so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[cryptorad]

Futuro,

I really should let it lie.. because this is just more useless info. Your statements of facts are slanted.. as I suppose mine must appear to you.

One quick comment on your Military questions. No.. Bush had 10 months and NO.. the military is NOT up to speed yet. It's still a shell of what it was, but it's better then it was in 1995. Yes Clinton started the rebuild himself. Just a tiny bit though.. nothing like Bush has done. BUT.. alot of the money Bush has already budgeted for it's rebuilding (it will take time). The original discussion was about budgets.

If you will recall.. 1995 was the year when it was OBVIOUS Iraq was continuing to develop WMD and Saddam's son exposed the VX case embarassment to the UN inspectors (they had no clue). THAT was the time to go into Iraq and do something.. perfect timing, perfect reason, BUT.. our military was NOT in a position to do it. Yeap.. couldn't do it because they were a shell. You'll never find that bragged about by Billy boy or his cronies.. you can betcha. Lot's of people say Bill had no balls to go in.. but that is a crock. Bill Clinton never gave two flying shits about going into somewhere if he wanted to and he was never afraid to let other people go fight. He had an aversion to joining the military himself (buncha losers .. or something) which is why he called Canada home for a period of time.

However.. here is one for you to read. I remember you said you lacked 'proof'. Yes, it's a State Department document. I'm sure it's just all lies based on lies. It's either all lies.. or your wrong.

Which do you chose?



The following is the text of a State Department fact sheet summarizing findings of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) report on Unresolved Disarmament Issues relating to Iraq, presented to the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003:

This fact sheet carefully reviews UNMOVIC's report (the "Cluster Document") delivered on March 7, 2003 before the U.N. Security Council concerning the Iraqi government and its refusal to carry out full and complete disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction.

The report demonstrates that Iraq and its leadership have pursued a consistent strategy of concealing its weapons of mass destruction and deceiving inspectors in direct violation of its international obligations. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a direct and active threat to their neighbors and to the international community.

History Repeats Itself: Iraq's Strategy To Deny, Deceive and Conceal Continues

• UNMOVIC's document lays bare that Iraq's strategy today has not changed. Inspectors are faced with deception, concealment and changing stories.

• Inspectors discovered that Iraq failed to declare an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle that is based on a system that Iraq admitted to UNSCOM was intended to deliver chemical or biological agent.

• Inspectors discovered cluster bombs and sub munitions that appeared designed to deliver chemical or biological agents. Contrary to initial Iraqi statements, a number of bombs and over 100 sub munitions were found.

• Iraq has failed to provide inspectors with supplier information about foreign-procured items. These items include gyroscopes, chemicals and laboratory equipment — all apparent weapons of mass destruction-dual-use items.

• Iraq claims that a 50-ton trailer that it illegally imported for use as a missile launcher was "stolen." This is the same "stolen" story that Iraq has used in the past for weapons of mass destruction items such as biological growth media.

• UNMOVIC has concluded that documents Iraq provided regarding production of botulinum toxin and Iraq's capability to dry biological weapon agents provided no new information. Just the same, tired story Iraq told UNSCOM.

Iraq's History Of Denial, Deception And Concealment

• On nearly 30 occasions, Iraq refused — despite repeated requests from the international community — to provide credible evidence to substantiate its claims that they do not possess arms or have disarmed fully and completely.

• The document cites 17 instances when inspectors uncovered evidence directly contradicting Iraqi claims of innocence.

• Iraq has admitted numerous attempts to mislead inspectors by lying or planting false evidence during the inspection process.

• Time and again, Iraq successfully concealed its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs from the earlier inspection teams (UNSCOM) — only changing its story in order to fit the facts. For example:

• Only in 1995 did Iraq declare its offensive biological weapons program, after publicly denying its existence for four years.

• Only in 1997 did inspectors discover evidence of production completed on prohibited missiles in 1992.

• Only in 1997 did Iraq declare an additional 187 pieces of specialty equipment used to produce deadly chemical agents.

• Only in 2003 when confronted by inspectors, did Iraq turn over the "Iraqi Air Force" document that contradicts Iraq's chemical weapons declaration — by disclosing an additional 6,500 bombs with 1,000 tons of the blistering agent mustard gas.

• This document makes clear that Iraq has the inherent capability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and literally tens of thousands of delivery systems (missiles, munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles).

Additional Examples of Iraq's Strategy of Deception and Concealment:

Anthrax

• After lying for four years, Iraq admitted in 1995 to producing nearly 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• Furthermore, the Iraqi's noted that only one facility was involved in the production of anthrax and that none of the biological agent was produced in 1991. Moreover, Iraq said it filled 50 R-400 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax.

• UNMOVIC's report recollects UNSCOM's conclusions:

• Iraq's anthrax production potential could have been as much as 25,000 liters.

• Evidence that a second facility produced anthrax in 1991.

• Evidence that more than five warheads were filled with anthrax.

• That there is no reliable or final assessment of how many R-400 bombs were filled with anthrax.

• UNMOVIC concludes:

• About 10,000 additional liters of anthrax were not destroyed and may still exist.

• "Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials...to enable it to produce anthrax."

• By 1993, Iraq was successfully drying large quantities of a bacteria that "could be a model for anthrax."

• As the Secretary noted on February 5, Iraq has developed a mobile biological agent production capability. In only one month's time, these mobile units can produce the same, or more, dry anthrax equivalent to the 10,000 liters Iraq has hidden from inspectors.

VX

• Iraq's Chemical Weapons declarations in April 1991 and June 1992 did not disclose Iraq's VX program. Only in March 1995 did Iraq admit to having produced large-scale amounts of VX — one of the most dangerous chemical agents created.

• Iraq claims never to have successfully weaponized VX.

• UNMOVIC's document concludes:

• Iraq provided false and misleading declarations in order to retain production equipment specifically modified to produce VX.

• Direct physical evidence contradicts Iraq's claim that it never weaponized VX.

• Iraq failed to provide any credible evidence to support its claims of unilateral destruction of VX and VX precursors.

• UN inspectors reported to the UN Security Council that "UNMOVIC has information that conflicts with [Iraq's] account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problems of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared."

R-400 Bombs

• Iraq first claimed it had 1,200 R-400 chemical bombs.

• After Iraq admitted its biological weapons program in 1995, Iraq altered its story and added 350 R-400 bombs.

• However, UNSCOM has never fully verified Iraq's ever-changing claims and concluded it did not know how many R-400 bombs Iraq produced for chemical/biological agents.

• Of these 1,550 bombs, Iraq says it filled 157 with biological agents. Nothing supports that number. UNSCOM concluded it did not know how many Iraq filled with biological weapons.

• Iraq claims today that newly-found bombs and bomb fragments add up close to 157 and that, therefore, the issue of R-400 biological bombs can be closed.

• Regrettably, the fact is that Iraq has refused to provide a complete and accurate count on how many R-400 bombs — filled or unfilled

• Iraq really has in its possession.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Spray Devices

• We now know that inspectors discovered an undeclared Unmanned Aerial Vehicle with a 7.45 meter wingspan, based on a drop tank system that Iraq admitted was intended to disperse biological agent, has apparent autonomous flight capability and appears to have the capability to fly more than 150 kilometers.

• This type of discovery is only the latest chapter in Iraq's effort to hide the fact that it has worked for years to develop Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and spray devices to deliver chemical and biological agent.

• Only in 1996 did Iraq admit trying to convert the MiG-21 fighter aircraft into an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle to deliver a biological weapon agent. Then, Iraq changed its story and claimed that the MiG-21 would deliver a "munition."

• On spray tanks, UNMOVIC concludes, "there is a clear contradiction in Iraq's explanation of...spray tanks." Contrary to Iraq's declaration, Iraq has "a well-developed drop-tank for [a] chemical agent."

