the "environmental concerns" would be, what?



I am also disturbed by our evolution toward a police state in the name of "homeland security". What ever happened to the Constitution?


So are most of us who infest this board, judging by the posts I've seen. Which is the biggest reason I am not thrilled with Mr. Bush.


What worries me most, though, is the mindless, rampant jingoism. Too many people see anyone not thristy for Iraqui blood as demonic traitors.

Buzzword aside, agreed.

Do the French object to our policy? Well, they can't have any kind of arguable position, they can't have points worth discussing, because they don't agree with us. they must be sniveling cowards, terrorist sympathizers and worthless degenerates.

Bad example. It's not that they can't, it's that they don't. And they are all of the above.


Others do have valid points. The French are in it for oil and national pride. Period.



let's go dig up the cemetaries of two world wars and disturb the resting places of valiant soldiers, regardless of any anguish we may cause their familes, and drag those honored remains back home just for the sake of insulting those demon French.


I haven't heard anyone suggest that. If you have, provide a reference. Otherwise we'll just have to regard that as a particularly stupid non sequiter.


(What'll you bet that Dubya won't fund plots and reinterment services if those remains are brougt back?)


:confused: If the American people really wanted that done, why WOULDN'T tax money be used to pay for the care of our KIA?


I'm afraid that after this post, millions of "patriotic" zombies will boycott Scott paper products. Fine. I hope they find themselves without toilet tissue at a critical moment.


Ahh! There was mature discussion at its finest! :rolleyes:


Graystar, I appreciate your point, but I think it's apples and oranges. There's a great deal of difference between criminal prosecutions and the rules of war. We cannot apply the BOR to the battlefield, methinks. We certainly should have good cause, but we can't wait for a jury to give us a unamimous guilty verdict.



Preacherman's post is must reading for any who think Saddam is just interested in power or money. It's very dangerous to underestimate your enemy. One thing that article glossed over, though, is critical to understanding Saddam. He think's he's the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzer, and is destined to rule the world. So giving WMD to terrorist groups is NOT suicide in his eyes, because he KNOWS that he is going to win. He will NOT become radioactive slag, but he will live to see Washington D.C. glowing in the dark. If you think otherwise, you don't know what we're up against.

As for the rest, I think Pilgrim laid it out pretty well. I'm not at all happy about this war, and I suspect there are some wrong motives with some of the administration (why aren't we going after Korea?), but it needs to be done.

It should have been done 11 or so years ago. When will we learn?

Appeasement kills.

[Bruce H]

How can we, as a nation, attack another just because is is run by a dictator infected with meglomania. When we have the likes of Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, and the ususl host of political idiots who are we to point fingers. There are those on the conservative side who are just as nuts as those named. We need to take a long careful look within before we start trouble elsewhere.

[matis]

I'm with Pilgrim and Quartus.

We've got some very sharp people on this board.

Matis

[Atticus]

War is never a good option...but sometimes it is the only option.
This war can happen now, or it can happen ten years from now when Saddam has nukes and Lord knows what else. The inspection may slow him down - but we can't keep 300K troops on his border forever. If they were to leave, he would go back to work at full speed.

The concept of preemption is a tricky one nowdays. The first strike will most likely not be a division of Panzers crossing a border - it may be the detonation a nuclear device that will eliminate an entire city and one-two million people.

[Graystar]

Graystar, I appreciate your point, but I think it's apples and oranges. There's a great deal of difference between criminal prosecutions and the rules of war. We cannot apply the BOR to the battlefield, methinks. We certainly should have good cause, but we can't wait for a jury to give us a unamimous guilty verdict.

Um.....what battlefield?

*That's* the point.

[Baba Louie]

Should the present administration decide not to prosecute the war, what do you think the next administration (shudder) will do about the situation?

Other than roll over and plead, "It takes a village. Saddam, please don't do that to those Kurds or Israeli's, now that you have your French built Russian financed nuclear plants on line and are producing weapons grade plutonium, along with your new intercontinental super-SCUD's you got from NK/PRC, m'kay?"

"You are a valued part of our village. In fact, since Libya is in charge of Human Rights in the UN, we need another strong Islamic leader such as yourself to control the, oh, say, uh, Energy, yeah, you can call the shots on Oil (or sumpin like that). Give Bill a call, he'll set you up."

This man is a powerful, dangerous idealist who has killed to get and stay in power. He wasn't elected by popular vote or an electoral college. What need does he have for nuclear weapons? What need do we some ask? To them I say, "Are you kidding?"

Perhaps we should leave him alone and let Israel, his people and Saudi Arabia deal with him. He probably can't do much more harm; after all, he's getting up there in years. (sarcasm, big time)

As for our firing the first shot, did anyone read anything about Iraqi AAA/missles firing on US and UK aircraft in the North and South No-Fly zones these past few years or was that just my fevered imagination? And tell me again, why do they need French Nuke plants capable of producing weapons grade plutonium?

GWB will not always be in the Oval Office. Who sits there next and how he/she deals with situations like North Korea/China, Islamic Terror Cells, Palestine/Israel, I have to ask (rhetorically); would it be better to deal with them from a position based on strength and some virtue or appeasement and vacilation?

Whereas I can't say that I know, judging from the past president and gauging the world's behaviour on this issue, I'd really rather back our current president with his present mindset, right or wrong and not worry about having friends based on being a nice guy.

I'd rather our true friends base their friendship on our being right and our being strong. For some strange reason, I think GWB is right. We're already in that theater dealing with the Al-Qaida, we need to send Saudi Arabia and their ilk (Iran maybe?) a little stronger message (do you like the $2.00/gal gas now?... just wait)...

We don't need to P.O. China by dealing with NK right now since WJC gave PRC all kinds of rocket science. We can deal with them economically in due order...

The UN... is a joke if France will continue to veto everything placed before them... It truly is a 21st century chess game of immense proportions... Its not just about Iraq; does anyone else think that France is a little too big for their britches, and that they would not hesitate to once again help those who desire to eradicate the Jews from the face of the planet... and perhaps help bring the USA down a notch or two?

I could be wrong, but I'm placing my bets on GW.

I used to fear the concept of his fathers New World Order, but looking at whats happening around the world, I do think its time that the nation founded by GW, JA, TJ, JM, et al, along with their ideals, needs to rise above the maddening crowd and form a group with better direction than the UN has to offer. Whats that quote about all it taking for evil/bad people to prosper is for good people to do nothing? Libya in charge of Human Rights? France still on the S.C., promising veto after veto?

On a negative note, I do not believe that having Halliburton, Brown & Root standing in the wings to deal with the Iraqi oil fields after the fact is a politically sound manuver, and wish GWB would reconsider it. I feel its wrong, very wrong. It looks wrong and forms a sound basis for anti GW/Iraqi war II logic. Its true that both they and Bechtel are qualified, but so is BP, Shell and others.

Stay tuned. This will be an interesting week or two coming up.

Adios

[Fatelvis]

What is "Jingoism"?

[Standing Wolf]

I think we should have solved the Iraq problem over a year ago. Better late than never, I guess.

[Joe Gunns]

"Jingoism" a political epithet thrown around by folks in the 1800's and early 1900's who felt US should keep its hands off the affairs of other countries. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, was a labeled a Jingo for his activities as asst sec of the navy in preparing same for war with Spain, and as president his Big Stick philosophy, the Roosevelt Correlary to the MOnroe Doctrine, and sending the (Great White) fleet around the world to show Japan we could be a power player in the Pacific. Anti-Jingos thought results of such activities were same as colonial expansion of Europeans and not behavior worthy of a nation "set to be a shining example."

