Iraq Rant

[Tarkus]

Sorry, I just need to get this off my chest and this seems like a good place since no one really knows me personally. I'm just curious what you folks think about the following, and I'm going to be blunt.

There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, or the equipment and resources required to produce such. I also believe that anyone who doesn't believe that is just plain stupid. In fact, I would have to believe that even the French and the Germans believe he has them. Many people profess that if you let inspections continue for several months they will accomplish their mission and unearth Saddam's arsenal. Don't these morons see that Saddam is toying with both the inspectors and the useless UN? You'd have to be an idiot not to see that. If he was fully cooperating you wouldn't need any more inspections. He'd say here's what we have, here's where it is, and here's how we destroyed the stuff we used to have. But he doesn't do that. He plays a little game of needle in the haystack. And each time there's about to be a movement for war he comes out with another little tidbit to show his cooperation. BS, he has them and he either shows them or he doesn't.

Now, whether you think we should go to war over the fact that he has weapons of mass distruction is a totally different issue. What I would like to know is whether any of you actually think he DOESN"T have them, and that the inspections can actually find all or even most of them if he does. If people would just up and say he has weapons of mass destruction but I don't think it's right to go to war over them I could understand that. But for people to think he doesn't have them, or that inspections will somehow uncover a significant portion of them is just absurd. What do you think?

Tarkus

[Havok]

Amen!

I agree 100%

[Airhog]

I think that even if tomorrow we were shown overwhelming proof that sadam didnt have weapons, we would still go too war.

[Chief Rum]

And I think that even if we were shown overwhelming proof that he has them and intends to use them at some point in time in the future, there would still be a sizable group of people (i.e. Democrats, French, Germans, etc.) who would paw at the ground uselessly and continue to oppose war and to appease Saddam.

Chief Rum

[Airhog]

isnt this eeeirly simliar to the results that produced ww2?

okay alot has changed and saddam is no hilter, but its remarkable how easy people forget that ignoring a person like this will cause a problem to go away. Doubly so for N. Korea, because that guy is nuts running the country and he does have a sizable army.

[ACStrider]

Airhog,
I would add to your statement by saying that Saddam IS comparable to Hitler. Consider this...Hitler didn't conduct air attacks against civilian populations until Berlin was bombed. Saddam fired countless scuds at Israel in the Persian Gulf War despite the fact that Israel didn't retaliate or initiate conflict. Also consider this...true, Hitler was the underlying reason for the concentration camps which killed millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and political opponents, but I would contend that Hussein has killed/tortured/massacred a greater PERCENTAGE of his population. I don't have the numbers to back this point off the top of my head, but I do know Hussein's actions have resulted in the deaths of over a million within his own country.

[andy m]

don't devalue your argument by comparing saddam to hitler. it just makes you sound silly.

saddam is a fuck, but he is no hitler. educated chaps on the radio have said he has modelled himself more on stalin.

but I do know Hussein's actions have resulted in the deaths of over a million within his own country.

as have economic sanctions. are the people that imposed the sanctions hitler-esque too?

[Chief Rum]

Uh huh, yeah. Those sanctions are whose fault again?

Oh wait, lemme check the ole history book. Yes, that't it, the U.N. invaded Kuwait, and Iraq came heroically to the embattled nation's rescue...oh, umm, wait...

I love it when someone will make the inexplicable comparison of deaths caused by sanctions brought upon a country by its own actions against its use of WMD and brutal internal policing and torture on its own people.

And you call the Saddam-Hitler comparison out of whack? BTW, Stalin was no saint either, you know. I hardly think you are advancing your argument much by switching from a Saddam-Hitler comparison to a Saddam-Stalin one.

Chief Rum

[Easy Mac]

Tarkus, while I find your argument intriguing in the original post, your options are too narrowly defined. I'll agree he has WMD (though those are also vaguely defined in a lot of cases), but allow me to present my case.

You give the following:
We inspect and find them.
We quit and go to war.

I think the third option is (and the one most who are against the war prefer, you just mainly hear from the extreme wackos, much like on the conservative side with many other issues) we continue inspections as long as humanly possible.

As it seems now, we constantly have Saddam on the run, so it is highly unlikely he is creating any kind of weapons, and at least theoretically we have a shot to find them, although I will agree it is very slim we will. However, inspections work as long as we use them, and use them as much as we can, not the half-assed way we did for the last decade.

I would much rather sacrafice 1 billion dollars in searches for as long as Saddam is alive than even 1,000 (a small estimate, but I don't want to be too dramatic) of my fellow Americans in battle (or, if Afghanistan, 900 in training, 100 in battle... to my military friends, is training truly as dangerous as it seems? An honest question). I can't say everyone else is willing to make this sacrafice, but to me this is the much better alternative.

Also, about North Korea. Does anyone else think we're getting played over there. I can understand the reasons not to invade (they'll fuck up Japan and some other people), but by waiting, aren't we fucking ourselves for later?

We've already lumped them in with Saddam, so there is no reason for them to believe we will not attack them at some point. By delaying this as we are, we're giving them time to build even more nukes. Lets say Iraq drags on for about the next 6 months (not out of the question). then we'd need another 6 months or so to prepare for North Korea. By that time they could have another 5-6 nukes (they have 1 or 2 now, correct). Who says if pressured they wouldn't fire. Or even if we tried diplomatically, whats to stop their leader from using them anyway? He doesn't care about putting his own people in harms way, so why would he care about it later.