• UNMOVIC states, "The development of tanks for chemical weapons and biological weapons uses should...be considered...one continued project...Spraying devices modified for chemical/biological weapon purposes may still exist in Iraq."

• Iraq has pursued several other Unmanned Aerial Vehicles — the L-29 jet trainer and smaller aircraft — all capable of using spray devices to deliver a chemical/biological agent.

• UNMOVIC's basic conclusion: a "general question of Iraq's intentions with respect to remote-piloted vehicles as chemical/biological delivery systems..."

SCUD-Type Biological and Chemical Warheads

• UNMOVIC's document states: "A number of discrepancies and questions remain which raise doubts about accounting of special warheads, including:

• The total number produced [100 warheads, not 75] ...

• Iraq's numerous modifications to its declarations on these matters.

• Iraq's admitted action taken to mislead UNSCOM on the location and number of special warheads.

• And most importantly, the physical evidence which conflicts with Iraq's account of its destruction of biological warheads..."

• This issue is important because special warheads are "linked to the wider issue of whether Iraq had retained Scud-type missiles, propellant and a launching capability after the declared destruction."

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

[futuro]

Originally posted by cryptorad
Futuro,

I really should let it lie.. because this is just more useless info. Your statements of facts are slanted.. as I suppose mine must appear to you.

Everybody has a slant, based on their feellings one way or the othrer, I recognize that. I do hope that I can put the facts available above my slant, and come to a resaonable conclusion based on fats.

One quick comment on your Military questions. No.. Bush had 10 months and NO.. the military is NOT up to speed yet. It's still a shell of what it was, but it's better then it was in 1995. Yes Clinton started the rebuild himself. Just a tiny bit though.. nothing like Bush has done. BUT.. alot of the money Bush has already budgeted for it's rebuilding (it will take time). The original discussion was about budgets.

On one hand, you're claiming that Clinton decimated the US military, and Bush only had 10 months to correct it. On the other hand, the military was quite sufficent to blow Afghanistan away. And I might add, almost any other countriy. Even during the Clinton years, our military spending was at least 40% of the entire world's total military spending. We're not weak by a long shot. There's no country in the world, hell no 20 countries in the world, that could compete militarily with us. Right now, and I'd bet during the Clinton "weakened army" years, we could conquer the entire world. How freaking much is enough? Why are we spending so much on the military, when there isn't a real threat in sight? Are we so insecure of our position in the world that we must be able to beat up anybody? I really don't think that, outside of a few deranged individuals, there's a person in the world that values their life, that would take on the US in a war, conventional, or otherwise.

Ike, in his farewell spech to the US public, warned us about the military-industrial complex. Ike's farewell speech


This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

IMHO, we lost sight of Ike's warning, and wars like Viet Nam, and Bush's war are a direct result of the "unwarranted influence" or the military-industrial complex. After all, the defense industries can't sell the governemnt new ordinance, unless we use up the old ones.

And I'd just want to make mention that Ike was someone who knew what he was talking about. A 4-star general, the archectict of D-Day, and the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, and a two-term president of the US. We're in what he warned us about, except even moreso. If you read the Howler article I posted previously about how the RNC manipulated the "liberal press" with regard to Gore's comment about the internet, you'l grasp the quagmire we're in. Even our "independent press" is going whole hog for this war, and swaying the opinion of the US public with propaganda and innuendo.

More on this point below...

If you will recall.. 1995 was the year when it was OBVIOUS Iraq was continuing to develop WMD and Saddam's son exposed the VX case embarassment to the UN inspectors (they had no clue). THAT was the time to go into Iraq and do something.. perfect timing, perfect reason, BUT.. our military was NOT in a position to do it. Yeap.. couldn't do it because they were a shell. You'll never find that bragged about by Billy boy or his cronies.. you can betcha. Lot's of people say Bill had no balls to go in.. but that is a crock. Bill Clinton never gave two flying shits about going into somewhere if he wanted to and he was never afraid to let other people go fight. He had an aversion to joining the military himself (buncha losers .. or something) which is why he called Canada home for a period of time.

And here we have you regurgitating the RNC lines about Clinton. At least he had the balls to protest the VN war, and take the chance that his protest and "draft evasion" might cost him his ambitions. Meanwhile, Bush was getting a plumb National Guard assignment, based on his father and grandfather's influence. I'm not even going to bring up the "awol" stuff. Just the fact that he refused to enlist, or take ROTC in college, should be enough for you to brand him part of the "buncha losers". He took a milk-run National Guard assignment, rather than risk his precious skin actually fighting in the war. To me, he took a much easier way out than Clinton did. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have gotten a number in the last two draft lotteries (337,phew! and 264, when they only went to 120-something in 1974). I had an uncle and a cousin killed in VN, and for what? So that some corporate types who's kids had "deferments" could make gobs of money from the deaths of my relatives and friends?

And this war is just as unjustified as VN. Perhaps you should do a search for the Pentagon Papers, and see the lies the government told us, so that they could wage that war. Perhaps you'd look upon the "reasons" for invading Iraq with a little cynicism, rather than swallowing their excuses hook line and sinker.

Perhaps you should review the "incubator story" form the 1991 gulf war, that charged the US public into a fever of anger at Saddam. It was a lie, repeated by Bush I. It turned out that the woman telling the story had left Kuwait prior to the Iraqi invasion. But that didn't stop the US from trumpeting the story to inflame public opinion against Iraq.

However.. here is one for you to read. I remember you said you lacked 'proof'. Yes, it's a State Department document. I'm sure it's just all lies based on lies. It's either all lies.. or your wrong.

Which do you chose?

<snip of document to save space>

You know. I've never disputed that Iraq has bio or chem weapons. It really doesn't matter to me. If he's stupid enough to use them against us, then he's toast. You sound like a conservative, one who supports the right to bear arms. Are you going to bombard your neigbor's house because he has a gun, too? After all, if he came to your house, gun drawn and crazed, you'd shoot him then, right? But are you going to go to his house and shoot him first, because he could come to your house and shoot you? Sure, Saddam used his chem weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds, but guess what? They were both threatening his existance. He used them in defense. And after all, when he did use them, the US kept quiet about it. Now, all of a sudden, we're all bent out of shape about this, 12 years after a war which we won handily, in which he didn't use chem or bio weapons against us.

And for the uninitiated, why would Saddam give wmd to Al Queda, when he can't be sure they wouldn't use them against the "infidel" leading Iraq?

You know, with all the reseaons presented for this war, I'm always coming back to the main one that's missing.

HE HASN'T ATTACKED US

And no, he wasn't involved in 9/11. I lost a couple of friends in that mess too. so don't tell me that I'm "ignoring" it. I want the perpetrators brought to justice for that crime, not a war against some country that jsut happens to have oil.

[cryptorad]

Depends on your definition of attack. I could present several viewpoints.. but I will stick with one that is pretty easy to correlate to a threat to our security.

We are Israel's allies. We are not sworn to their defense (that I know of), but we would come to their aid if it was needed.

Iraq has threatened and attacked Israel continually for years. He is paying families of suicide bombers for bombing Israel. He has clearly said he'll launch missles on Israel, and has called for his "Arab brothers" to join him in fighting the "INFIDELS!". That's the US and Israel.. we're the infidels. If he can involve Israel in a war with the US he will do it.. because as he has said. THEY are one and the same. Infidels, who must die.

He has threatened Israel repeatedly. He has attacked Israel repeatedly. We have proof. He hates Israel. He hates the US. He has threatened the US repeatedly. We don't have proof of any direct attacks on the US. Only suspicions. There is a good reason for this. Any attacks he undertakes against the US HAVE to be in secret. If he is caught or proven to have attacked us.. his country, and likely his very life, will cease to exist that very week. No one disputes that. Saddam knows this.