I basically agree with Pilgrim, Quartus and Baba Louie,with minor quibbles.

Think about this:
What if the US had used its small window of opportunity between the time we developed The Bomb and Joe Stalin got it to follow the advice of war-mongers like Patton and assume the role we had gained economically - be Boss of the World. (Yeah, I know that is a grossly simplistic assumption.)

Imagine there was no cold war;
It's easy if you try.
No "wars of liberation."
Millions do not die.
-with aplogies of John Lennon.

If not us, who?
If not now, when?

Joe

[gburner]

Wake up folks...we've been at war with these thugs for the better part of 25 years now. Though not in pitched battle nor isolated to one country, the fighting has been largely contained to the Middle East...until 9/11. Over the years the enemies have taken on many incarnations but always had the common thread of nationalistic megalomania clothed in Islamic fundamentalism.

We now face the realistic possibility of
attacks in our own country that are inspired, funded, supported and encouraged by the likes of Saddam. He will not rest until he does our country
grievous damage, either directly or by proxy. Further, he will burn his own house down around him in order to cause as much disruption and damage as possible. He will attempt to disintegrate Israel in order to widen the war to a general religious slaughter.

We must deal with him NOW, using the most massive force, short of nuclear weapons, available to us. Forget the French; they are a minor player from a bygone era in which 'cold war' strategic
formulations have now become obsolete.

Upon taming Iraq and installing a 'west friendly' coalition government of Islamic moderates and Kurds, then we will have Iran caught in a pincher between our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the real fun begins in ridding Iran and Saudi of their rats nests of Islamofascism. :fire:

[bedlamite]

I think we should have solved the Iraq problem over a year ago. Better late than never, I guess.

Make that 5 years ago, when they threw out the inspectors.

It would be futile, but I still think we need to bill the UN for patrolling the no fly zones for the last 12 years.

[KP95DAO]

I would like to know the military backgrounds of those here who have spoken out on this subject. Not necessarily just yours, but also your family history. I think it has great bearing on what most people think.
My paternal grandfather was gassed with mustard agents by the Huns in WWI. His son, my father, and two of my uncles served in the Pacific during WWII. Despite having spent nearly two years in the pacific, including three major sea battles, my father could not bring himself to talk much about it. The ribbons and citations did all the talking.
I lost a favored cousin during the defense of Khe San. His family was never the same afterward.
One of my sisters and two of my brothers and myself spent three to six years active and one brother 16 yrs in the reserves fighting the Cold War.
My youngest in currently in AIT and will finish in Sept. His unit has been activated. He is in the reserves. They have told him not to make any plans for after Sept.
Given all that as my background, I believe this is a just undertaking. It should have been done during the first Gulf War. My wife fears for what the future holds for her youngest. I hope for a quick and decisive battle with as little loss on both sides as possible.
The fact that some of our "friends" in the world community have abandoned us does not lessen the justification of our actions. It just lets us know that not everyone who claims friendship is a friend. A pox on them and their house!

[fallingblock]

I may be wrong as well, but G.W. certainly looks like the best chance we've got to fix the problem;)

Appeasement kills, it really, really does. Despite the pathetic and misguided hopes of the 'peace' movements:barf:

The problem should have been dealt with earlier, indeed. :rolleyes:

There is still a window of opportunity to correct the errors of the past, if our nerve doesn't fail us. I hope G.W. can pull this one off before the blissninnies shout it down:uhoh:

Agreed about the negative propaganda value of using U.S. corporations in the rebuilding phase, but they are well qualified-
the anti-U.S. folks will still hate us if BHP or Shell did the work; and even more U.S. tax-dollars would depart the U.S. economy.

Summary: I hope this all turns out as well as it has the potential to. The sooner it starts, the greater the chance of success.

[suvdrvr]

Pilgrim is right on. Also, Saddam believes he is King Nebuchadnezzar reincarnate. His goal is to unify the Arab states under his rule, i.e. his invasion of Kuwait and advance on Saudi Arabia. If we leave them alone, they won't play nice and leave us alone. My hope is that with the pressure excerted by the US someone with some Kahunnas in Iraq will expend 39 cents and put a round in the dictators mellon. Its a shame that he is being reinforced by the media coverage of the anti American demonstrations throughout the World. At least this shows to the world how impudent the UN is.

[DeltaElite]

We need to attack, settle this matter and then take care of North Korea.
I don't want a war, but the dangers posed by allowing this to continue in both Iraq and North Korea far outweigh the dangers we face by attacking.
Just my 2 cents.

Besides, my gas prices are way too high. ;)

[Blackhawk]

KP95DAO wrote:
From where do you speak?
I would like to know the military backgrounds of those here who have spoken out on this subject. Not necessarily just yours, but also your family history. I think it has great bearing on what most people think.
My paternal grandfather was gassed with mustard agents by the Huns in WWI. His son, my father, and two of my uncles served in the Pacific during WWII. Despite having spent nearly two years in the pacific, including three major sea battles, my father could not bring himself to talk much about it. The ribbons and citations did all the talking.
I lost a favored cousin during the defense of Khe San. His family was never the same afterward.
One of my sisters and two of my brothers and myself spent three to six years active and one brother 16 yrs in the reserves fighting the Cold War.
My youngest in currently in AIT and will finish in Sept. His unit has been activated. He is in the reserves. They have told him not to make any plans for after Sept.
Given all that as my background, Your background is irrelevant even though you know and of some people and relatives with war experience and have family members subject to it. However, you yourself have not been personally "in" a war.

My background is that I was drafted after college, volunteered for flight training during advanced training, and spend two combat tours in Vietnam. I lost many friends over there and have since adopted the inescapable philosophy "You can survive a war, you just can't get over it."

There's not a single day and seldom never more than a few conscious hours that Vietnam does not enter my thoughts.

Then you said:

I believe this is a just undertaking. It should have been done during the first Gulf War. My wife fears for what the future holds for her youngest. I hope for a quick and decisive battle with as little loss on both sides as possible.
The fact that some of our "friends" in the world community have abandoned us does not lessen the justification of our actions. It just lets us know that not everyone who claims friendship is a friend. A pox on them and their house!I agree completely.

A person's military background or lack of it is irrelevant to critical thinking and analysis of current dangers we face as individuals and as a nation.

I'm as opposed to unnecessary wars and military adventurism as any pacifist you can find. But as the Preacher said, "There's a time for war and a time for peace." This, I believe, is a time for war.

My own rant after decades of reflection is that we in the U.S. are privileged to have first class accommodations on this spaceship earth unlike some 94% of the rest of the people we travel with. Not only do we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, it is in our enlightened self interest to do so lest they rise up and destroy us.

Viewing our history, I'm exceedingly proud to be an American for far more of our actions than those which are shameful. Deposing Saddam will, I am sure, be once again an action causing future generations to be proud of the U.S.A.

[Dave Markowitz]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely convinced that taking out Iraq is the right thing to do at this time. That's because while we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, Iraq isn't the largest backer of those fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein is a member of the Ba'athist Party, which is secular and socialist, two terms you don't generally associate with radical religious fundamentalists.

In contrast, our "friends" in Saudi Arabia run a radical fundamentalist (Wahabiast) Islamic regime, and provide large amounts of funding to similar groups throughout the Muslim world. It is these Islamists who have been at war with us since the 1970s, who bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, and who attacked us on 9/11/01.