I think the longer we piss around over there and do absolutely nothing (and we are doing absolutely nothing), the more we'll get pissed on later. I don't know what to do about that situation, but it definitely isn't getting better by ignoring it while we tie ourselves up in Iraq for a year.

[Airhog]

I said there was a comparison to be made between the two. However, that connection simply on a basis of the similarites of world turning its back and not willing to do anything while saddam continues to build up his arsenal. He doesnt have the manpower or the resources that germany had to wage a war like ww2.

[Malificent]

We're "ignoring" North Korea, like we've been "ignoring" the War on Terror. In other words, I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes that is not being put up for public display.

Iraq may be front and center, but that certainly doesn't mean the U.S. is ignoring everything else going on.

I think the longer we piss around over there and do absolutely nothing (and we are doing absolutely nothing), the more we'll get pissed on later.

The above quote holds true for Iraq too. The inspectors are not making progress. The missiles which Saddam destroyed? Classic Saddam bait and switch, since he mentioned the missiles in that huge 12,000 page report. He wasn't hiding them, he just waited until the pressure was high to destroy a few to get people to back off for a while longer, buying himself more time to hide and/or create more WoMD.

If you wait as long as humanly possible, and it turns out we *still* have to go to war, a lot more American troops are going to die because Saddam will be better prepared and possibly better armed.

[Easy Mac]

But the inspectors are doing something. You think Saddam is still able to make weapons right now? You think the mobile engineering thing, or whatever we think he has, is actually conducive to making those weapons?

And if we wait as long as humanly possible, Saddam will be dead.

But the longer we wait in the NK, the better chance we'll have of 10-100x as many US troops dead as we *could* in Iraq.

[Bee]

I think the biggest threat that Saddam poses is that he could give WMDs to terrorist organizations to use against us or our allies. I don't think inspections will stop that threat, but covert operations may reduce the likelyhood of something like that happening. The question is what level of risk are we willing to accept.

That being said, I think North Korea is a much greater threat. There seems to be a focus on terrorists and the fear that Saddam will give them weapons, but that's not the only threat out there. North Korea is led by a freaking nut! JMO, but the threat from NK scares me a lot more than the threat from Iraq.

[Mustang]

Originally posted by Easy Mac

And if we wait as long as humanly possible, Saddam will be dead.

Worked with Castro..

He should be dead Annnnnnnnnnny minute now.

*taps watch*

[Mustang]

Originally posted by Bee
I think the biggest threat that Saddam poses is that he could give WMDs to terrorist organizations to use against us or our allies. I don't think inspections will stop that threat, but covert operations may reduce the likelyhood of something like that happening. The question is what level of risk are we willing to accept.

I think Saddam is more of a threat to that region of the world and to his own people.

I just hope that, if one day, Hillary Clinton is elected president that other nations will invade the United States to free us from that regime....

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Bee
I think the biggest threat that Saddam poses is that he could give WMDs to terrorist organizations to use against us or our allies. I don't think inspections will stop that threat, but covert operations may reduce the likelyhood of something like that happening. The question is what level of risk are we willing to accept.

I'd say there is also a good chance NK could sell weapons to terrorists. They're poor, and could surely use the $$$, and I'd say nukes go for more than biological weapons. I'd say there is no more risk now that Saddam would sell weapons than there were before.

And on the Castro point by Mustang, when was the last time Castro was a threat, the 60's? I'm not saying Saddam will become docile, b/c he won't, but I find that a poor correlation if you're arguing against waiting it out.

And I'd personally kill Hillary if she became president. If my girl cheated on me, should I be president?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Mustang
Worked with Castro..

He should be dead Annnnnnnnnnny minute now.

*taps watch*

roflmao That's pretty funny.

Easy Mac, I think a point you might be overlooking is that Saddam is not really cooperating. In that case, I believe the inspectors will never find a significant portion of Iraq's weapons. I think the only hope would be that somehow they stumble on to a "smoking gun" and then world pressure gets so great he'd have to fess up. But how long to you keep looking waiting for that to happen? Six months? A year? Two years? In the meantime, who knows to whom he's giving those weapons. I just don't think more inspections or more inspectors is going to solve anything. To me, what it comes down to is does the US have the right to go in and forceably get Saddam out of power in order to prevent him (or anyone he might give them to) from using weapons of mass destruction. To reiterate my point above, I think that's where the debate begins. I think legally, past UN resolutions give us the right to invade Iraq. However, does that mean we should? Is the loss of American life worth the end result. I think you probably know my answer to that, and others may not agree and I'd respect that. What I have the problems with is those people that say Saddam is cooperating and the inspections will bear fruit. To me clearly he's not, and they won't.

Tarkus

P.S. Just checked an MSN headline. This guy has to go! Here's his latest!

"Saddam Imposes a Mustache Mandate in Iraq!"

[Easy Mac]

Technically, he is cooperating. If I take a pencil from a kid at school, and he asks for it back before a deadline of 2 years, if I give it back the day before the deadline, I still gave it back. That is still cooperating, and thats the timetable Bush sent. If he wanted it done sooner, he should have said so.

When has Saddam sold anything? There you are jumping to conclusions he has, but there is no reason to believe he has. If anyhting, inspections are making that harder to do, as he constantly has to shift things around. I'm not saying he wouldn't, if given the chance, but thats the point of continuous inspections.