We only have suspicions that he has attacked us (anthrax, Sept 11th) but his words and actions CLEARLY indicate he is a threat. A threat to Mideast stablility, which is required for US peace and security and our way of life. Our suspicions about Sept 11th surround the Iraqi intelligence agent who met with Muhammad Atta several times. Two of these meetings occured (roughly) just prior to the start of Atta's mission and once just prior to the end of the mission when they flew the planes into the Twin Towers. The meetings are facts (not made up) and their timing is way too amazing to be coincidence. Atta was on this mission during these meetings. It's possible they discussed their love of American freedom's, but I think you'd agree only a fool would believe that. But let's move on past suspicions of having already attacked. Let discuss "permission" to attack Iraq from the UN.

Is the US ever going to get authority from the UN to go into Iraq? Nope. France will never vote in favor. They've said so. Why? It seems rather odd doesn't it. Well consider this theory. France has helped them obtain some of their illegal weapons. These facts are starting to trickle out. Allow me to repeat, France will NEVER vote in favor of an Iraqi invasion. If French companies have helped them buy tons of banned materials in violation of the UN embargo and they are making WMD with them. How's that gonna look? Hmm.. but is he working on WMD? Check out the link from my last post if that question is on your mind. Some of the materials that the French helped get into Iraq illegally have NO other purpose .. except for these functions.

SOOOO.. he is working on nuclear weapons. He has developed VX gas. DURING inspections we have to admit. Facts. So let me ask you this about yourself. Do you really want to risk your life by saying "You can't prove he is going to bomb (gas) us?". Because if your wrong.. your dead. I'll say this. You are right. We can't prove what he might do to us in the future. Hell.. we can't even prove some of what we KNOW for certain he has done in the past. That does NOT mean they are not true. That does not mean the threat is not real. He has been told, NOT just by us.. but by the whole UN council, get rid of the weapons. Disarm. Disarm. Disarm. He has agreed to disarm.. it was part of the cease fire. If you break a cease fire, people may start shooting at you again. He knows this. It's just a fact. But saying there is a lack of "proof" of his intent to bomb or gas us is only a means for someone who wants to have peace at any cost.. and avoid war at all costs.

To me, war is NOT the worst of the possible scenario's of our future. Saddam Hussein making several nuclear weapons and smuggling them into the US is pretty horrible. And even THAT isn't the worst scenario.

I would rather see a war. Why I'm painted as a horrible person for that choice I can't quite understand. Let me repeat.. War is not the WORST scenario. I can't say for a fact Saddam Hussein is going to bomb us as soon as he can. But what CAN I say about him?

I can say that he keeps trying to make illegal weapons of mass destruction. I can say that he does this in defiance of the whole world (90%+). I can say that he can't use these illegal weapons for anything but mass killing. I can say that he HAS used these illegal weapons for mass killing. I can say he claimed he didn't possess these illegal weapons and then was caught with them. I can say he has said he didn't possess these illegal weapons and then used them. I can say he has only used illegal weapons against weaker groups who cannot retaliate, or when he thought he wouldn't be caught (or connected to them). I can say that he has used those illegal weapons even when he knows he'll kill innocents. I can say that he has killed tens of thousands of people with these horrible weapons. I can say that he has threatened to use those weapons against the US. I can say that he says he doesn't have them now. I can say alot of people in the world believe him when he says he doesn't have them. Or.. at least they SAY they believe him. Let's examine his neighbors a moment shall we?

I can say that the entire MIDDLE EAST has prepared and has plans for the consequences of these types of attacks from him. Yet, still they say he shouldn't be stopped. That there is not enough 'proof' to go in and stop him. And at the same time they are afraid to death of him launching against them. They even expect it and plan for it. Now those are some seriously misguided individuals. I don't want to risk my children because I need to be attacked before I "know for sure". I don't want to be one of those people.

I do not want to give the person I just described "The benefit of the doubt" when the evidence is strongly indicative otherwise. I do not want to risk my families lives just to make sure he gets all the rights and privileges of a US citizen accused of a crime. The innocent until proven guilty method works if you are trying someone for a crime. It doesn't apply if you are working on security of nations and dealing with religious fanatics. US rights and privileges are something Saddam does not deserve, and will never deserve. Rights and privileges he has never offered to his own citizens.

NO sir. I say Saddam can go to hell.

Now.. in closing.. good discussion Futuro. I enjoyed the debate. But I'm signing off this thread now. I have absolutely exceeded my bandwidth here and need to draw a line somewhere. Even though I don't want to stop, sometimes .. you have to say enough is enough. Just like we need to do with Hussein.

[homer]

War is a terrible solution to conflicts It is a tragic loss of life and waste of resources that could be put to advancing the condition of mankind. It is also a necessary response to the presence of evil. Just as revolution has been a radical but necessary response to despots within nations, war has proven a necessary answer to those who would challenge and destroy other nations, or even risk world-wide holocaust for their selfish wickedness.

Unlike diplomacy, war is not a battle of words; and the results are not the loss of face. Diplomacy is the first effort to reconcile; war is the last response. To understand the necessity of war in the current situation, it is helpful to understand the reasons for its opposition.

Preemption

As a fair and moral nation, we have always been guided by a view of military action in response to provocation. In recent years, we have often turned the other cheek to nominal attacks, even at the loss of American citizens and soldiers. When attacks were at the behest of nations and waged with conventional weaponry, such a delayed response was a civil posture. In a world of multi-national, or even non-national, terrorists, with a potential for catastrophic loss from weapons of mass destruction, the rules have changed. To fail to act on reasonable intelligence indicating a potential for such modern acts of war is stupid, and a constitutional breach of duty. The president has been right to move slowly and to use every tool to disarm our enemies peacefully. In the light of failure of those efforts, he has also been right to mass our military might for an overwhelming assault. The rapid decimation of the enemy will be his objective; the minimization of civilian casualties will, of course, be a major goal; but the prevention of the loss of American lives will be his duty, and that may well justify preemptive action.

Unilateral Action

America is not a bully. We do not go around picking fights with lesser nations. Though our might stands alone, and our economic resources are many, our national character is of a warm and generous spirit. We are quick to offer assistance, and slow to anger. We have given back to nations that which might well be claimed as ours from use of our technology, know-how or other resources; hardly an imperialist orientation. We have not needed the permission of France, Germany or the UN to act in generosity, and we do not need it to act in our defense. We are a sovereign nation and have the God given right to a national life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That we welcome the support of just and freedom seeking allies is a reflection of our desire, not a mandate to our course of action. When tyrants offend the sensibilities of the free world, it is expected that the free world will respond in unison. The failure of any of them, or all of them, to do so is a blight on their own national character, not a restraint on our own.

More Inspections

Iraq is, and has for 12 years, been in default of directives from a patient world that allowed it to cleanse itself of past transgressions. It chose to ignore those generous offers, and direct its limited wealth to hateful instead of peaceful devises; it built chemical and biological weapons, instead of an economy that would sustain its citizens. It ventured further into the realm of nuclear weapons for massive destruction of life and the advance of an evil agenda of one man. The sole purpose of any inspections was to allow this man one last chance to prove his correction of past wrongs, not to establish new ones. He has failed to do so, and has placed his nation at risk. He is not entitled to one additional day of delay, or one additional "inspection." He needs to go – and will. It was his choice.

Financial Costs

There is no financial measure, nor any financial constraint, to the preservation of freedom. Had there been, our own American revolution would have never been fought, and certainly would not have continued to secure our own freedom. John Kennedy’s notion that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship…" in the defense of liberty was not a hollow one. The one unquestionable expense that our country must never shirk from paying is the price to maintain our freedom and to protect our citizens; it is the fundamental reason for which our government exists.