More specifically, Bin Laden's boys who hijacked the airliners on 9/11 were Saudis , backed by Saudi money. The Saudi government has yet to be held accountable for its complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

The Ba'athists are not nice people and are not our friends. However, they are not the main enemy. The Wahabiasts are and need to be dealt with accordingly.

[Baba Louie]

Al Haig said we should have attacked last week.

Let the UN do their thing.

We formed it with only 50 countries, those being the ones who fought against the Axis of 37-45, Germany and Japan excluded at the time.
It has since become a quagmire and I still don't know what France really had to do with winning the war except giving us a beach or two to land on and a target rich environment. I'll never understand politics.

The idea of a war on the land mass of Asia is not a pretty picture, no matter how you shape or slice it.

Get in, decimate the enemy, eliminate his force and his ability to make war, destroy the infrastructure and get out! Repeat as required. Do not hold territory or play suzerainty games. Kill the snakes, drain the swamp and hope the alligators aren't up to your...

Then get ready at home. Cause sure as christ made little green apples, they'll come a'callin.

Kinda like Jeremiah Johnson. You never get a real good nights rest and all the things you love get destroyed.

Nobody wants a war. Except Saddam.

Here it comes. Hope its what he wanted, cause I think he's gonna get it. He may die a martyr, but he'll at least be out of the way and we'll deal with whoever's next when we gotta.

Jingo what?

Adios

[Chris Rhines]

I'm opposed to war on two general principles*. War makes the government more powerful, and there are always a bunch on individual liberties that get flushed when the drums start playing. War is also very expensive, and I have better things to spend the money on.

I'm specifically opposed to the war in Iraq because I'm a believer in the non-aggression principle as both a personal and a national philosophy. The planned invasion of Iraq would violate this first principle of human behaivor.

- Chris

* - Show me a war that the .gov won't use as an excuse to turn the screws on our cohonies, is funded by the people likely to benefit from it, and involves the defense of me and mine, and we can talk.

[fallingblock]

You could have sold the Pre-WWII Germans on two of your three points:)

And they would have reckoned the 'tightening' was for their own good.:uhoh:

[Chris Rhines]

Fallingblock - how so?

- Chris

[David Scott]

Quartus asks for backup on the notion of removing remains of US service people from French soil:

From the St. Petersburg, Fla., Times:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Brooksville Republican, sought cosponsors Wednesday for a bill to allow families to bring home to "patriotic soil" the remains of fallen soldiers buried in France and Belgium.

So far, only U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R.-Ill., has joined as a co- sponsor of the bill, which could affect the families of 81,172 soldiers interred in 14 U.S. military-operated cemeteries.

"It is respecting the wishes of the descendants who are American and who may be offended" by France's position, Brown-Waite said, noting the removal would be voluntary. "They'd be speaking German if it wasn't for Americans."

Here's how Brown-Waite pitched the bill, which she calls the American Hero's Repatriation Act of 2003:

"Millions of dollars a year are collected by the French Government and French businesses from patriotic Americans visiting their loved ones who gave everything in defense of the French during WWII," she wrote. "It is not right that American citizens are compelled out of respect for the fallen to support the economy of a country who has turned its back on us and on their memory."

[Blackhawk]

I'm specifically opposed to the war in Iraq because I'm a believer in the non-aggression principle as ... a personal ... philosophy. Are you now, Chris?

I thought you carried a gun to protect yourself and your family should you or they become involved in social situation where violent criminal behavior was threatening you or your family.

Is that no longer true?

[fallingblock]

Hitler's proposals were ' funded by people likely to benefit from it'...or at least they thought so enough to vote Adolf in.

and, it 'involved the defense of me and mine', from the perspective of the members of the 'Aryan culture'.

it wasn't even too difficult to persuade the volk to allow the installation of 'cajone-screws'...

:uhoh:

[Bob Locke]

The thing I'd like to see is some consistency.

North Korea represents a MUCH larger threat than Iraq ever could hope to. Where are the troops massed along the DMZ?

The leadership of China has spoken in the past about its ablilty to basically wipe out the Pacific Coast, but we continue doing business with that country at a massive deficit. We're helping them get stronger, and there have been numerous reports by the DoD over the last dozen years pinpointing China as the single largest threat to our nation's long-term survival.

My lack of support for a war against Iraq is due to the larger fish that we have to fry, the fact that Hussein in no way represents a credible threat to the U.S., and the fact that we are once again injecting ourselves into a nation that doesn't want us there.

We're rapidly becoming the British Empire, and it's going to cost us. Our "big kid on the block" manner of conducting foreign policy got us 9-11-01, and I suspect that there will be more, larger events in the not-too-distant future.

There are NO white hats in this mess.

[Double Naught Spy]

Personally, I would rather there not be a war. There are pros and cons to both sides of the issue, but I would really like it better if we didn't have to risk the lives of soldiers and support folks.

That being said, I have absolutely no qualms about backing Bush and troops if the decision is made for war. In fact, if it is decided, then I sincerly hope that they take advantage of all available resources to bring it to a speedy and successful conclusion.

[pax]

Blackhawk,

Do you really not know what the Non Agression Principle (NAP) is? Or are you just baiting Chris? Either way, I'm surprised.

The NAP states that it is wrong to initiate force against another person. Just that, no more.

This is in no way inconsistent with carrying a gun to defend oneself and one's loved ones against those who initiate force.

pax

The price of liberty is, always has been, and always will be blood: the person who is not willing to die for his liberty has already lost it to the first scoundrel who is willing to risk dying to violate that person's liberty. Are you free? -- Andrew Ford

[Thumper]

Depending on the particulars of the situation:

If I become convinced that someone is about to attack me or a family member, I'll cheerfully initiate force...especially if the individual has a history of roughing up the neighbors.

Action beats reaction. I understand that that's a slippery slope, but I'm comfortable with it.

[Blackhawk]

Do you really not know what the Non Agression Principle (NAP) is? Or are you just baiting Chris? Either way, I'm surprised.

The NAP states that it is wrong to initiate force against another person. Just that, no more.

This is in no way inconsistent with carrying a gun to defend oneself and one's loved ones against those who initiate force.
You're not nearly as surprised as I am by your response, pax!

Are you saying that when that guy ran into the back of your van, that if he came storming up to you in an intense rage with murder and mayhem on and spewing from his face that you would let him take the first shot, blow, whatever against you before you retrieved your CCW and used it?

The NAP is Non Aggression as in NO aggression as in aggression will not be tolerated. Once aggression is evident, then the NAP cannot be presumed to be applicable.

Now, what several people are exercised about is that they think that Iraq has not displayed aggression toward the U.S. so the U.S. should not be in a retaliatory, responsive, or neutralization posture, and that the U.S. is in a "first strike" mode toward Iraq. If that were true, I would agree with them, but it's not true.

An incomplete aggressive action by a nation or individual that is not repented of is merely pending. Saddam has agreed to repent and demonstrate to the UN that he has neither the intention nor capacity of waging further war against his neighbors, including the U.S. Nevertheless, he saw and took the opportunity to assassinate GWH Bush on his post presidency visit to Kuwait. Iraq has continually attempted to shoot down our aircraft patrolling the north and south no-fly zones it agreed to in the 1991 cease fire. The list goes on and on.

If a person informs me that he has malevolent intentions toward me and acts in concert with those intentions, he has shown that a state of aggression exists between us and any NAP does not apply. He is a threat, and he has shown that he will harm me should he get the chance. NAP or not, he will not get the chance if I have any sense and the ability to foreclose his options. It doesn't matter if one minute or several decades pass. My avowed enemies do not get a first strike opportunity if I can prevent it.