I said, carry on inspections forever if needed, but the thing is we're too lazy to pay for it. Personally, I'd pay as much as possible if it meant we contained him w/o losing American lives. And there is no reason to think that would fail. THe reason we're looking now is because we stopped for a while, which gave him time to act again. This time don't stop the inspections. We don't even have to find things, and chances are they'll slip up along the way. But Presidents can't have that patience when they're re-elected every 4 years.

And isn't it in some US document that says the US cannot launch a pre-emptive strike on another country? I remeber reading that somewhere, though it may have been a dream for all I know.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And isn't it in some US document that says the US cannot launch a pre-emptive strike on another country? I remeber reading that somewhere, though it may have been a dream for all I know.

Huh? That would be crazy.

[Tarkus]

Easy Mac, I don't agree that he's cooperating. For him to be cooperating he's supposed to disarm. He's not disarming. He's deceiving and hiding, and forking over just enough to try and prevent a war. I don't call giving up one weapon every month cooperating, if you get my drift.

I don't know that he's sold anything, but he has supported terrorist groups in other ways, particularly through funding (and I'm sure he harbors a few as well). I think it's a logical next step for him to give them military aid as well. I can't prove he will, but it doesn't sound too extraordinary to me.

Also, I don't think Saddam would let the inspectors remain there indefinitely. At some point he'd say you've looked forever and haven't found anything. We've told you we've destroyed everything, so now it's time to leave. Of course you know what happens at that point right? He's starts building more and more weapons of mass destruction.

I still think it's pretty obvious the guy is toying with the inspectors and the UN. I don't think the inspections will ever work. Listen, Saddam knows where he hides the weapons. He also knows where the inspectors are going and when. They're not going to find anything significant. According to the CIA they are hiding the weapons in trucks and such in civilian areas. The inspectors aren't even looking there. It's a game. He's not cooperating. That's all very clear to me. At that point you just ask the question, what are you going to do about it?

Tarkus

[Dutch]

Tarkus, not that I need to tell you, but I agree very much with what you say.

Easy Mac, I respect the desired outcome you want, but it seems very much illogical that there is any possibility we will achieve peace by going back to the status quo.

Like Andy M says, sanctions kill people. Sanctions on a despotic state like Iraq is not only critically dangerous to the civilians of that state, but like there are splits on opinions here, there will be a split of opinion on who really is killing the civilians, and many will end up blaming the U.N. or the countries that pushed the sanction in the first place. And we know now that breeds very powerful well funded terrorist cells willing to do absolutely anything neccessary to kill their enemies.

I don't want war. I don't want sanctions. I want peace.

The General in charge of the Turkish military put it best when he said this yesterday, "They say 94% of Turks are against war, they are wrong, 100% of Turks are against war. But what we are failing to realize is that this is not a matter of war and peace, but a matter of war or a bigger war. The question is not of good and bad, but of bad and worse."

[EagleFan]

Easy Mac. He's not cooperating. The inspectors are there to view the proof that the weapons werre destroyed. He has yet to show that proof. All he has given is a run-around. the inspectors aren't there to play a game of hide and seek.

Suddenly when the pressure starts heating up he 'remembers' about a small amount of weapons that show up to be publicly destroyed to act as if he's being the good guy and following orders. Weapons that two months ago he declared that he never had.

The site of the reported weapons destruction several years ago has unearthed weapons that are complete and not detroyed, just buried. If this was really the site where he detroyed this large mass of weapons he would have come forward with this information from the start to avoid the entire incident.


What would I like to see happen? Saddam suddenly coming forward and fully cooperating. At that point I don't care about the past 12 years of his dancing around everything. It would avoid a war and make everyone happy.

What is most likely going to happen? Who knows. Probably a continued front of 'cooperation' in an attempt to keep the US from getting support. France will continue to lobby against us to protect their oil interest for whent eh sanctions are lifted, and out of their jealousy that they really aren't that important of a nation in the international scene. The anti-American sentiment will continue thanks to the French efforts to bully countries that agree with us. The Americans who oppose the war will bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see what the real problem could be. More crap, like blaming UN sanctions for the problems that the Iraqi people face will continue to be spouted from those who refuse to face reality (that's like saying that the justice system is responsible for the family of a criminal that gets locked up for a crime since his wife and kids can no longer count on his support).

Just think, if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor bringing us into the war...

[Joe Canadian]

According to many people here, I'm an idiot. I wasn't aware of that, but I thank you for letting me know.

[JPhillips]

I am reluctantly in favor of going to war in Iraq, but I think the administration has really fouled it up. We are now in a position where we have to go to war to protect credibility, but going to war may destroy the UN Security Council and NATO. Recent reports also suggest that it could bring down the Blair government in Britain. Add to that a growing friendship between Russia, France and Germany and the awful implementation of this policy is clear.

If we didn't believe in disarmament, as Fliescher has said, we should have never said that disarmament was our goal. Bush shouldn't say we are looking for a peaceful solution when its clear that there will be a war regardless. We shouldn't needlessly anatgonize the French and Germans, even if we believe they are wrong. We shouldn't praise the Kurds one day and sell them out to the Turks the next. We shouldn't spend day after day calling into question the patriotism of those that disagree.

When it comes to foriegn policy the first rule should always be do no harm. The Bush folks have let ego and pride get in the way and they have spent far too much time insulting their adversaries. Like I said, we need to deal with Iraq, but the cost of doing that now is astronomical. How did we ever get in the situation where our options are let Saddam go or alienate a majority of the globe?