Immoral Purpose

"It’s about power and oil," chant the demonstrators. They seldom understand the real issues, and predictably point to convenient and tired slogans. If we wanted oil, we’d have taken it the last time! Ditto for the power thing. In reality, the oil was "created" out of U.S. technology and engineering in the first place, but fair-minded and respectful as we are, we have played along with the oil cartels for decades, allowing their sheiks and princes to become obscenely rich with wealth unshared. We would much prefer to put our own resources into developing a non-petroleum energy source, and likely will. If we did, Saddam would just wither and die like the "Wizard of Oz" witch. It is through his own actions, that he has prompted an earlier exit – not our desire to take his oil.

What about the others?

Iran, N. Korea and other nations have spawned and supported terror cells, rattled sabers against neighbors, and even threatened America and the free world. It is in our own interest to deal with each of them in ways of our own choosing, and in our own time frame. It is their choice to act in threatening or evil ways; it is our choice of whether, when, and how to respond. It’s not that we can’t fight battles on more than one front if our nation is threatened; it’s that we choose not to. The purveyors of ill in the world know not to test our capacity, or our patience. Germany, Japan and the U.S.S.R. have all offered the world more potential for destructive power than any of the current crop of petty wannabe bad guys. They would be wise to learn from history.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

- John F. Kennedy

[futuro]

Originally posted by homer
War is a terrible solution to conflicts It is a tragic loss of life and waste of resources that could be put to advancing the condition of mankind.

Bravo, and reading this, I'm amazed at the rest of your post.

It is also a necessary response to the presence of evil.

"Evil"..... It always seems that "evil" is an epithat soley applied to one's enemies. Many in the world seem to consider many actions of the US government "evil". Japan's leaders prior to, and during WWII progulated the "evil" of the US. We call Saddam "evil". Our genocide of native Americans would be considered "evil" except by the settlers who, in turn, called the "indians" "evil". Germany in WWII was "evil". The institution of slavery was "evil".

"Evil", like good, is a relative term, applied to those one disagrees with. For a country that applies the death penalty in amounts not known in the rest of the first world, what would you say about the US? Why are we the only industrialized nation that tells our citizens not to kill because it is wrong, and then proceeds to kill those who fail to heed the warning? Perhaps the death penalty is a kettle of fish best left untouched in a discussion of whether we should invade another country, but I think it's germaine, considering our current president is one who presided over the deaths of many when governor of Texas. It seems to me that this is somewhat of the same mindset, that we should invoke the ultimate penalty on a country (war), in the same way we invoke the ultimate penalty on our own people.

Just as revolution has been a radical but necessary response to despots within nations, war has proven a necessary answer to those who would challenge and destroy other nations, or even risk world-wide holocaust for their selfish wickedness.

Those who have revolted, in almost every case that comes to mind, have been branded as "evil" by those being revolted against and vice-versa. There have been hundreds of wars started by "evil" states against "good" states. There have been hundreds of wars started by "good" states against "evil" states. And guess what? They're the same wars. The definiton of "good" and "evil" has changed throught history, and will change again, without doubt.

"Selfish wickedness" is also a term that is relative. Many countries and many corporations practice "selfish wickedness" with the full consent of the "authorities". Many in the world today look at the US as the prime example of "selfish wickedness". Our prolific use of energy, per capita, is one example. Our propensity to judge other countries by our standards, and sometimes force them to adhere to our standards is another.

Unlike diplomacy, war is not a battle of words; and the results are not the loss of face. Diplomacy is the first effort to reconcile; war is the last response. To understand the necessity of war in the current situation, it is helpful to understand the reasons for its opposition.

This stance is assuming that war is the default position, and anit-war needs to be defended. I see it the other way. War is usually conducted when one country either sees it's economic position threatened by another country, or sees a possible gain from the ther country. There are few other reasons for war.

Preemption

As a fair and moral nation,

Now there's an assumption that many could dispute, and fairly. We have used our economic and military muscle to coerce other nations into going along with whatever we say. The current crop of "allies" is a primary example. Most of the countries that are on "our side" have been either promised, or threatened. I ask you, if our stance was completely and morally correct, why would we need to bribe or threaten other countries to support us?

we have always been guided by a view of military action in response to provocation. In recent years, we have often turned the other cheek to nominal attacks, even at the loss of American citizens and soldiers. When attacks were at the behest of nations and waged with conventional weaponry, such a delayed response was a civil posture.

A stance that I'm very upset we seem to be abandoning.

In a world of multi-national, or even non-national, terrorists,

"Criminals" That's what they are. Whether they're supported by one, many or no nations does not change the fact that they are criminals, and as such should be subject to our laws. Abandoning our princibles and laws for anyone removes our moral ground for any action. If we don't apply our own standards to others, our standards are worthless.

with a potential for catastrophic loss from weapons of mass destruction, the rules have changed.

Why would they change? I'm interested to know why you would abandon your morality simply because you are threatened? And especially in the case when the threat comes from a nation, or group of individuals that aren't any more of a threat, and can't cause any more "mass destrustion" than what automobiles have caused in the last year.

To fail to act on reasonable intelligence indicating a potential for such modern acts of war is stupid, and a constitutional breach of duty.

"A potentional"??? Are we to act on the potential of any nation, individual or group of individuals to harm us? In that case, you've just completely destroyed the whole basis for the morality that the US is built on. We don't imprison people on the "potential" that they may rape someone. We don't shoot someone based on the "potential" that that may use their gun to shoot someone else. That's not the way we decided to build our society.

And this "modern acts of war" you're referring to (i.e, terrorism) isn't anything new. The word "terrorism" might be a new term, but the act has existed for millenium. Conduting a "war on terrorism" is as silly as conducting a "war on carpet bombing". Both are tactics of war. "War on terrorism" is just code for "war on muslims who have a gripe (justified or not) against the US". Perhaps the ultimate "war on terrorism" would be to use our immense wealth to improve the lives of people all over the world. That would certainly take the bite out of terrorism. Happy, well fed people are much less likely to be terrorists.

The president has been right to move slowly and to use every tool to disarm our enemies peacefully.

Yet another tool of propaganda. Branding those who we wish to eliminate as "our enemies". And let me ask you, if I branded you an "enemy", would you let me disarm you peacefully?

In the light of failure of those efforts, he has also been right to mass our military might for an overwhelming assault.

Oh, yes. Might makes right. Even if we have to ignore our basic beliefs to do it. I might also point out that one day, sooner than you think, our "might" will not be enough to overwhelm a "potential" enemy. It's easy to justify invading another country when you're the big kid on the block, but the little kids are growing, and they have good memories.

The rapid decimation of the enemy will be his objective; the minimization of civilian casualties will, of course, be a major goal; but the prevention of the loss of American lives will be his duty, and that may well justify preemptive action.

Oh, yes. Minimize "civilian" causualties. Just like we did in Viet Nam. If they got killed, they were VC, or VC sympathizers. They never were "civillians", were they?

Unilateral Action

America is not a bully. We do not go around picking fights with lesser nations.

<choke, gag> What the hell do you think we are doing right now???

Though our might stands alone, and our economic resources are many, our national character is of a warm and generous spirit. We are quick to offer assistance, and slow to anger.

I'm beginning to think that the author, you or otherwise, has no clue about the history on US meddling in other nations. We've been responsible for at least 15 "regime changes", with no regard to the wishes of the people of the countries we interfered in. We've supported worse dictators than Saddam, and we even were supporting Saddam when we were fully aware of his use of chem weapons on Iranians and Kurds. As long as it was for our purposes, it was ok, wasn't it?

And to prove the writer of this screed wrong, all I need to do is mention two words: Viet Nam.

We have given back to nations that which might well be claimed as ours from use of our technology, know-how or other resources; hardly an imperialist orientation.

I'd really like to see an example of this "fact". Perhaps the Peace Corps might be an example of this, but it's hardly an organ of the US government. The writer seems to have a problem distinguishing the difference between the US people and the US government.

We have not needed the permission of France, Germany or the UN to act in generosity, and we do not need it to act in our defense.