[Khornet]

as Dr. Johnson said,

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

[Khornet]

You can imply all kinds of ulterior motives in Bush's position. Oil, power, revenge, 'mass distraction', race hatred, phallocentrism, anything you like. But that's not debate, and deserves no respect.

Mr. Rines, now--HE debates, although I think he's wrong, and he thinks the same of me.

C.S. Lewis invented a character named Bulver. Whenever Bulver got into an argument, he would respond to his opponents points by imputing motives as above. That is, he never answered the arguments. Lewis liked to say something like "First, show me how I am wrong. THEN, and only then, you can have all the fun you want explaining how I beleive what I do because I want oil, or I'm a hater, etc."

We have no time for Bulverism, and unfortunately, most of the antiwar voices are those of Bulver. The precious few I 've encountered who have made a real case have all been here at THR.

[Baba Louie]

I don't think that there's anyone here or anyone I've met who says or thinks "Hey, Todays Sunday, lets go to war with somebody because we want more power, their land/resources, we don't like their religion/color of hair and eyes or the way they speak and dress"

Correct me where I'm wrong here someone, please.

Back in the 80's, Iraq decides to build a nuclear power plant with the help of his french buddies, all the while berating the Israelis and telling them just what he's gonna do to them when he gets the chance.

Their reply was brief and to the point in extremis. No mincing of words there boyo. No negotiation... action.

About that time Iraq invaded neighboring Iran. Why? Oil. Also the Baath didn't like the Shiite.

Iraq also invaded Kuwait way back... when was it? 90? ... Uh, why? Oil. They (S.H.) claimed the land is theirs thus invasion was justifiable. Saudi Arabia got a little nervous, didn't have the ability to stop them, called in the cavalry.

Just how did Saddam get elected to his dictator for life position? I dunno, maybe somebody just said "Here Saddam, You run Iraq for awhile. I'm tired"

After the 91 fiasco, we kept some troops and equipment on Saudi soil. This upset who? Usama bin Laden, a Saudi and a few others.

Upset them enought to set a group against various American embassies, the WTC I, WTC II, USS Cole, etc.

Meanwhile back at the farm, Saddam had decided to stay in the position he'd so dearly won and agreed to rid himself of this and that, to allow the UN proof of same. Right.

He WAS forced into the no-fly zones, because he kept trying to rid his nation and the world of a group of his own citizens who chafe under his rule. As a result of his exemplary behaviour the two no-fly zones were imposed by the big bully USA backed UN.

Also, meanwhile back at the farm, sanctions were imposed as a method of leverage trying to keep Iraq's regime from playing the bad boy. Kids start starving and dying because of the US, not because he does the thing he agreed to do, but because of the evil great satan and our imperialistic warmongering.

Also, back at the ranch, Saddam calls his french buddies and ...shhhhh... lets build some more nuclear toys, we have two towers destroyed, the pentagon attacked and Islams are cheering in the streets everywhere.

sigh. sigh again.

Except for the last WTC attack, what did our nations last esteemed leader do as a result of the above, most of which occurred on his watch?
Bosnia?
A cruise missle or two?

What will our next esteemed leader do? You all know whom of whence I speak?

France is becoming assimilated into the Islamic way of life, if what I'm hearing and reading isn't all propaganda, in that the influx of muslim aliens is almost overwhelming and they vote to their religion's benefit. Russia is having fits with their Islamic satellites. Indonesia and now the Phillipines are seeing more unrest in their Islamic groups.

The chickens are coming home to roost and if there's a certain Rooster with nuclear capacity, you won't be eating too much chicken in the future.

Islamic nations are nations typically under the color of their religious laws. Sometimes you get to create your own party and call it Baath, based on Islamic fundamentals.

GWB is wrong, I feel in trying to spread Democracy into a religious intolerant states where women are less than men, where the ideals of freedom as espoused by Jefferson, Locke, Adams, Henry, Franklin, Madison are anathemic to the teachings of Mohamed.

Its simply time to put the bully down. Isreal knew it back in 81 and they did what they had to do. How many Americans even know of that action? Or care? Its old news.

As for North Korea and their nuclear capability. The end of WWII saw the Americans on the south end of that peninsula with the Russian occupying the north half. The post war boundary was decided to be the 38th parallel. Japan had been there pre 45. China has been to both sides during 50-53, now they and Russia (I guess) help hold the northern end.

Our gov't deploys troops there as the Korean incident was never really settled and our economic blessing has helped the south to thrive beyond the north's wildest orgasmic dreams. I believe they, like China sees Taiwan, feel that if they can't develop it from within, they'll take it by force. Or more than likely, wait and have it handed to them on a platter, ala Hong Kong, if they have the proper leverage. Our last president gave them whatever they cried out for, whenever they cried out.

This president is a different type of man. A different type of leader. He is from Texas. He thinks a bit differently since he has been a businessman, a fighter pilot, stable in his relationship with his woman, his family.

When playing chess, sometimes the obvious moves must wait while a strategy elsewhere on the board is developed to occupy the opponent. The bad thing is, your opponent is doing the same thing to you at the same time. Our move.

Adios

[fallingblock]

Mr. Rhines does indeed elevate the standard of debate at THR.

Bulver is the media's exemplary 'hard-hitting journalist':uhoh:

[CZ-75]

If we didn't already have the momentum, I'd say "no." We could probably put a $100M reward out to kill Saddam, train insurgents and, more importantly, arm them (Of course, Afghanistan shows potential problems with this; the Turks wouldn't much like it if those insurgents were Kurds.). All this is much less certain than direct militaty action.





"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

Wasn't this Emerson?

[Quartus]

Attribute any high falutin' name to it that pleases you - it's still a stupid, smart alek sophmorism passing itself off as deep thought.

If you are inconsistent, you are illogical.

[Abe]

I'm with Pilgrim and Quartus.

Saddam may be alot of things but stupid ain't one of them. Those who think that we can't\shouldn't pre-emptively strike are living in the past. He's not going to say something bad to us, slap us in the face with a glove, and challenge us to a duel. He knows we can kick his butt nine ways from Sunday. Only an idiot picks a fight he knows he will lose. Saddam is no idiot. He knows he can win, or at least continue to strengthen his position, using the one “weapon” that he hasn’t had to spend any time or money to research and develop: World Opinion. Take an ever increasing lack of common sense, add a cup of affluenza, a tablespoon of moral equivalency, and stir briskly with the inherently liberal-biased round-the-world\round-the-clock media and Saddam’s got himself quite a weapon. While it’s certainly not a WMD it will do until he can finish up his real ones.

NK is the reason we need to deal with Saddam now. The world doesn’t need two tinpot dictators with nukes. Do you think that Saddam isn’t envious of Kim Jong Il’s position? Do you understand that our approach would be very different if Saddam would have shown ol’ Dan Rather his first pet nuke?

We’ve all seen this movie before. History is full of failed examples of appeasement. The key difference is in the past the problems that were caused were local and could be contained. The stakes are global now. How many cities do we have to lose before it is ok to strike? One, two, three, four...?

- Abe

[Blackhawk]

Well said, Abe! :D

[Chris Rhines]

Blackhawk -

Re-read what Pax said. Try to understand it this time. And again, if you can show me how attacking Iraq can be possibly construed as self-defense, we can talk.

Khornet -

I appreciate the sentiment.

Fallingblock -

I'd have to say that you are wrong on both counts. Unless the Nazi regime was supported by voluntary donations, there were probably at least a few Germains who disagreed with Hitler's genocide program. It's exactly the same as the present war in Iraq - the majority of US taxpayers may support the proposed war, but I don't, and I pay taxes as well (just finished them yestersday.)