[Airhog]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
According to many people here, I'm an idiot. I wasn't aware of that, but I thank you for letting me know.

We swear, its not because your canadian

[Chief Rum]

I agree, JPhillips. This is an entirely screwed up situation with way too many implications world-wide, and I think the administration has really fouled it up almost from the very beginning, at least publically. What I really don't like is that I agree with the general sentiment about North Korea being the bigger threat, and how are we going to get any support there if we ramrod this Iraq thing over the world's collective head?

I still think Saddam needs to go, though.

Chief Rum

[dawgfan]

I see people mentioning the cost of keeping the sanctions going, but there's no mention of the cost of war.

Consider, it's not just the cost of deploying our military and all the associated costs of waging a war strictly in terms of paying the personnel, transport costs, supply costs, etc.

In order to gain the cooperation of our allies and nominally friendly regimes in the area so as to present some kind of unified front, rather than simply the U.S. vs. Iraq with the rest of the world in opposition, we are essentially offering bribes to many of them in the form of debt relief, economic stimulus, etc.

Add to that the cost of properly maintaining and developing a friendly, democratic government in a defeated Iraq and rebuilding the country, and you're talking costs that are of a huge magnitude higher than continuing to pay for inspections.

Of course, we could do like we've done with Afghanistan and simply not authorize any money to clean-up the mess we make. To me, this is a hugely under-publicized screw-up by the U.S. that is going to come back and bite us in the ass big-time down the road. Why should any people be hopeful and welcome U.S. military-led "liberation" if there's zero follow-up in rebuilding the country? I'm sure some will say why should the U.S. spend any money rebuilding Afghanistan; well, what's a better investment - $1 billion for a single fighter plane or bomber, or a huge step in rebuilding a country and thus fostering a huge amount of goodwill in said country and drastically reducing the likelihood of the population serving as a breeding ground for a new generation of America-hating terrorists?

I'm not opposed to military action against Iraq, but I think all alternatives should be exhausted first. When I hear Hans Blix and his fellow inspection chiefs declaring Iraq is taking actions that constitute a "substantial measure of disarmament" and his nuclear inspection counterpart Mohamed ElBaradei declaring his analysis shows that suspect aluminum tubes were not destined for equipment that could be used to refine uranium for nuclear weapons use (thus refuting U.S. intelligence accusations), I have less faith that our administration is justified in it's current zeal for war. Are we so arrogant in this country to assume that everyone else is wrong and we're the only ones looking at this situation as it really is?

I agree that the threat of military action is likely necessary to ensure that U.N. inspections are productive, but I'm not at all convinced that military action is yet justified. There needs to be a smoking gun, and the inspection team has yet to find it and the administration has not yet revealed it (if it in fact exists).

[EagleFan]

It's not the inspecotrs job to be looking for the smoking gun, nor the administrations job to show it. It's Iraq's responsibility to show the evidence to the inspectors that everything is detroyed.

Just what about that gets confusing that people suddenly change this to burden of proof on the side of the US? The burden of proof is on Iraq.

Originally posted by Airhog
We swear, its not because your canadian

Speak for yourself.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Airhog
We swear, its not because your canadian

I keep tellin' ya he's French Canadian!

Tarkus

[JeffNights]

And THATS suppsoed to be better??

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I agree, JPhillips. This is an entirely screwed up situation with way too many implications world-wide, and I think the administration has really fouled it up almost from the very beginning, at least publically. What I really don't like is that I agree with the general sentiment about North Korea being the bigger threat, and how are we going to get any support there if we ramrod this Iraq thing over the world's collective head?

I still think Saddam needs to go, though.

Chief Rum

I agree with this. Short-term, yes, taking out Saddam now may be the best course of action. But I also think that, long-term, we may be royally screwing ourselves over with regards to how the rest of the world views us. And I know a lot of people on this board would like to think 'fuck the rest of the world if they don't agree with us' but, that kind of attitude is what gets us into these situations in the first place.

[gstelmack]

Originally posted by JPhillips
... but going to war may destroy the UN Security Council and NATO.

The UN Security Council will be destroyed by making itself irrelevant. They've been passing resolutions for 12 YEARS without backing any of them up. "If you cross this line, I'll have to punish you. Oh wait, here's another line, you better not cross it. No wait, here's the line I really meant."

As for NATO, I'd like to point out that the US has been attacked. It's supposed to help protect its members. NATO came together when Europe was afraid that Bosnia was going to spill over into a more general conflict, why aren't we getting the same cooperation with Iraq? Heck, NATO is still pushing in the former Yugoslavia: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

[Joe Canadian]

I am not French Canadian.

Also, isn't it funny that there is a higher value placed on American safety and freedom than there is on Iraqi safety. To protect one country we attack the innocent people of another, and don't say civilians won't die. People get all in a huff, and so they should, when things like 9/11 occur against American citizens, but pay no attention when the retaliation that occurs creates similar casualties in other countries.

Sadaam has to go, I agree with that as I always have. However attacking Iraq via a war will only worsen the problem that exists, and that is anti-american, and anti-western attitudes.

Declaring war on Iraq will kill innocent people, and make the terroist problem worse.

I believe we should be paying more attention to what causes these anti-western attitudes and finding some way to ease them, and less time thinking about a war that will only strengthen these attitudes.

That said, war may be necessary in the future, but at this time I don't believe it is necessary. A war now will cause more problems, not solve our current one's.