Defense from what? Trumped up "threats" from a country that has been bombarded, inspected, and sanctioned for 12 years? I gave some good examples before as to what depths the US government will go to inflame the US public against a perceived "enemy".
And they're doing it again. The recent revelation that supposed "documents" that "proved" Iraq was trying to accquire uranium have been shown to be "fabricated". Also known as "a lie".

I urge the readers to peruse any website that has a summary of the Pentagon Paper, just so you can see how four US presidents lied to us, just so they could conduct a war against NVN. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do it again?

We are a sovereign nation and have the God given right to a national life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

My complete cynism comes out right here. If "god" gave us these rights, let "god" protect them. Why send thousands of young Americans to "protect" them? Why not send Pat Robertson, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and those types. They're the ones that seem to think this war is necessary. Let them fight it.

That we welcome the support of just and freedom seeking allies is a reflection of our desire, not a mandate to our course of action. When tyrants offend the sensibilities of the free world, it is expected that the free world will respond in unison. The failure of any of them, or all of them, to do so is a blight on their own national character, not a restraint on our own.

So how does the author explain why we supprort the realm of Pakistan, a military junta that denies the rights of it's citizens? Oh, becasue they're our "friends"?

More Inspections

Iraq is, and has for 12 years, been in default of directives from a patient world that allowed it to cleanse itself of past transgressions.

How noble of the world. How noble of Pakistan and Indian, who are still skirmishing over disputed parts of Kashmir. How noble of Britan, that during that time killed many people in Ireland, who simply wanted independence. How noble of the US, that supports dictators, just because they're "friendly". How noble of Turkey and Greecs, who have troops stationed in Cyprus, in spite of UNSC resolutions, denying the people of Cyprus the right of self-determination. Countries that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you know.

[QUOTE[]
It chose to ignore those generous offers,
[/QUOTE]

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that?

and direct its limited wealth to hateful instead of peaceful devises; it built chemical and biological weapons, instead of an economy that would sustain its citizens.

Similar to how the US is spending itself into debt to foster "homeland security" at the expense of a record number of homeless?

[QUOTE]
It ventured further into the realm of nuclear weapons for massive destruction of life and the advance of an evil agenda of one man.
[QUOTE]

Hardy, har har. No proof they have tried to accquire nukes, except for a proven false document.

And speaking of evil agendas of one man, may I introduce you to George W. Bush? You know, the one who wants to start an unprovoked war against a country can't threaten the US?

The sole purpose of any inspections was to allow this man one last chance to prove his correction of past wrongs, not to establish new ones. He has failed to do so, and has placed his nation at risk. He is not entitled to one additional day of delay, or one additional "inspection." He needs to go – and will. It was his choice.

It's amazing how this "one man" could so threaten the greatest nation on earth. What are we so scared of?

Financial Costs

There is no financial measure, nor any financial constraint, to the preservation of freedom.

Assuming, of course, that there is any threat to our freedom. At the most, a threat has been proposed to some US citizens lives. Is the author saying that Saddam has, or could have, the capability to comepletely conquer the US, and replace our government with a facist one? If so, I wonder at his sense of proportion.

Had there been, our own American revolution would have never been fought, and certainly would not have continued to secure our own freedom.

And here is a weird analogy, if I've ever seen one. The American Revolution was fought against a far superior foe, and against great odds. By all accounts, Iraq and Al Queda combined could never have the firepower to defeat the US military and overrun the US mainland. At worst, using the alleged "nucular" weapons, they might succed in murdering a few million US citizens (a far-fetched notion, to be sure). I'm wondering if this isn't just a baseless emotional appeal to inflame the citizenry against an enemy that the government has chosen for their own enrichment, and are using these types of arguements to hide the real reaosn for the attack.....

John Kennedy’s notion that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship…" in the defense of liberty was not a hollow one. The one unquestionable expense that our country must never shirk from paying is the price to maintain our freedom and to protect our citizens; it is the fundamental reason for which our government exists.

And John Kennedy was reffering to a nation that actually had the capability to do it, not some poor third world nation that was already decimated.

Immoral Purpose

"It’s about power and oil," chant the demonstrators. They seldom understand the real issues, and predictably point to convenient and tired slogans.

Typical propaganda. Brush off the oppositon claiming they don't know, and they're slogans are "tired". Sorry, but peace is never "tired".

If we wanted oil, we’d have taken it the last time! Ditto for the power thing.

We got some oil the last time, don't you know. We got the undying gratitude of the Kuwaiti oil barons. We rescued Kuwaiti oil from an unfriendly (to us) despot and returned it to freindly despots. Part of the reason Saddam went to war against Kuwait was that they were seriously undercutting the OPEC oil price, and making it hard for him to pay his debts for the war against Iran. A war the US government fully supported him in, by the way.

In reality, the oil was "created" out of U.S. technology and engineering in the first place, but fair-minded and respectful as we are, we have played along with the oil cartels for decades, allowing their sheiks and princes to become obscenely rich with wealth unshared.

Oh, how nice of us. The "US" technology you're refffering to was technology that US-based multinational oil companied used to extract oil from those countries. They didn't do it to be "fair-minded", they did it to share immense profits.

And I'm amazed at your comment about "wealth unshared". What do you think the US has ben doing for the last 100 years? Not only do we not share our wealth with other countries, we dont' share our wealth with our own citizens.

I'm beginning to think that the "Homer" refers more to Homer Simpson, than Homer, the ancient Greek poet.

We would much prefer to put our own resources into developing a non-petroleum energy source, and likely will.

Guffaw! Not with oil-man Bush in charge, we won't.

If we did, Saddam would just wither and die like the "Wizard of Oz" witch. It is through his own actions, that he has prompted an earlier exit – not our desire to take his oil.

Since your premise is blatantly wrong, so is your conclusion. I'll throw another thing in here. Newsweek had a piece stating that the cost of war would be higher than any profis from Iraqi oil. What they conveniently left out was, the [I]cost[/] of the war will be bourn by the US tapayers. The profits from the oil will go to the oil company friends of Bush.

What about the others?

Iran, N. Korea and other nations have spawned and supported terror cells, rattled sabers against neighbors, and even threatened America and the free world. It is in our own interest to deal with each of them in ways of our own choosing, and in our own time frame. It is their choice to act in threatening or evil ways; it is our choice of whether, when, and how to respond. It’s not that we can’t fight battles on more than one front if our nation is threatened; it’s that we choose not to. The purveyors of ill in the world know not to test our capacity, or our patience. Germany, Japan and the U.S.S.R. have all offered the world more potential for destructive power than any of the current crop of petty wannabe bad guys. They would be wise to learn from history.

Yes, they would. They better not find any oil under their dirt, or we'll go to war with them, too.

I don't know what you think you accomplished with this post, but it's the same old invalid excuses for a war that has no provocation. If this war happens, it's because the US started it, not for any other reason.

[Borscht]

Yes, they would. They better not find any oil under their dirt, or we'll go to war with them, too.

*Yawn* If it's all about oil, why didn't we take over the oil fields after Kuwait?

If this war happens, it's because the US started it, not for any other reason.

My guess is the brutalized, tortured, raped and oppressed people of Iraq will be grateful to have freedom restored to them. No matter who starts the war.

And when that happens, we'll all remember that you were one of the people who cared not a whit for them. But simply used the "anti war" charade to try to make your anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-American partisanship appear moral.

In the words of our great president:

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

[Alwayslost]

Homer,

While I do not 100% agree with your post, I found it very well written and very thought invoking.


Futuro,

I'm really baffled here. What is it you think should be done?

Do you feel we (the US) should just leave the reigon of the middle east and let them all fighht it out amongst themselves??

Do you seriously believe that continued inspections (at this point) will accomplish anything? If so, What?

With no provocation, Saddam Rolled his forces into Kuait. If we had done nothing at the time, do you also believe he would have stopped there?