As for wiping out the non-Aryans being justifiable self-defense, well, I'm sure that the Nazi regime portrayed it as such. That does not, however, make it true, and it speaks poorly of the citizenry of Germany that they bought it*. Again, the parallels between Nazi Germany and the present day are signifigant**.

- Chris

* - Althought I can understand that a German who opposes the genocide program probably couldn't speak up too loud if he wanted to keep breathing.

** - I'm not implying that Bush is a Nazi. Relax. You could draw similar parallels with the majority of wars, police actions, and border skirmishes throughout human history.

[Quartus]

Oh, Abe, don't be so melodramatic! I'm sure one city would be enough for most folks!


:rolleyes:

[Khornet]

isn't one N. Korea enough? We got it by 'diplomatic engagement'. Now we're supposed to make the same mistake? It's possible to be consistently stupid.

[Quartus]

Possible? Khornet, it's become the American Way! :(


Did anyone notice that Neville Chamberlain's name does not appear on anyone's list of heros of the 20th Century?


There's an interesting article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/197abanc.asp) on the subject over at The Weekly Standard. Some wishful thinking in it, but still informative.

[Abe]

Ya’ know Quartus I’d like to agree but I'm not so sure that one would be enough. Based upon the irrational bloviating on the part of the anti's that we've seen in the past months they probably still wouldn't believe it. Some would say the government did it as part of a power grab. Others would admit it happened and say we deserved it. Still others wouldn’t believe it until they had a certified bill of materials with the complete genealogy of each part including country of origin. Oh and don’t forget the old stand-by “Israel did it.”

We’ve taken enough hits to get over the NAP. If by some very strange turn of events Saddam isn’t directly or indirectly supporting and encouraging terrorists and is really just a terribly misunderstood person who really means well and whose heart is pure as the wind driven snow than we’ll owe him an apology. He can get Johnny Cochran to sue us for defamation of character. I guess that’s just a chance we’ll have to take. By the same token, when (not if) we get finished with him and when (not if) we find all the stuff (and God forbid he doesn’t get a chance to use it on us first) that he’s not supposed to have and more, would it be unreasonable to expect public apologies from all the whiners?? I suspect we’ll hear crickets chirping…

Let’s Roll.

- Abe

[Blackhawk]

Chris Rhines:Blackhawk -

Re-read what Pax said. Try to understand it this time. And again, if you can show me how attacking Iraq can be possibly construed as self-defense, we can talk. Don't you think that maybe I did read and reread what pax said since I responded to it, Chris? My response to her has not been answered or refuted by pax, you, or anybody else.

And no, I don't think we can talk. I asked you a simple question in a polite and collegial way. You apparently chose not to answer, but instead choose to hide behind pax's skirt.

If you want to talk, answer the questions propounded to you. Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.

[bogie]

I'm not looking forward to a war. I am, however, wondering just what the heck we're paying the CIA for...

[sw442642]

I was originally against the war as I though Bush was ignoring other threats such as putting the Saudis in their place.

I change my mind as I am convinced that the idea of using a stable Iraq as a base for change in the whole region is a good idea - if it works.

I also found the reasons for opposition to the war from antiwar organizations to be American hating trash. I respect those who don't want the war for real reasons but not this Cumbaya crappola. I also saw how the war brought out the anti-semities of the left and right. Recently another major gun forum has a set of such scumbuckets who hate Bush, are against the war and hate Israel and Jews.

Thus, we should take Saddam down and spent the treasure to bring the country into the modern age.

[Drjones]

Does it exist?

Or would I be better off looking for a unicorn?

Really.

I honestly want to hear opinions from the "other" side.

[Jesse H]

All I've heard are, "but people will die."

Gotta break eggs to make an omelette, no?

"But I don't want an omellete."

:banghead:

[S_O_Laban]

Well Drjones, I'd imagine that to some "ignorance is bliss". So I hope your wearing your flame proof skivvies becouse some of the "blissful folk" are sure to fire up the ole flame thrower:D :D

[Sisco]

I know it is something that must be done but I'm still uneasy. I can think of a couple of reasons not to yet I can come up with more reasons why we got to.
Maybe it's because I'm a "child of the sixties" but a war makes my hair want to grow. It started growing during the Gulf War but it was over so quick it didn't even make it down to my collar! Hope this one goes the same way. :rolleyes:

[chaim]

A real reason to be against this war?
Does it exist?
I don't think so, lets look at some of their arguements:

-"We will set a precedent. We have never fought an "aggressive war" before.":
What about Panama or Grenada? Iraq poses more of a threat than they did (training and funding some terrorists, haven for some Al Queda, WMD). What about the Mexican-American War? Spanish-American War? US intervention in Central America in the 20's? Vietnam was us aiding one dictatorship that was attacked by another, after the one we aided went against an agreement to participate in an election to re-unify the country when it was clear the Communists would win (I'm not saying that was right or not, just we fought for a side that was rejecting a nationwide democratic vote, though likely the last democratic vote they'd ever have). How about invading Cambodia (sp?) during the Vietnam War (militarily it was certainly the right thing to do, the N. Vietnamese were in the wrong by using Cambodia to resupply, but we certainly sent troops into a neutral country)?

-"So what that they are in violation of UN resolutions, so is Israel!":
Well, we fought a war w/ Iraq and they agreed to disarm as part of the cease fire agreement (they were to destroy their stockpiles w/in 45 days, now 12 years later we are still waiting). When did we fight such a war w/ Israel?

Also, Iraq is clearly in violation, Israel is more of a gray area. The currently popular interpretation that Israel was told to leave all the territories is false. That language was debated and rejected specificially because no one (except some Arab nations who lost the vote) wanted to call on Israel to leave all the territories. The language was that they were to leave "territories" (not "the territories") and withdrawal to internationally accepted and defensable borders (the specific borders were to be negotiated and no one believed the original cease fire line from the War of Independance to be reasonably defensable). Iraq dragged their feet on disclosing their WMD (something they had to do w/in 45days under the terms of the cease fire), they never let the inspectors have free reign (something that was required by the cease fire), they didn't destroy all WMD (again, req. by cease fire), they continued developing them (again, a voilation), etc.

Anyway, non-compliance alone doesn't lead to military action, being a threat and/or ignoring a cease-fire resolution may.

-"So what if they have WMD? So does Israel.":
And which one do you really believe poses a greater threat to us or their neighbors? Give me a break! Additionally, Israel having Nukes isn't against international law while Iraq having them would be. Iraq willingly signed the Non-Proliferation treaty, which means they take on the responsibility to NOT develop such weapons (and signing a treaty takes on the force of international law). Meanwhile, Israel never signed onto the treaty since doing so would legally proclude them from developing such weapons (and when surrounded by hostile nations that outnumber you by orders of magnitude doing so would be a very poor strategic decision). And again, there is that cease-fire thing.

-"We need a resolution":
We have them, plenty of them. The original authorization of force that led to the Gulf War called for certain goals that weren't achieved (Iraqi disarmament). The cease fire terms (written into several resolutions) called for disarmament and have been ignored. There have been several more thoughout the years. More recently the one that led to the most recent inspection scheme indirectly alluded to consequences for non-compliance.

Also, whatever happened to US sovereignity? Since when do we need UN approval to do something? Was Panama approved by the UN first? Grenada? Vietnam?

-"We need to give diplomacy a chance":
What do you think it will accomplish in the next few months that it couldn't over the past 12 years?