Obviouslly there are people who disagree with me, and I like having debates about this issue. BUT, people who support the war are NOT idiots, nor are they ignorant people. Debating an issue is fine, but resorting to name calling does not help your side in the debate.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
I am not French Canadian.

It's a joke. Lighten up.

Also, isn't it funny that there is a higher value placed on American safety and freedom than there is on Iraqi safety. To protect one country we attack the innocent people of another, and don't say civilians won't die. People get all in a huff, and so they should, when things like 9/11 occur against American citizens, but pay no attention when the retaliation that occurs creates similar casualties in other countries.

What do you expect Americans to do? Survival is often ultimate goal is it not? I won't apologize for wanting my countrymen to be safe.

There's no doubting that in a war in Iraq innocent people will die. Innocent people will die in any war. This is the tragedy of war. No one denies that.

But are we "attacking the innocent people of another" country as you say? Hardly. Saddam is the power, but he is hardly alone over there in his thinking or in doing the things that are putting Americans on edge.

I hardly think that the casualties of 9/11 in a "war" that was declared by one side without being so specific with the others is in any way comparable to accidental civilian attacks on military sites in the middle of a declared war. Are you really telling us you believe that a terrorist attack on a purely civilian site with purposeful intent to kill civilians in an undeclared war is the same as an official military attack on a military site that accidentally leads to innocent civilian deaths in a declared war? Honestly?

Sadaam has to go, I agree with that as I always have. However attacking Iraq via a war will only worsen the problem that exists, and that is anti-american, and anti-western attitudes.

Anti-American and anti-western attitudes are just one problem. There are a lot of different problems in this. Some will be helped by a war, some will be hurt. We need to take into consideration all ramifications before coming to a proper decision on this issue. If the overwhelming good is to conduct this war and remove Saddam, even at the cost of an increase in anti-American, ant-Western attitudes in the Middle east, shouldn't we do that for the greater good? And it's nice and all saying that you believe Saddam has to go, but I am still waiting for a solution from anti-war people that does NOT involve war.

Declaring war on Iraq will kill innocent people, and make the terroist problem worse.

Will it? We don't really know, do we? If we did, these decisions would make it a lot easier. This is in reference to the second half of your statement, BTW; obviously, innocent people will die in any war with Iraq.

But I don't necessarily agree with the second. For one thing, I think Islamic terrorism is the result of a limited group of extremist thinkers in the Middle East (for the most part), and I don't think an attack on iraq will have any impact on what they think of us (they already hate us). Meanwhile a successful attack on Iraq takes out a leader and government who have said in the past that they hate America, and who are considered to be big supporters of international terrorism (if not al Qaeda specifically).

Whether we do anything to Iraq or not, there will never be a shortage of terrorists, because our lifestyle disagrees to blatantly with theirs. There will always be short-sighted individuals on both sides who will always hate the other.

I believe we should be paying more attention to what causes these anti-western attitudes and finding some way to ease them, and less time thinking about a war that will only strengthen these attitudes.

Your welcome to try and solve these problems, by all means. And I wish you good luck. But you should know that these are problems to which the solutions have evaded men, both brilliant and powerful, for almost 1400 years.

What you would try to eliminate involves nothing short of radically changing the perspectives of three major religions, and man's natural instinct for jealousy, for power-love and power-hate, and for ethnocentrism-racism. Your task is a fight against the very instinct of survival for many people.

That said, war may be necessary in the future, but at this time I don't believe it is necessary. A war now will cause more problems, not solve our current one's.

I don't know if a war is necessary now. I know that I don't know enough to make that call. I am putting my trust in the people we have put in office. Maybe that's a mistake. I'm sure many Democrats will tell me it is. Nevertheless, they are in office for a reason.

As for the issue of whether a war will cause more or less problems, that is once again something you or I cannot know now. All wars cause problems, and most of them solve problems, too (usually the reasons for the wars in the first place). Not doing anything also causes problems. Who's to know what is the best way?

Obviouslly there are people who disagree with me, and I like having debates about this issue. BUT, people who support the war are NOT idiots, nor are they ignorant people. Debating an issue is fine, but resorting to name calling does not help your side in the debate.

I agree to a point on what you have said. But this is the second time you have referred to "people" who have labelled you an idiot. I would like to see where this is. Yes, there is probably someone here or there who has said something general about the "idiots" who are opposed to war, and it has worked vice versa as well. But you act like this is the single dominating opinion of all war advocates in this forum. As one such, I have to tell you that I take great offense to that. I don't think you are an idiot, and quite frankly, it pisses me off a whole hell of a lot that you would seek to put words in my or others mouths to justify your rants. If your rant can't stand on its own two meritorious feet without ulterior justification, than it shouldn't be said.

As for ignorance, if you truly believe you are not ignorant, than you are being foolish. You are ignorant, as am I. We all are. What we know compared to the powers that be represents a huge gap of knowledge. I for one am not willing to make rash decisions about the lives of others without knowing more. How about you?

You're right that namecalling doesn't help anyone's side in a debate. And neither does illogical argumentation or misrepresenting another's opinion or not presenting alternatives to the core problems being discussed.

Chief Rum

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
people who support the war are NOT idiots, nor are they ignorant people. Debating an issue is fine, but resorting to name calling does not help your side in the debate.

So do you support the war or not and who said anyone was an idiot? Sorry if I missed the obvious.