At what point do we do something? Where do we draw the line? Do we wait till some other orgnization starts using the weapons of Iraq on the US? Or should we just go after thos people and let him continue to make them and supply them to enemies of his enemies?

Do you have to see your home town attacked? Your friends and families die or suffer at the hands of terrorists in order for you to believe that force is now necessary?

Maybe you believe that some other nation should be the ones to do what is necessary to protect the lives of countless others? If so, Who?

Maybe you believe that the people of Iraq REALLY do hate us, Maybe they do, MAYBE the ENTIRE nation is genetically bred into a nation of masochists. But I kinda doubt it.

I am just amazed that given the OVER 12 year history involved here, and your apparent level of intelligence that you could really continue to hold out any REASONABLE hope of this ever ending in a truly peaceful way...

I can see that of the Nudnicks in the streets with their signs and their obvious herd mentality. I can UNDERSTAND France's position to a limited degree, but DUDE!

We WILL lose AMERICAN lives because of Saddam, sooner or later. The choice is do we lose lives that are trained to fight to protect this country or do we lose Mary Smith and her 3 hour old child as she is blown to bits at Central Community Hospital? Or maybe Suzie and Sara as a cannister of VX is released into the air a block upwind from their 3rd grade class? What about the 15,000 Coledge students in Florida on Spring break as mustard gass is released into a crowded beach?

And before you start about the many TENS of thousand IRAQI lives that will be lost in a war, remember two things here, first SADDAM is placing them in harms way, and second, those lives are in the same amount of risk EVERY day from thier own government. In the last 12 years it is not impossible that the Iraqi government alone has caused TENS of thousands of lives to be lost within their own borders.

As I go back and re-read your replies to Homer's post I see that you really seem to have no grasp of action vs consequence. You will twist the facts to support your beliefs no matter how far fetched.

I'm interested to know why you would abandon your morality simply because you are threatened? And especially in the case when the threat comes from a nation, or group of individuals that aren't any more of a threat, and can't cause any more "mass destrustion" than what automobiles have caused in the last year.

This is the larges pile of crap I have read on this board yet. To compare the PLANNED deaths of thousands to the collective sum of incidental actions of 180 million people, and to suggest that we wait till it HAPPENS before we react??? WTF are you smoking? Those threats you so casually dismiss are MORE than empty. Unless you think we should be issuing a Traffic ticket to Bin Ladin?

Another example is this:

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that?

Here is where you prove that it is you that is not in grasp of reality. Please explain to me since you are so wise:

1) Why does ANY country need VX to protect itself?

2) Why does ANY country need Anthrax to protect itself?

3) Why does ANY country need pilotless delivery vehicles that can travel 150 miles + to deliver these Weapons?

Now to address the main piece of tripe in your statement. They are NOT defenseless, they were not required to destroy Tanks, guns, missiles with shorter than 90 miles of flight, etc. You are the one making the "self-righeous" statements all through your post.

My complete cynism comes out right here. If "god" gave us these rights, let "god" protect them. Why send thousands of young Americans to "protect" them? Why not send Pat Robertson, George Bush, Dick Chaney, and those types. They're the ones that seem to think this war is necessary. Let them fight it.

Tell you what, you seem to want to volunteer others, how about this, we call off enforcing what the WORLD set as disarmament rules for Iraq as long as you, and your family, are the first in line to to sign up to die from the next terrorist attack that you are so convinced will never come. After all you are about as trained to deal with that as the president is to fly a f-15. Actually, judging by your posts, you are MORE trained to be a victom than the Presiden is to actually fight in a battle.

Ok, for like the fifth time, I have come to the conclusion that you are French(or you wish you were french). It is obvious that you hate the US, and consider this country to be a large group of war-driven bullies. You have a condesending attitude and love to CHOOSE to take what is said literally rather than trying to understand the point being made.

If you ARE an american, please contact the Iraqi consulate in D.C. please and sign up to be one of the living shields for the anti aircraft radar, I'm sure you will make the 6 o'clock news when Iraq is broadcasting your mangled corpse to show how evil the US is. If I see Iraqi civilians that have been placed in harms way, I am saddened, when I see sheep lined up from other nations to die for Saddam, I get out the popcorn and record it for repeated later viewing, all the while singing an old classic, "Culling the Heard"

[futuro]

Originally posted by Alwayslost
Homer,

While I do not 100% agree with your post, I found it very well written and very thought invoking.


Futuro,

I'm really baffled here. What is it you think should be done?

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait.

Do you feel we (the US) should just leave the reigon of the middle east and let them all fighht it out amongst themselves??

Why not? What possible result could come from out meddling except resentment an hatred? I'll ask you this. Suppose the US and Canada started having border disputes, with fighting breaking out and wmd's used. Would you want Britain, Spain, France and Germany sending troops over here to "mediate" and "keep peace"? Wouldn't you resent the intrusion, and harbor ill-feelings toward the meddlers?

Do you seriously believe that continued inspections (at this point) will accomplish anything? If so, What?

Sure they will. They'll make it harder for Saddam to continue any wmd production, harder to start any new programs, harder to commit any agression. Why do you think they won't?

With no provocation, Saddam Rolled his forces into Kuait. If we had done nothing at the time, do you also believe he would have stopped there?

He was provoked. Kuwait continued to sell oil under the OPEC price targets. He and other OPEC members tried to get them to stop multiple times, through negoitations and other means. Iraq was being hurt the most by this practice.

And he did stop there. And he was easily rebuked by the Gulf War. We weren't going to do nothing.

At what point do we do something? Where do we draw the line?

Overt agression against another country. How's that for a line? But then again, Pakistan and India do that seemingly on a regular schedule, and we're not disarming either of them, are we? Where's your line? Why do something about Iraq, and nothing about India and Pakistan?

<church lady mode>
Hmm, I wonder why.. could it be... oh I don't know, could it be.... THE OIL???
</church lady mode>

Do we wait till some other orgnization starts using the weapons of Iraq on the US? Or should we just go after thos people and let him continue to make them and supply them to enemies of his enemies?

Why do you think Saddam is an idiot? Why do you think he would give wmd's to Al Queda or any other terrorist organization? After going through all the trouble to get and make them, why would he give them to someone else, especially Bin Laden, the man who calls him "infidel"?

Do you have to see your home town attacked? Your friends and families die or suffer at the hands of terrorists in order for you to believe that force is now necessary?

I have seen it. Where do you think I'm from? But guess what? I'm of the opinion that it was a criminal organization that commited that act, and we, as a nation, should hunt down those responsible for planning and executing that crime. It seems we are, slowly. However, no one has presented credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11/01 crimes, or any other Al Queda crime.

Maybe you believe that some other nation should be the ones to do what is necessary to protect the lives of countless others? If so, Who?

I'd be happy if the US government started worrying about US citizens, instead of worrying about multinational corporations. It seems starving, homeless people and working people who keep finding that their incomes can no longer meet their needs are ignored, but corporations and rich people are continually given breaks.

An example : Bush's arm had to be twisted four ways to get an extension of unemployment benefits, but he's all for removing taxation on corporate dividends! I guess he thinks if you're poor or out of work, you don't need money, but if you're rich enough to own stocks, you need more....

Maybe you believe that the people of Iraq REALLY do hate us, Maybe they do, MAYBE the ENTIRE nation is genetically bred into a nation of masochists. But I kinda doubt it.

Your point? I don't remember making this arguement.

I am just amazed that given the OVER 12 year history involved here, and your apparent level of intelligence that you could really continue to hold out any REASONABLE hope of this ever ending in a truly peaceful way...

What 12 year history? The 12 year history when Iraq didn't invade another country, didn't give wmd's to terrorists? The 12 years Iraq has been under almost constant surveillance, inspections and sanctions? That 12 years history?

I can see that of the Nudnicks in the streets with their signs and their obvious herd mentality. I can UNDERSTAND France's position to a limited degree, but DUDE!