-"We are unjustified":
How so? If breaking the cease fire agreement, attempting to assassinate a former president, firing on US and British planes, indirectly and directly aiding terrorists (maybe, maybe not w/ Al Queda, but there are training camps there, they do give money to terrorists and their families, they do harbor them- what was the name of that major guy who recently died there, big Al Queda guys there for medical treatement, etc.) isn't justification what is?

[Drjones]

chaim:

Hush up with your logic, you!!!

;)

[Baba Louie]

OK Drjones, I'll try and step up to the plate for you...

"ahem..koff koff, ahem"... "Is the microphone on?" tap, tap, tap.

" Uh, um, I'd like to, um, say, uh, Becaaaaaaaaaaaaause, Waaaaaaaaaar is Baaaaaaaaaaad"

"ahem. um."

"uh, Thank You"

Its easy for me to sit here and make fun of antiwar-sheeple-people, but I know that in their hearts they think they're just as right as am I. Except that, as a kid, I did stand up to two different bully's and got the tar pounded out of me. They left me and my newfound friends alone after that, but kept picking on other kids. Such is life. Lessons learned.

We all know that going to war should be the last thing on the list. In this case I think it was. You cannot placate dictators, only defeat and oust them and only if you are strong enough and have the will to commit to an unpopular act that will get men killed. That will get some of YOUR men killed.

My God people, what American President in his right mind would send his sons (figurative speech) off to war to possibly get killed unless he knew it was a just cause?

Maybe its not a just enough cause for some. I think that it was overdue.

The real mess will come from the aftermath of this victory; placing a government back in power. Babylon has never had a democracy. Ever. Kings and chieftans. Democracy? Hah! A democratic republic with a constitution?

But I'd bet dollars to donuts that President Bush won't have to worry about that except in retirement. I doubt he'll survive all the blissninnies and the democrats in the next election.

By making a hard and correct decision, many a great man sealed his fate.

War is bad. Victory, on the other hand, when coupled with right, is fine.

Then there's still the Security vs. Feedom fiasco created by the politicians back here at home to deal with. I don't fear Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists; its the elected officials here who'd disarm everyone and curtail what few freedoms we have left that need our attention. So while the jarheads, dogfaces, airedales and squids do their thing over there, we'd best get busy on the homefront, so that these fine men and women have a real America to come home to, methinks.

Adios

[Thumper]

A real reason to be against this war?

There a quite a few, as evidenced here among certain members.

A blind hatred of Bush.

A blind hatred of the U.S.

An attempt to subjugate U.S. autonomy to the whims of the U.N.

A desire to be "different." Some folks equate different with special. We've all met 'em.

You get the gist.

[illuminatus99]

the only thing I can come up with is that the war is going to cost a lot of money, that 70 billion they're planning on spending could be better put to use bolstering our shaky economy, it would be much cheaper and faster to send in a few of the really nasty guys and just get rid of saddam. in the end we really just want him gone so why not do it quickly and quietly?


other than that I really see no reason not to start rolling some abrams in there.

[fallingblock]

covered most of the main reasons, although the blissninnies will never admit to 'hating' the U.S.; their claim in denial is that they are just trying to make it 'better'.

How one improves a nation by compromising its ability to act in its own defense and deferring crucial decisions to an international body with an absolutely horrible record of mistakes and errors-in-judgement seems not to enter the mind of the anti-war folks.

I hope G.W. hasn't wrecked his chance at another term; but I admire him for standing to the task at hand.

[cslinger]

The biggest reason is the fact that so many will have to pay for something they really didn't start. Civillians will die, so will soldiers who really don't want to be there in the first place. Loss of life is never something to take lightly never.

I do think this is something that needs to be done. I do believe Saddam and his like are evil and need to be dethroned and even cleansed from the gene pool. I also believe in the use of overwhelming, lightning quick violence to both shock and break an enemy quickly. In the end this will result in far less casulties on both sides.

Say a prayer for all the poor schmucks who get caught up in somebody else's war though. It needs to be done but I see not being happy about it. It's like cleaning the toliet, nobody wants to do it and nobody is happy about it but it needs to be done from time to time.

I am always looking at places like IRAQ and wondering how can a place with so much wealth treat the average joe or habib as it might be so poorly.

Saddam and his like are rabid animals who need to be put down. I don't like it but it needs to be done.

Don't tell Sheslinger that I really do have heart and let my Ghengis Khan / Kill em all let God sort it out demeanor falter for a moment.

Chris

[cslinger]

Those blissninnies have every right to say what they wanna say and jump up and down and yell it from the top of their lungs. That is what this country is all about. Whether you agree with them or not.

Now when they start actually disrupting things by vandalizing 9/11 monuments or trying to cause problems then they become traiters and lawbreakers.

I don't know what is wrong with me today. The rain, little sleep, a great range session last night.....but I am apparently rather mellow today.:(

Chris

[MK11]

I'd still like to know why George Sr. didn't finish him when he had the chance. While I certainly think the world will be a better place without Saddam, "Getting rid of a dictator" is a pretty hypocritical argument considering the U.S. supported Saddam against Iran for most of the 1980s (and supported other dictators like Noriega and Somoza until they became inconvenient). There are plenty of legitimate reasons to get rid of Saddam but this administration has run the most ham-handed pr campaign ever.

Iraq has definitely harbored terrorists (the bigwig who committed suicide in Bagdad last year by shooting himself four times in the head was Abu Nidal, not Al Queda, but it's tomato, tomahto with those creeps). Hit them hard and fast, then actually set up a decent infrastucture after Saddam is gone and the rest of the world will shut up.

[synoptic]

I'd still like to know why George Sr. didn't finish him when he had the chance.

It had something to do with keeping balance between different social groups in the region, the results of removing Saddam at the time would be far worse (theoretically) than leaving him in office.
I think the biggest problem people have with the war is it is Bush's idea. They are still sore about their whiny candidate losing then embarrassing himself. What I am worried about is going into a war without nearly 100% backing from the american people, we don't have a great record with this type of situation in the past.

[kikilee]

It appears that if we (and our ALLIES ) don't "stand in the gap" no one is willing to. I, for one, support our President. I support our troops. I am proud to pledge allegiance to one nation under God.
While, I think we can all agree, war is a terrible journey to embark on, diplomacy has FAILED with Saddam. It is now time for another course of action. As our troops pick up their weapons and head down the path of war, I ask that God bless them and keep them safe, God bless our president, and God bless America!




When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.......LUKE 11:21 NIV

[Sean Smith]

For the curious, here is UN resolution 1441.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Nobody who is honest can say that its requirements have been met by Iraq in any sense that matters.

Someone could make a reasonable argument against war with Iraq. But such a thing is pretty rare. Comparing Bush to Hitler is more common. :rolleyes:

“The U.S. is acting unilaterally.”

This is on the face of it false. In Europe alone, the United States has the openly declared support of 18 different governments for its policy against Iraq. Can a Latin expert tell me how to write 18-lateral? 24-lateral? 36-lateral?

“Inspections are working. Just give them more time/more inspectors/etc.”

Again, this is an objectively false statement. Quoting chief inspector Hans Blix himself, “The results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far.” Considering that “so far” has been about 12 years, that is quite a statement. Furthermore, no one (to include Blix) is disputing that Iraq has failed to account for the destruction of known, massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

UN inspections work great… when the country being inspected wants them to succeed. This happened in many cases, such as in the Ukraine and South Africa, who sought international confirmation that they have no weapons of mass destruction. The whole inspection regime is based on the premise of cooperation, not opposed investigation. Meanwhile, Colin Powell played audio recordings of Iraqi officials talking about how to fool inspectors. How anyone can state that “inspections are working” under such circumstances boggles the mind.