[CamEdwards]

I talked with a man named Kato Saadllah today (hold the Kato Kaelin jokes... he's heard them all).

He left Iraq in 1991 after the Gulf War. He came to America as a refugee, and became a US citizen in 1996.

His organization, the Iraqi Liberation Front, is one of five organizations recognized by the Bush administration as a group that can lead Iraq to democracy.

Saadllah still has sisters in Iraq. He has cousins, nephews, and other family members there. And he says war is necessary.

He says war is necessary even though his family members might die. He says war is necessary even though children might get killed by an American bomb.

He says war is necessary because Iraq is under the thumb of an evil man, and the sanctions don't mean shit. (I'm paraphrasing)

Has Saddam been hurt by the sanctions? Nope. He still looks pretty healthy to me. Yet 20,000 children a month die as a result of the UN sanctions because Saddam's regime takes the food meant for ordinary citizens. Women are raped by his Republican Guard. Dissenters are killed for their beliefs.

This isn't coming from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity. This is coming from a man who could lose his family in a war with Iraq.

Saadllah says, and I believe him, that when troops enter Iraq, the populace will turn on the regime. He says he expects the war to be over quickly, because once the people of Iraq see the American soldiers, Saddam's forces will be fighting two wars... one with America, and one with their own citizens. They will have nowhere to turn.

For those of you wondering if this war is just, or if war is necessary... I recommend you talk to an Iraqi-American, or an Iraqi-Canadian, rather than someone like Ramsey Clark or Sheryl Crow. Talk to someone who's lived there. Talk to someone who could see their family die if we go to war with Iraq. And ask yourself how bad must it be if that person STILL believes America is doing the right thing.

I believe no matter how you look at it, this war is just and necessary.

As a matter of national security- We know that Hussein didn't destroy the anthrax and VX nerve gas. They "found" several intact biological weapons that had just been buried, not destroyed. And Hans Blix says Iraq cannot account, and will not account for thousands of gallons of Anthrax.

As a matter of enforcing international law- Saddam Hussein had six weeks to disarm... 12 years ago. What authority does the UN Security Council have when they pass 17 resolutions demanding Iraq disarm, with Iraq doing nothing?

As a matter of human rights- see above discussion about Kato Saadllah. 20,000 children die every month from starvation in Iraq. Even if 100,000 civilians were to die in a war with Iraq (and we all know the number will be far lower), can you tell me that sitting on our hands doing nothing for five months is going to make the situation better? Five months, 100,000 children are dead. If we go to war, in five months these 100,000 kids will be eating well for the first time in their lives.

Oh, maybe we should just stop the sanctions all together. Just let Saddam be. THAT'LL teach him a lesson.

All this condemnation for Bush, and yet so little condemnation for Saddam Hussein. I don't think people who disagree with the necessity of regime change are idiots. I think they're people who'd rather see innocent children die a slow painful death from starvation instead of living long lives in a land of freedom.

[EagleFan]

Very well stated Cam. Unfortunately it seems that those agaisnt the possibility of action have already buried their heads in the sand when these kind of stories come up.

[Dutch]

All this condemnation for Bush, and yet so little condemnation for Saddam Hussein.

Truer words could not have been written.

I think the current U.S. strategy is brilliant. Go after that next resolution. Make the security council member nations vote. Who cares if it's 15-0 against the USA. The world needs to know.

Nations around the world are susceptable to falling into the hands of tyrants or madmen. And the people of the world can take solice in the fact that Germany, France, Russia, China, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea could care less about them unless any of these respective countries are physically attacked by the oppressive regime.

Let's see a show of hands, shall we?

[panerd]

Originally posted by Chief Rum

I agree to a point on what you have said. But this is the second time you have referred to "people" who have labelled you an idiot. I would like to see where this is. Yes, there is probably someone here or there who has said something general about the "idiots" who are opposed to war, and it has worked vice versa as well. But you act like this is the single dominating opinion of all war advocates in this forum. As one such, I have to tell you that I take great offense to that. I don't think you are an idiot, and quite frankly, it pisses me off a whole hell of a lot that you would seek to put words in my or others mouths to justify your rants. If your rant can't stand on its own two meritorious feet without ulterior justification, than it shouldn't be said.

Chief Rum

Actually it was kind of the point of the entire thread. You know the one that you keep responding to? Did you read the first post?

Originally posted by Tarkus
Sorry, I just need to get this off my chest and this seems like a good place since no one really knows me personally. I'm just curious what you folks think about the following, and I'm going to be blunt.

There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, or the equipment and resources required to produce such. I also believe that anyone who doesn't believe that is just plain stupid. In fact, I would have to believe that even the French and the Germans believe he has them. Many people profess that if you let inspections continue for several months they will accomplish their mission and unearth Saddam's arsenal. Don't these morons see that Saddam is toying with both the inspectors and the useless UN? You'd have to be an idiot not to see that. If he was fully cooperating you wouldn't need any more inspections. He'd say here's what we have, here's where it is, and here's how we destroyed the stuff we used to have. But he doesn't do that. He plays a little game of needle in the haystack. And each time there's about to be a movement for war he comes out with another little tidbit to show his cooperation. BS, he has them and he either shows them or he doesn't.