I'm not impressed. You've obviously swallowed the implication that somehow, Saddam was responsible for 9/11/01, that he's given any of his wmd's to anyone else, and that he's stupid enough to attack the most powerful nation on earth. Next thing you'll say is that he gave Timothy McVeigh the fertilizer. and gave the DC snipers the bullets.

We WILL lose AMERICAN lives because of Saddam, sooner or later. The choice is do we lose lives that are trained to fight to protect this country or do we lose Mary Smith and her 3 hour old child as she is blown to bits at Central Community Hospital? Or maybe Suzie and Sara as a cannister of VX is released into the air a block upwind from their 3rd grade class? What about the 15,000 Coledge students in Florida on Spring break as mustard gass is released into a crowded beach?

Quite a fertile imagination you got there. Also quite an inflated opinion of Saddam's capabilities. How do you suppose he's going to get VX nerve gas out of his country? Why so you suppose he's stupid enough to do that? Keep in mind, during the Gulf War, he did not use any wmd's against our troops, and they were right there, as close as he could want. The man obviously wants to live, not die in a "nucular" holocoust.

And before you start about the many TENS of thousand IRAQI lives that will be lost in a war, remember two things here, first SADDAM is placing them in harms way, and second, those lives are in the same amount of risk EVERY day from thier own government. In the last 12 years it is not impossible that the Iraqi government alone has caused TENS of thousands of lives to be lost within their own borders.

"Not impossible"? No, it's "not impossible". Likely? maybe. Could have" maybe... But unfortunatly, none of those is suffices to prosectute a war in which without doubt, some of those people you are trying to "protect" will lose their lives.

As I go back and re-read your replies to Homer's post I see that you really seem to have no grasp of action vs consequence. You will twist the facts to support your beliefs no matter how far fetched.

What if the consequence of our invading an arab country is tens of thousands more terrorists, hundreds of more terrorist organizations, and dozens of more terrorist attacks on US soil, few of which we are able to stop? We're already looked upon with suspision in the arab world, and an invasion would merely confirm those suspisions.

And I twist facts? Aren't you the one that seems sure that Saddam is in leaugue with terrorists, and wants to supply a man who calls him "infidel" with weapons that could easily be turned against him?

Tell you what, you seem to want to volunteer others, how about this, we call off enforcing what the WORLD set as disarmament rules for Iraq as long as you, and your family, are the first in line to to sign up to die from the next terrorist attack that you are so convinced will never come. After all you are about as trained to deal with that as the president is to fly a f-15. Actually, judging by your posts, you are MORE trained to be a victom than the Presiden is to actually fight in a battle.

Tell you what, I'll stop volunteering Bush, et al, if they stop volunteering the US military. And guess what? I'm of the opinion that the only way to stop terrorist attacks is for the US to treat other nations and peoples with respect and kindness. Certainly, engaging in a "pre-emptive" war against another country isn't going to do it.

Ok, for like the fifth time, I have come to the conclusion that you are French(or you wish you were french). It is obvious that you hate the US, and consider this country to be a large group of war-driven bullies. You have a condesending attitude and love to CHOOSE to take what is said literally rather than trying to understand the point being made.

No, I'm American, and wish the US wasn't on this course. I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits.

And sorry, I haven't taken mind-reading courses, I can only answer what you write, and take it literally. If you mean something else, than write something else, don't expect me, or anyone else to use ESP to figure out what you mean from what you or anyone else says.

If you ARE an american, please contact the Iraqi consulate in D.C. please and sign up to be one of the living shields for the anti aircraft radar, I'm sure you will make the 6 o'clock news when Iraq is broadcasting your mangled corpse to show how evil the US is. If I see Iraqi civilians that have been placed in harms way, I am saddened, when I see sheep lined up from other nations to die for Saddam, I get out the popcorn and record it for repeated later viewing, all the while singing an old classic, "Culling the Heard"

Then why am I discussing this with you? You're obviously only in this for the entertainment value, aren't you? I'll bet you watch your tapes of the Kent State murders almost everyday, right?

You must think "Faces of Death" is a real hoot, huh?

[board Lizard]

Sure they will. They'll make it harder for Saddam to continue any wmd production, harder to start any new programs, harder to commit any agression.

So you admit that he's was up until recently (November anyway) continuing with this wmd programs? Cause if so then you agree he was in clear and direct violation of the cease fire treaty.. and we all know what that means.

He was provoked. Kuwait continued to sell oil under the OPEC price targets. He and other OPEC members tried to get them to stop multiple times, through negoitations and other means. Iraq was being hurt the most by this practice.

Yes, it was all Kuwait's fault.. they were asking for it.. just like a date rape victim does. Is that what you're saying?

Go hug a tree, hippy. As of sometime in the coming week we'll be at war, a quick one I might add, and all your talk will mean jack shit.. good thing the majority of the American people support this war.. and thats all that really matters, what America wants.. know why? Cause we're the only fucking superpower and we fucking said so.. its the way its always been through history and its how it'll be now.. don't like it.. move to Iran and see how they treat your open minded and pro-Iraqi point of view.


p.s. just read this gem..

And guess what? I'm of the opinion that the only way to stop terrorist attacks is for the US to treat other nations and peoples with respect and kindness.

just FYI they don't give a flying fuck about your kindness.. they want you dead.. dead. (and don't give me the "thats cause we started it" speach because i don't give a fuck who started it.. all i care about is staying alive, and at this point love and sunshine isn't gonna do that for me.. but killing a few million arabs in a country far far away might.. might save me a couple of bucks on gas too) don't believe me? walk up to one of these ragheaded fundamentalists and try to hug him, then watch how quickly he kills you both with his homemade suicide bomb

[Borscht]

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait.

It has not been working. Those things aren't in place to deter him from attacking. They demand that he *disarm*. Instead, with the covert assistance of France, Russia, and Germany he's been re-arming and pursuing WMD programs.

Blix tried to suppress the discovery of his undeclared bio/chem delivery drones. Hans thinks global warming is a greater threat than Saddam Hussein, as he stated in his interview with the renowned international news organization....MTV. Good to know we have serious people in charge of the "inspections".

We now have outstanding satellite photographs of the Boeing 727 fuselage 20km South of Baghdad used to train terrorists in hijacking techniques. British and American intelligence believes the 911 hijackers were trained right there.

The "inspectors" were not sent to Iraq to ferret out weapons. They were sent to receive the evidence that Iraq has disarmed.

Why not? What possible result could come from out meddling except resentment an hatred? I'll ask you this. Suppose the US and Canada started having border disputes, with fighting breaking out and wmd's used.

You're stoned. Canada doesn't own WMD's. The Boy Scouts of America could take over Canada with zero casualties. This supposed "resentment and hatred" sure hasn't stemmed the millions of people trying to become US citizens every year. Many risking life and limb for the precious opportunity.

What if the consequence of our invading an arab country is tens of thousands more terrorists, hundreds of more terrorist organizations, and dozens of more terrorist attacks on US soil, few of which we are able to stop?

You mean like all the unstoppable attacks after we overthrew the regime in Afghanistan? This is an old argument, as idiotic as when it was used then.

I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits.

And here's the evidence of your true, warped and distorted motivations for pretending to be anti-war. You are merely another complete anti-capitalist loser, using the charade of "anti-war" rhetoric to try to seem moral in your anti-capitalist, anti-American hatred.

Capitalism is the key to freedom. Capitalist countries do not wage war with each other. America just liberated the oppressed and brutalized people of Afghanistan. Soon we will liberate Iraq, and when we do the tyrannical regime in Iran will collapse of its own weight.

You are an anachronism. Without clue, motivated by hatred and spite. So revoltingly partisan that you would ransom the safety of your own country, and the freedom of a tortured and oppressed people, to advance your pitiful and envious political views.

It is my sincere hope that you never, ever breed.