As was the case in 1990, Iraq only makes concessions when threatened with force, and at the last possible moment, and to the most insignificant degree possible, in order to foster disunity among his foes. This is only a sign of “inspection progress” if you ignore everything that has happened in the Middle East in the last 12 years. For the rest of us who ever read a history book, such behavior is a transparent ploy.

“Iraq is not connected to international terrorism.”

Now we are getting to the really big whoppers… abject stupidity or bald faced lies. Take your pick. Before Al Qaeda there was the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the international terrorist group responsible for hundreds of killings around the world. Not only was it actively supported by Saddam Hussein over the decades, but it is headquartered in Iraq to this day, making it in effect an extension of the Iraqi regime itself. Iraq also, of course, publicly subsidizes the indiscriminate killings of Israeli civilians by various Palestinian terrorist groups. None of the above is disputed by any remotely credible source.

“Iraq does not support Al Qaeda.”

Of course, merely being a state sponsor of international terrorism isn’t enough to rouse some people to action. They say, in effect, “we only care about the terrorists that most recently tried to blow us up, not the ones that tried to blow us up earlier but weren’t as good at it yet.” This is, of course, an extremely silly position to take. But even if you believe that, it doesn’t matter, because Iraq has, in fact, actively supported Al Qaeda. There is ample evidence supporting this claim, assuming of course you aren’t actively trying to hide from reality.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.

Then again, if you are determined to believe that Colin Powell, who historically has always opposed rushing into armed conflict, is making all of this up in order to justify a headlong rush into war, then I don’t know what to say. Well, actually I do. Consider the following coincidence as the cherry on top of the sundae: immediately before the 9/11 attacks, Saddam Hussein went into hiding… completely disappeared from sight. Of course, you can read into that anything that you like. But to quote an intelligence officer I worked for, “coincidences are for suckers.”

“The war is about oil.”

Sure it is, for the FRENCH. For the United States, which gets the vast majority of its oil elsewhere, it is a peripheral issue at best. Using oil as a premise, we need to invade Canada and Mexico before we invade Iraq. Soon your burritos and funny little round bacon will be ours, too! Are you scared of American imperialism yet?

If all we cared about was oil, and Iraq poses no real threat, then why not lift the sanctions? Iraq would bust all the OPEC price controls to sell all the oil they could (hey, even French tanks are expensive nowadays!), and world oil prices would fall like a rock. Of course, low world oil prices would bankrupt U.S. oil producers, who due to higher labor and extraction costs can only make money when world oil prices are high. And wasn’t Bush supposed to be the puppet of American oil companies? Oops.

Then again, some poor souls are worried that Bush will outright give all the Iraqi oil fields to American companies. What a great idea! Except for the small problem that the last time that was attempted in the Middle East, the countries the wells were sitting on promptly nationalized them all. What a great investment that would be! Assuming, of course, you don’t mind an investment idea that makes most junk bonds look like a sure thing. I’m sure Exxon would love a deal where they could invest billions of dollars to get oil wells up and running, so they can all be promptly nationalized by Iraq.

“Iraq isn’t the biggest threat. Why not go after North Korea?”

This is basically a weasel-word evasion of the Iraq issue, since nobody in their right mind would invade North Korea if they had a choice. Nobody will dispute that North Korea is ruled by a scarily insane regime that wipes its bottom on international law whenever it gets the chance, has a leader that makes Stalin look like Teddy Roosevelt, and makes a hobby out of scaring the living crap out of everyone in Asia whenever there is a full moon. The problem is that North Korea is a hell of a lot more dangerous than Iraq is, precisely because we allowed a crazy dictatorship to develop weapons of mass destruction unchecked for 50 years. The fact that North Korea is a dangerously uncontrollable mess is hardy justification to leave Iraq alone to become… a dangerously uncontrollable mess.

“All war is immoral.”

Of course war is immoral. That’s why it isn’t called, “the really nice international group hug activity.” But the question isn’t if war per se is a good thing, but if it is not as bad as the alternative. If you could ask the people Saddam Hussein gassed, or the people burned alive in the World Trade Center towers, if there are things worse than going to war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, I wonder what they’d say.

“Bush is just doing it for votes.”

Remember his dad? The one who lost the election after winning the most lopsided military victory in all of history? Just checking.

“Protesters are just exercising their Constitutional rights and acting according to their consciences.”

Sure. I fully support anyone’s right to non-violently protest anything, no matter how stupid and misguided they are. You can protest against granola for all I care. I would suggest, however, that if you want any credibility you don’t join protests whose principle organizers are, literally, communists and rabid anti-Semites.

“The UN has to support military action to give it moral authority.”

An interesting idea, when you consider the track record of the UN itself.

“The international peace movement isn’t vastly hypocritical.”

The problem with the statement is that you have to consider who and what in recent history WASN’T considered worthy of protest by the same folks that denounce Bush as a Nazi, baby killer, etc.:

Saddam Hussein, who has invaded Iran and Kuwait, and used chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens, and sponsored international terrorism, and violated UN resolutions continuously for about 12 years;

The Communist Chinese government, which runs over its citizens with tanks;

The North Korean government, which considers it reasonable to reduce its population to actual starvation in order to develop a huge chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal aimed at Seoul, and as a hobby periodically threatens to start World War III;

The Taliban government of Afghanistan, which sponsored terrorism on a vast scale, and committed atrocities of every description against the Afghan population;

The governments of Iran, Syria, Libya, and other open sponsors of international terrorism;

The various Palestinian terrorist organizations, which consider blowing up Israeli school buses some kind of glorious resistance to oppression;

The chaotic genocidal wars that periodically take place in Africa;

President Clinton’s own bombing of Serbian cities, with attendant civilian casualties, and his abject bungling of operations in Somalia, that cost both American and Somali lives unnecessarily.

None of these were considered worthy of “massive” international protests (with admittedly overstated turnouts). Meanwhile, just the possibility of going to war against Saddam Hussein (known terrorist sponsor, two-time invader of his neighbors, violator of international law, and gasser of his own population) is protested wildly as some kind of uniquely evil Imperialist warmongering. :rolleyes:

Naturally, to believe any of this nonsense you have to have strongly held prejudices against America in general, or maybe Bush in particular, that are heavily protected from the burdens of objective reality and quantifiable evil. I have no quarrel with anyone who has a conscientious, rational opposition to American foreign policy. If you have a sensible objection, bring it. But don’t expect to fool people with the abject nonsense and outright raving idiocy that dominates most anti-war positions.

[DeltaElite]

I like unicorns. :D

Cowardice is the only reason people are against it.
Ignorance is no longer a valid defense for anyone, since the facts have been presented so clearly.

[Lord Grey Boots]

Its also easier to understand the war if

You are a member of the Stalinist Workers World Party (Hard line communists) and object to anything the US does.

You are a member of an organization that believes in the destruction of Israel (various PLO front organizations), and object to your major sponsor being removed from power.

You are a member of Saddam's Bathist party, which is based on some weird Machiavellian pure race concept (sounds like a blend of the occultish bits of Naziism and Stalinist ideology), and truth is whatever you need it to be now in order to achieve your goal of world domination.

[twoblink]

People are against it because they only think of the "possible deaths and suffering if there is war", 9/11 is not in their memories and they don't think about "the possible deaths and suffering if there is still a Saddam"...