Now, whether you think we should go to war over the fact that he has weapons of mass distruction is a totally different issue. What I would like to know is whether any of you actually think he DOESN"T have them, and that the inspections can actually find all or even most of them if he does. If people would just up and say he has weapons of mass destruction but I don't think it's right to go to war over them I could understand that. But for people to think he doesn't have them, or that inspections will somehow uncover a significant portion of them is just absurd. What do you think?

Tarkus

I actually agree with you and Tarkus on this aspect of the war. I do think he has weapons of mass destruction, but I don't think people are idiots for having the opposite point of view. For all I know, I may be wrong. And I don't resort to name calling if they feel a different way.

And you guys both say that the President of the United States probably has more information that the average US citizen. Wouldn't the presidents of Russia and France also have that advantage? Wouldn't Bush have shown both of them his overwhelming evidence? I am not sure how you can call everyone wrong who doesn't blindly follow Bush's propaganda.

[Chief Rum]

So Tarkus is "people", panerd? Tarkus makes an ill-advised comment like this and suddenly the entire community of war advocates is a bunch of guys who are labeling anti-war folks as "idiots" or everyone who doesn't "blindly follow Bush" dead wrong? You mean that sort of mass characterization that Joe Canadian made that he claims war advocates made, even though in reality it is just Tarkus?

You see, that's the thing that pisses me off. Read my post. I even acknowledge that some people will have said this. I know they have. There are plenty of people on both sides of this issue who will label those on the other side as "idiots". But to label an entire group who agree generally on one point (that we should go to war with Iraq) as believing in every little point, even ill-advised ones like an "idiot" or a "stupid" comment, of one of its members mischaracterizes that entire group. Joe Canadian is tellingme I have an opinion I in fact do not have. I'm sorry if you can't see how being thrown together into a personal stereotype by Joe Canadian because I happen to share one general opinion with Tarkus might piss me off. I never called Joe Canadian an idiot nor do I think so. And I don't like that he has essentially accused me of such.

Second, in reference to the knowledge France and Russia might have, no, your assumptions are faulty. Bush may not have shown them everything. They are foreign powers. One openly opposes the U.S. regularly in its foreign actions and the other was the epitome of anti-U.S. for 45 recent years. Bush can't be sure that the intelligence communities of these two countries can protect this information and thus the sources the U.S. obtained them from. As you probably know, the more people know a thing, the less it is a secret. Nor will they already know everything the U.S. knows. Their intelligence communities will not have the same sources, nor will they have the same motivation to pursue certain types of information (they are more interested, for instance, in things which will affect France or Russia).

And then there's the matter of perspective. Even if Bush has showed them everything, their perspective is coming from how they can best help their own countries, not the U.S. Everybody seems to think the U.S. is acting for all this peronal interest, but it never seems to occur to anyone that France or Russia might also be acting for their own reasons, and not the high and mighty moral anti-war ones that are often attributed to them. I don't tjink anyone in this whole thing is acting in any way except to protect their own country's interests. Bush showing foreign presidents isn't going to help much then, unless it also shows the benefits to those foreign powers of supporting a war on Iraq, and they must also outweigh the benefits of not having a war with Iraq for that foreign power.

Chief Rum

[Joe Canadian]

I don't know if a war is necessary now. I know that I don't know enough to make that call. I am putting my trust in the people we have put in office. Maybe that's a mistake. I'm sure many Democrats will tell me it is. Nevertheless, they are in office for a reason.

You've hit the nail on the head here... I think this is the core issue for determinning if you are for a war or against one (at the present time). It boils down to who you believe. Personally I don't trust or believe the Bush government, others don't trust or believe the Democratic party. More than likely neither side is 100% right, it just depends on who you believe more.

I agree to a point on what you have said. But this is the second time you have referred to "people" who have labelled you an idiot. I would like to see where this is. Yes, there is probably someone here or there who has said something general about the "idiots" who are opposed to war, and it has worked vice versa as well. But you act like this is the single dominating opinion of all war advocates in this forum. As one such, I have to tell you that I take great offense to that. I don't think you are an idiot, and quite frankly, it pisses me off a whole hell of a lot that you would seek to put words in my or others mouths to justify your rants. If your rant can't stand on its own two meritorious feet without ulterior justification, than it shouldn't be said.

panerd pointed out what I was referring to. But... Sorry Chief if I wan't specific enough, when I brought this issue up it was referring to a select group of individuals who were referring to anti-war suporters as "idiots." I was referring to only a minority of people, not everyone who supports the war. I am truly sorry if you took it as the latter. I apoligize. I too don't like people generalizing, as some people have generalized all Americans as war mongers... which I think is totally wrong, as some don't support a war, and some truly believe that a war is the only way to go... two opinions I respect.

As for ignorance, if you truly believe you are not ignorant, than you are being foolish. You are ignorant, as am I. We all are. What we know compared to the powers that be represents a huge gap of knowledge. I for one am not willing to make rash decisions about the lives of others without knowing more. How about you?

Well said, I agree with you. But again I am guilty of being a bit too general, when people refer to anti-war supporters as being ignorant... I belive they are saying that anti-war supporters do not know any thing about the issue, and that they are not ignorant... which as you said is untrue, as we are all partially ignorant.

You're right that namecalling doesn't help anyone's side in a debate. And neither does illogical argumentation or misrepresenting another's opinion or not presenting alternatives to the core problems being discussed.