[futuro]

Originally posted by board Lizard


just FYI they don't give a flying fuck about your kindness.. they want you dead.. dead. (and don't give me the "thats cause we started it" speach because i don't give a fuck who started it.. all i care about is staying alive, and at this point love and sunshine isn't gonna do that for me.. but killing a few million arabs in a country far far away might.. might save me a couple of bucks on gas too) don't believe me? walk up to one of these ragheaded fundamentalists and try to hug him, then watch how quickly he kills you both with his homemade suicide bomb

Look, war supporters! This is the kind of people that are on your side. Racist, pig-headed sadists who only want to kill everybody else. so that they can live their mean little lives.

Boardliz, you started this thread mentioning your gyn teacher's opinion. YOUR GYM TEACHER??? Get some life experience before you spout racist nonsense. One day, you'll figure out that life isn't all black and white, us versus them, and that leaders of all countries lie and cheat to enrich themselves, just like Bush is doing. You've bought in to the government propaganda, hook, line and sinker, and you're poorer for it. But I know you don't care, just so you can see some "ragheads" suffer for your entertainment. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the "regheads" clamor for your suffering death. What comes around goes around. The US isn't going to be the most powerful nation forever, history proves that, and the seeds we sow now are what is going to determine our fate. Picking fights with small, relatively helpless countries isn't going to bode well for our future prospects when there's other countries more powerful than us. And don't think they're won't be, probably sooner than your little mind can grasp.

And do yourself a favor, stop categorizing people based on their choice of head gear. Somebody might think that you're wearing that baseball cap because you're losing your hair.

[Borscht]

One day, you'll figure out that life isn't all black and white, us versus them, and that leaders of all countries lie and cheat to enrich themselves, just like Bush is doing.

Yes, yes. They're all the same. Please, don't waste your breath on the tired, worn out, "everything is the same as everything else" post-modernist junk philosophy.

Only a complete idiot would attempt to draw moral equivalence between *any* US President, even Clinton, and Saddam Hussein.

One day you'll figure out that life is only filled with grey by those who are trying to obfuscate or deny the difference between good and evil, right and wrong.

Or by moral cowards too timid to consider the necessary *actions* one must take if one is a moral person. So they apply the good old grey, so they don't have to do anything scary.

Racist, pig-headed sadists who only want to kill everybody else. so that they can live their mean little lives.

There ya go! Break out the good old character attack. Right-hand man of the clueless liberal pacifist. So much easier than thinking.

Those who disagree with you are, of course, nothing but neanderthal thugs. Probably balding beneath their ballcaps. And even as you rant in your arrogant self-annointed moral superiority, you presume that a gym teacher by virtue of his employment alone is incapable of worthy thought.

Happily, your ilk are well recognized now for the fools that you truly are. Say goodbye to Hollywood, say goodbye to network news, say goodbye to the Democrat party. They, the UN, and their supporters such as yourself have revealed themselves to the entire civilized world as charlatans and jesters.

My guess is that the next great capitalisms will spring from the newly liberated Middle Eastern nations. Following in the historical footsteps of Japan and Germany. After all, they have a strong and historic mercantile heritage.

And who do you suppose those new powers will support? Those of us who struggled for their liberation, or blinded idiots like you who fought to keep them under the thumb of barbaric and tyrannical religious zealots?

[Pigeon]

Rofl, good show Borscht. Been avoiding this thread because it's slightly off topic, but at 176 replies it's hard to ignore. So I click, first thing I read is that last post which is the best flame I've read in at least a month. Gonna have to start from the beginning I suppose.

[Pigeon]

Well, I've put my waders on, and have read this whole thing through, and have decided to post. This thread has a mix of some of the crappiest posts/flames I've ever read, and some of the best. So here goes.

Slant warning: I think we should go to war with Iraq. I thought that before I read this thread, and I have very little faith that opinion will change without a fairly substantial reason that I have not already seen.

First, the "this war is about oil" argument is almost correct, but for all of the wrong reasons. We are not going to war with Iraq to take their oil. The "economic reason to go to war with Iraq" (quotes because it is silly) is the fear of economic chaos that would likely result from having half the world's oil supply cut off. We don't much care who we buy it from as long as we can buy it. We don't want Iraq's oil- the US imports a paltry amount of oil from Iraq at best- we want to make sure that if we need it from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, we can still get it.

Note that the US is the world's 3rd largest producer of oil. Also note that the US only gets about 30-40% of its imported oil from the middle east. If we really wanted oil, we'd be invading Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer of oil, or better yet, Canada, the US's largest oil importer. We may very well just uncap all the oil wells in the United States that are unused because it's cheaper just to import it.

Note that France makes more money from selling products to Iraq than any other country, and they are the loudest in opposition to the war. Third on that list is Russia, fourth is China.

Now to poke and prod at other posts.

Oh, yes. Minimize "civilian" causualties. Just like we did in Viet Nam. If they got killed, they were VC, or VC sympathizers. They never were "civillians", were they?

If you knew history, you'd know that's irrelevent to the conversation at hand, as evidenced by our conduct in the first Gulf war, Bosnia, and Kosovo. The US government takes a far different stance with regard to civilian casualties, in no small part to the flak we took from our own citizens for atrocities during Vietnam. You might as well claim we're just going to walk in and nuke Bagdad, because that's what the US does. They did it to Japan after all.

I can't stomach the self-righeous attitude of the author. A generous offer is to disarm, and make your country totally defensless? What nation on earth would accept that?

South Africa. If you knew history, you'd know South Africa accepted the same conditions set forth by the UN to Iraq.

We're not saying Iraq needs to make their "country totally defenseless", we're saying they need to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction. Apple, meet orange.

Santcions, inspections, deterence, you know, stuff like that that's been working for 12 years. He hasn't attacked anyone since Kuwait.

Those haven't been working. If you knew history, you'd know that Saddam was building WMD's during the early-mid 90's, while inspectors were in the country and it was not discovered until many years later.

Why do something about Iraq, and nothing about India and Pakistan?

For the record, I publicly criticize our government for not doing so. Same goes with North Korea. Hopefully, after Bush is done with Iraq he will move on to North Korea, Pakistan and India. The reason you're asking for though is that Saddam has used his WMD's before, against the Iranians and against the Kurds.

What 12 year history? The 12 year history when Iraq didn't invade another country, didn't give wmd's to terrorists? The 12 years Iraq has been under almost constant surveillance, inspections and sanctions? That 12 years history?

The twelve year history of Iraq breaking its promise to the UN of not producing WMD's. The 12 year history of UN planes in the no-fly zones being fired upon. The 6 year history of Iraq allowing inspectors to sites the Iraqi's picked, and then the 5 year history of them not allowing any inspections or surveillance. The 20-30 year history of brutally repressing his own people. If you actually knew that history, you'd know it's a stormy one.

I wish the US would do more to help people here and abroad, and stop helping corporations make profits.

The US gives away more money than any other country in foreign aid. Keep in mind the US government is in the business of doing what its (voting) citizens tell it to do, and most of those citizens happen to work for corporations, and we are still the most generous nation on the planet.

If anyone wants sources to any of my information, feel free to ask. I'll happily oblige. My posts/rants tend to get bogged down enough without posting 10-20 links in it.

[Borscht]

Thanks for the compliment, Pigeon! Glad you enjoyed it

As for you so-called "anti-war" types. Remember, the war is "not in your name".

You'd all rather middle-eastern civilians in Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al continue to be raped, tortured, and murdered by their own governments. Their women treated as animals and denied education.

You all find that preferable to supporting your own country and President. Or for you foreigners out there, the country that ensured you didn't grow up speaking German.

You sell your manhood cheap, that don't stand with America in the good fight.

Cuz the rock is about to be turned over, and what gets revealed is going to slap you in your sorry, cowardly faces.

There's going to be dancing in the streets, but it won't be to your pathetic song.

You losers are on the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of history, the wrong side.