[D_Burchfield]

drjones,

Have you found your unicorn yet? You might try looking in the world of make believe and "lets pretend land". The anti's are only concerned with their "one world" views, which of course is a place found in literature...like the Communist Manifesto.:banghead:

[CZ-75]

I'd still like to know why George Sr. didn't finish him when he had the chance.

I heard that Saddam threatened to use WMD on Israel should we take Baghdad, so rather than have Israel retaliate and the muslims turn their guns toward Israel (possibly us), Bush Sr. ordered a halt.

[Oleg Volk]

My main reason is that pretty much every government uses wars as an excuse for domestic oppression. Read up on what transpired during WW1 and WW2 in the UK and in the US.

OTOH, this war can be viewed as saving a hostage population from terrorists and making us safer from the same perps. If that view can be substantiated, then at least there's a point to the whole process. I don't have enough info on that theory yet.

[Sleeping Dog]

Why am I against this war?

Because it's the wrong enemy.

Almost all the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

The leadership of Al Quaeda was mostly Saudi.

Hijacker money was traced to Saudi royal family.

So, we attack Iraq?


I'm not really against the war, I just think we are aiming in a slightly wrong direction.

Regards.

[Quartus]

I think we can all agree, war is a terrible journey to embark on, diplomacy has FAILED with Saddam.


I can't really agree that it failed. Diplomacy never had a chance with Saddam. It never does with his kind. That's what the blissninies don't understand.


Yes, we do need to make an honest effort at it, and we might be pleasantly surprised once in a while, but living in a fantasy land is not in ANYONE'S best interest.

[firestar]

Cowardice is the only reason people are against it.

Whaaaa?

If someone is against the war, they are a coward? I find it odd how people who have nothing to fear and are not in any real danger themselves are so willing to send others off to face danger. Is it brave to send others to die? I am not going to have to fight either way so how is it cowardice to be against the war? Would you be willing to die for this war right now? Would you feel it was just and noble if your son died in this war? Would you think that his life was worth sacrificing to get Saddam?

I wouldn't trade one American life for Saddam. He is trapped, he is no threat to us, let him stew like Castro for the next 50 years. Who really cares about the people in Iraq? I don't really care about the Kurds or the ****e Muslims, they don't care about us. Leave them alone and let them sort it out themselves.

[Desert Dog]

He is trapped, he is no threat to us, let him stew like Castro for the next 50 years. Who really cares about the people in Iraq? I don't really care about the Kurds or the ****e Muslims, they don't care about us. Leave them alone and let them sort it out themselves.

That is a fine thought process... until the first nuke detonates in say, Los Angeles or New York...

Then is WILL get sorted out... and how many people will die?

[Lord Grey Boots]

In today's world, distance doesn't mean much.

A few hundred years ago, an ocean, a river or a mountain range, or even a few hundred miles was enough to keep you safe from a potential enemy.

Thats not true any more.

Saddam could rather effortlessly smuggle some WMD bombs through Syria, and then onto a ship in Lebanon. That ship could be at any US port in a few weeks.

What would a 500 bio/chem/dirty nuke bomb do at the nearest harbour to you?

The point is Saddam isn't bottled up because the restrictions on Iraq aren't being enforced.

[Chris Rhines]

Interesting article I read today on LRC led me to this.

Is anyone here familiar with St. Augustine's Just War Theory?

Augustine's Just War Theory centers around three principles: just cause, requirement of legitimate authority to wage war, and right intention. All three principles must be in evidence for a war to be 'just.' It's an entirely subjective method of measuring the legitimacy of a war (or potential war,) but applying it to past conflicts yields some interesting points.

Looking at the American Revolution from the perspective of the colonists waging the war -

Just Cause - British theft of private property covers this handily, though there were others.

Legitimate Authority to Wage War - Answering this question is a bit more complicated, and brings in questions of conscription, legitimacy of government, war chest funding, and other such wonders. There was no real central government in place during the Revolution, and as far as I know conscription was not practiced. That seems pretty legitimate to me. Further discussion?

Right Intention - Freedom, at least some version thereof. Works for me.

Now, compare and contrast the proposed (inevitable?) invasion of Iraq.

Just Cause - If there is one, I'm still waiting to hear it. Keep in mind, Iraq has never directly attacked the United States. Iraq's violations of UN resolutions may be just cause for the UN to wage war, but not for the United States.

Legitimate Authority - I'm sure that y'all know by now just how 'legitimate' I think the USG is.

Right Intention - This one is a problem too. Quite frankly, I have no idea what Bush II's intention in perpetrating this war is. Oil? Maybe, but it ain't as simple as straight access to Iraqi oil reserves (the Trans-Afghani pipeline thing, well, I leave that to the tinfoil collectors.) National security? Eh. Bush is no genius, but I doubt that he's stupid enough to think that Iraq is in imminent danger of attacking the United States. The WMD issue? Maybe. My money, though, is on political haymaking, pure and simple. Bush cannot afford to be seen as anything less than a hardcore trans-national tough guy in the post-9/11 world. War is a great way to keep one's poll numbers up. Sad fact of life.

Anyhow, I'm not a Catholic, and I see Augustine's Theory as more an interesting perspective than a firm statement of right and wrong. I'm more than open to further discussion on this matter.

- Chris

[DeltaElite]

Yes I would go fight and possibly die for this war.
I am not willing to die, I will fight like hell and I may die, but being willing to die is a defeatist attitude.
There are alot of paper tigers in this country, who talk the talk, but will not walk the walk.
I see our society filled with cowards who will risk nothing unless it benefits them specifically. All walks of life, all talk a good game, but don't perform when the task comes to be.
I am not one of them.

People lack the courage, fortitude and willingness to do what is right.
If the world had intervened in 1939, this world would be a better place.
We should have finished it in 1991, sadly we have to finish it now.

[Joe Demko]

I see our society filled with cowards who will risk nothing unless it benefits them specifically.

"I will never live my life for another"
John Galt

[Blackhawk]

"They have ears, but will not hear.
"They have eyes, but will not see.
"They have brains, but will not think.
"Like sheep at the slaughter will be their surprise."

[Khornet]

the Just War objection has been taken apart by several good writers. Do a search on National Review Online, and , I think, Jewish World Review.

[DeltaElite]

Too add on.

"They have testicles, but no balls. " :neener:

[Sgt]

Civillians will die, so will soldiers who really don't want to be there in the first place. Loss of life is never something to take lightly never.

Here's my take....

Better their civilians die now...than our civilians die later...due to some WMD....

If it was pretty, they wouldn't call it WAR!!

To my brothers in arms...God Bless You !!!
Semper Fi Sgt

[Khornet]

www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak021003.asp

www.nationalreview.com/10mar03/editors031003.asp

www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-soper031103.asp

Mr. Carter's invoking of the theory is incorrect, as far as I can see. I'm no theologian, of course. Neither is Jimmy.

Or, to put it another way, as one wag recently did: How come the Pope gets all energized over this but didn't do much about pederast priests?

[LawDog]

Multiple threads merged.

LawDog

[Standing Wolf]

Like it, dislike it, or squat down in a corner and write a little poem about it, we've been in World War III since September 11, 2001.

I say we fight it, win it, and treat the vanquished Islamic terrorist states exactly as we treated Germany and Japan after World War II—and the sooner, the better!

[DeltaElite]

Well said Standing Wolf. :D

It's gonna happen, deal with it. :D

[Quartus]

I'm no theologian, of course. Neither is Jimmy.

Mr. Carter's "theology" is a liberal as his politics. His treatment of Scripture is on par with his treatment of the Constitution.

IOW, it's a pliable document which is intended to be molded to the moment.