Illogical argumentation? If thats your opinion fine, but thats what I believe at this point. As for presenting alternatives for a war, to tell you the truth I have ideas, which have been discussed before, but past that I'm not sure of an alternative. Thats a copout, but as you said none of us really know 100% of the facts... and as a 19 year old University Student from Newfoundland I don't have enough information or knowledge too present an alternative plan. I just think that having a war is just too easy, in a time where there are so many brilliant people can't we come up with a better way? Maybe, maybe not, but at this point I think it is way too early for a war.

Again I apoligize if I offended anyone.


PS - I think one of my fears about this war is that the current US strategy will have no end. Wether this is true or not remains to be seen, but I still fear what might happen.

Originally posted by panerd
And you guys both say that the President of the United States probably has more information that the average US citizen. Wouldn't the presidents of Russia and France also have that advantage? Wouldn't Bush have shown both of them his overwhelming evidence? I am not sure how you can call everyone wrong who doesn't blindly follow Bush's propaganda.

Well said.

[Dutch]

Wouldn't the presidents of Russia and France also have that advantage? Wouldn't Bush have shown both of them his overwhelming evidence?

He has shown them enough to agree that Saddam Hussein needs to disarm. The argument, as we best as we can remember, is that France and Russia want to give the Iraqi's more time to continue destroying while the American government's argument is that Iraq hasn't destroyed anything and therefore the game is up.

The French and Russia's believe that Iraq is cooperating, albeit slowly. But quantify that. How far along in the process are the Iraqi's in destroying their weapons of mass destruction? It sure seems like their arsenal of WMD that existed in 1998 still exists. Anybody care to challenge that? Where are the US lies in this? The Iraqi's haven't disarmed, the UN said, "Disarm". And this is somehow American lies?

Those who are questioning the United States are wrong. There is no other way around it. I would be nice if I thought there was a better way to say it. But saying that Iraq has disarmed and the USA is lying is simply having the wrong opinion.

I am not sure how you can call everyone wrong who doesn't blindly follow Bush's propaganda.

What propaganda? If Bush is using propaganda, he sure does suck at it! On the other hand if Iraq, France, and Russia are using propaganda, I'd say they have been largely successful.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Dutch


What propaganda? If Bush is using propaganda, he sure does suck at it! On the other hand if Iraq, France, and Russia are using propaganda, I'd say they have been largely successful.

In my opinion any speech relating the events of 9-11 to the present Iraq situation is propaganda. This is faulty logic at best, and possibly much more troubling than that. There has never been one ounce of proof to show any connection. And give me a break if they know the connection and are hiding it in some war room, President Bush would have interrupped the Super Bowl if he knew Sadamm was connected to 9-11.

I am just troubled because I can see the faults in this type of speech, but I don't think a lot of other people can. (Several of my friends think we should fry Sadaam for flying those planes into those buildings) I just don't think the memories of those who were killed on September 11th should be used as ammunition to go to war with a guy who may be more fundamently different from Osama Bin Ladan than even the United States. What next?

"You all know of Megan's law where a young child was brutally raped and murdered by an evil man. Well speaking of evil, Sadaam is evil. So let's get Sadaam before any more innoncent children are raped or murdered."

"The DC snipers had quite an anti-government agenda behind thier senseless killings. Well Sadaam is anti-American also. Do you want sniper killings in your city? Support the war against Iraq."

These arguments make no less sense than Sadaam being another faction of Al Quida. And that is what I call government propaganda.

[Joe Canadian]

Those who are questioning the United States are wrong. There is no other way around it. I would be nice if I thought there was a better way to say it. But saying that Iraq has disarmed and the USA is lying is simply having the wrong opinion.

I wasn't aware that people were saying Iraq has disarmed. Alot of people are saying we should give Iraq more time, but I haven't heard anyone say that Iraq has already disarmed. If anyone has said that, I agree with you that they are lying.

I'm not wrong for questioning the government of America. If no one questioned what governments do, or their motives behind it, we would be living in a repressed society...

Again it amazes me how someone can call my opinions wrong.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
PS - I think one of my fears about this war is that the current US strategy will have no end. Wether this is true or not remains to be seen, but I still fear what might happen.

Is that the policy of carrying most of the burden for Canada's defense? I worry about that too.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally posted by Fritz
Is that the policy of carrying most of the burden for Canada's defense? I worry about that too.

That really has nothing to do with what I was saying. But America, and it's government CHOOSE to play a major part in the defence of Canada. Why? Because by doing that they protect themselves.

I wasn't aware that as Canadians we were scary enough to force America into defending our country for us.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Joe Canadian
That really has nothing to do with what I was saying. But America, and it's government CHOOSE to play a major part in the defence of Canada. Why? Because by doing that they protect themselves.

The strategy that brings the US to Iraq is part of the same strategy that allows Canada and most of Europe and other places to slash defense spending to the point where they are unable to defend themselves.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Fritz
The strategy that brings the US to Iraq is part of the same strategy that allows Canada and most of Europe and other places to slash defense spending to the point where they are unable to defend themselves.

Or maybe, just maybe, other countries don't see what they need to be defending themselves from while the U.S. finds boogeymen behind every corner. Just a thought.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally posted by Fritz
The strategy that brings the US to Iraq is part of the same strategy that allows Canada and most of Europe and other places to slash defense spending to the point where they are unable to defend themselves.

I thought the US was going to Iraq to stop terrorism. So that means that US protects Canada to prevent terrorism?

Regarding what astralhaze said. I have to agree with you somewhat. The terroist risk is worldwide, but it isn't as big of a risk, by far IMO, here in Canada.