27 Jan 03
Originally posted by missleadI dont have all the information on this issue. Consider this "1,500,000 people died in the Nuclear explosion x-terrorist group detonated in (your favorite city)". I'm not pro-war and I admit I dont have all the information to base a sound decision for or against war. I pray to God that some people do.
I Guess I am a Dove.
Don't read me.
Send your Sons and Daughters to fight another insane war.
Peace
linda
I'm a moderator and considered deleting the thread, But I am also very pro-free speach.
John
😞
27 Jan 03
Originally posted by vaknsoJohn,I wont back down.When our kids come back in body bags.We will weep.
I dont have all the information on this issue. Consider this "1,500,000 people died in the Nuclear explosion x-terrorist group detonated in (your favorite city)". I'm not pro-war and I admit I dont have all the information to base a sound decision for or against war. I pray to God that some people do.
I'm a moderator and considered deleting the thread, But I am also very pro-free speach.
John
😞
This is the time to stop it all.No good when we lose a few.
THIS WAR MUST NOT START
27 Jan 03
Originally posted by bbarrI thought this argument was invalid when it was used against Clinton, and I don't think it holds up much better when used against Bush. Do you really think that serving in the military would have changed Bush's mind on this issue, or is this just a convenient stick to beat him with, as it was for those who didn't like what Clinton did in Somalia and Kosovo?
Perhaps if the little Bush had actually served in the military rather than the damn national guard he'd have some perspective on the price of war in terms of human well-being.
Anyway, I'm not sure GWB himself is the real impetus behind the war movement. I think it might the advisors who pull his strings: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, so on.
As far as whether those hawks are right, I am ambivalent. Unlike those who say that that this whole thing is about oil, or about Bush's poll numbers (generally without providing much in the way of pertinent evidence IMO), I think the fear of a nuclear-armed Iraq is large part of the motivation behind the current buildup toward war.
The question is whether that fear is really justified, and whether whatever danger exists is best addressed by saber-rattling, troop movements, and ultimately invasion. On that I have grave doubts.
Nonetheless, I have little patience for people who say all war is always wrong. It's always a tragedy, but that doesn't mean it's always the wrong decision. The world is much too complicated a place for generalizations of that sort; sometimes there are only bad choices, and you have to pick the least bad.
I think our military action in Afghanistan, for example, was almost certainly the best choice under the circumstances. I think that some sort of military action was probably necessary in 1991. I am not so sure about this time, though.
27 Jan 03
Originally posted by missleadLinda,
John,I wont back down.When our kids come back in body bags.We will weep.
This is the time to stop it all.No good when we lose a few.
THIS WAR MUST NOT START
I dont expect you to back down. I respect your opinion.
I'm hoping this war will not be NEEDED. If needed, It must be fought.
John
27 Jan 03
Originally posted by jgvaccaroThis is just a stick to beat him with. And while I'm at it, he was never elected...merely appointed.
[b] I thought this argument was invalid when it was used against Clinton, and I don't think it holds up much better when used against Bush. Do you really think that serving in the military would have changed Bush's mind on this issue, or is this just a convenient stick to beat him with,
Of course there are times when violent action is necessary. But in this case there is no 'clear and present danger', and the presence of such danger is in my opinion a necessary condition for preemptive military action to be justified. To claim that the current administration actually believes that Irag now poses a nuclear (or other W of M.D.) threat stretches credulity. U.N. weapons inspectors have found no evidence of any current capacity. But even more importantly, the administration claims to have evidence of nuclear capacity in Irag, information received from intelligence operations and Sattelite images, but they refuse turn over any intelligence reports to the U.N. weapons inspectors or the security council. So it is doubtful that the administration thinks Irag poses a real threat, they are merely playing upon the post 9'11 fears of the people to motivate support for war. Furthermore, isn't it plausible that if the surrent U.S. response to Iraq was explained by the threat of Iraqi aggression, we could expect something similar in response to North Korea's admission that it has an ongoing nuclear program and its current re-opening of some nuclear reactors. But you hear none of the jingoistic rhetoric regarding North Korea, why is that? I submit it's because we really don't have anything to gain by becoming de facto rulers of N. Korea that we haven't already gained through our relationship with S. Korea. It's the oil that explains Irag...
27 Jan 03
What both of these regimes (N. Korea and Iraq) have in common is that they are run by ruthless dictators. With all due respect, Bennett, you talk about Bush being appointed, but what does it say that in Iraq Hussein got 100% percent of the vote? One leader gases the opposition. The other slowly starves his nation. Where the hell is the outrage at this? I'm not in to feeling guilty that part of our prosperity and greatness is in our capacity to exercise freedoms as well as humanity. NOw you may question whether or not initiating a war is a reflection of humanity. That's fine. I have two words to say: Neville Chamberlain. KIrk
27 Jan 03
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957Well, the U.S. had no problem helping Husein to power in the first place, nor with him gassing his people prior to his invasion of Kuwait, nor with providing him with weapons during his war with Iran. So it is really ridiculous that the administration would claim their justification for going to war with Iraq is that the Iraqi leader is a ruthless dictator, when we have been propping up ruthless dictators all over the world for the better part of 100 years (see the history of latin america and indonesia). Furthermore, the Taliban were ruthless dictators prior to 9'11, but the Bush regime was selling them weapons up to two weeks prior to the beginning of the bombing campaign. And even if we totally suspend our powers of reason, and swallow the claim that the administration actually believes that they are justified in going to war in virtue of the ruthlessness of the Iraqi regime, doesn't this only justify the removal of the regime? How does this justify the bombing of civilian targets (something we did in the first Gulf War, and I'm sure we will repeat)? The reality of the situation is that the administration doesn't think it needs any justification for waging war, it only realizes it needs to sell any war to an apathetic and mostly uninformed populus.
What both of these regimes (N. Korea and Iraq) have in common is that they are run by ruthless dictators. With all due respect, Bennett, you talk about Bush being appointed, but what does it say that in Iraq Hussein got 100% percent of ...[text shortened]... That's fine. I have two words to say: Neville Chamberlain. KIrk
27 Jan 03
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrAgreed on Bush being appointed, not elected-- it's really a shame that the election didn't produce a movement to scrap the electoral college, which a national embarassment.
This is just a stick to beat him with. And while I'm at it, he was never elected...merely appointed.
Of course there are times when violent action is necessary. But in this case there is no 'clear and present danger', and the presence ...[text shortened]... r relationship with S. Korea. It's the oil that explains Irag...
I also agree with your assessment of the current situation with Iraq-- if there is a case to be made for war, the administration is refusing to make it.
The North Korea comparison is an obvious one, but I'm not sure if it's really apt-- that situation seems a bit different, for several reasons. One is the existence of South Korea. Another is the close proximity, and potential interest, of China, which (technically anyway) is in the same ideological camp as North Korea.
Further, North Korea, despite its bellicose rhetoric, has never actually invaded its neighbors. Iraq on the other hand has invaded two of its neighbors in the past couple of decades, and well as shooting missiles at Israel).
So, while I'm no expert on the situation with North Korea, it doesn't seem like we can simply equate that situation with Iraq, and assume that what is sensible policy in one case is sensible policy in the other.
Further, I may be naive, but I don't think we really want to be the de facto rulers of Iraq. That might have been desirable 50 years ago, but given the current climate in the Middle East, a client state might be little more than a giant headache and a revolt waiting to happen. Look how much trouble we've gotten in through our relationship with Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of Israel. I really doubt that Bush wants to become more entangled in the Middle East-- he'd rather be spending his time on school vouchers or whatever.
Is oil a part of our calculus? I'm sure it is. But there are other issues as well. Putting aside weapons of mass destruction, there's also the issue of terrorism.
While the fear of terrorism seems like more of a talking point than a real factor in Iraq policy right now, it's definitely not in our best interests to have a virulently anti-US government in the Middle East as a potential source of funding, weapons, and training facilities for terrorists-- Afghanistan made that clear enough. Saddam has already tried to assassinate our President, so even if he's not currently helping plot terrorist acts against our state, he's shown that he'd be more than happy to do so, given the chance. Should that worry us? Maybe.
I dunno. I really don't want us to invade either, and I think the administration is going about the whole thing in a very ham-handed way. But it seems like the issue is too complicated to be dismissed by saying "it's all crazy" or "no blood for oil"....
One other thing-- I'm a bit dubious about the 500,000 protesters in DC figure. That's what the march's organizers said, but it doesn't seem to be based on much of anything.
A good article on the subject is here:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/01/24/crowds/index.html
27 Jan 03
Wow, this forum is verrrrry interesting. I live in a non-English speaking country (so excuse the grammar) at the moment, one in which my people were the oppressors and now are somewhat opressed. I have experienced both sides of the coin. I was also a soldier in a very dangerous war (won't say where). {yes, i am not a lady in real life - did that for fun)
BBarr, never thought I'd agree with you but I do with most you said.
Two things seem to be the main concern here:
1) If the US wants war with Iraq and oil is the driving force - I'm against it.
2) If it is for fear of Iraq's nuclear capacity - go for it.
Here's a silly question - How many Americans would have been against a war with Iraq (a terrorist state) on Spetemebr 12?
27 Jan 03
eptember Originally posted by blancAnswer to silly question.
Wow, this forum is verrrrry interesting. I live in a non-English speaking country (so excuse the grammar) at the moment, one in which my people were the oppressors and now are somewhat opressed. I have experienced both sides of the coin. I was also a soldier in a very dangerous war (won't say where). {yes, i am not a lady in real life - did that ...[text shortened]... How many Americans would have been against a war with Iraq (a terrorist state) on Spetemebr 12?
Of course people wanted to lash out.Not just Americans,but you have it when you limit it to September 12.
The key issue is we must not send our Sons and Daughters into a war for emotional reasons.
Linda