Topic awaiting preservation: Stop the war against Iraq (Page 3 of 4)

I don't hear anything of the sort from Germany. I hear a complete and literally fanatical anti-war message from them. France is another matter. Their oil interests have called into question their reluctance every bit if not more than the US's.

Here is what I am lacking and perhaps you can help. I have yet to hear a cohesive explanation and plan of action from the side opposing military action.

I will be perfectly honest with you about the "anti-war" crowd. I dismiss their objections outright because they are foolish and completely irresponsible but then again they always have been. HOWEVER, I am not including Hackworth, yourself, mobrul, or anyone else who have real reasoned positions based on facts and can present a viable alternative to war.

But I haven't heard a comprehensive plan that is even close to doable yet. Saying we must wait, and wait, and wait regardless of how obvious it is the Iraq has no intention of compliance does not seem sane to me. Perhaps we can get this discussion back on track in this light.

quote:

---

Don't forget that I'm leaving as soon as Thaddeus gets my e-mail. (Morgan Ramsay 01-31-2003 03:33 PM)

---

I didn?t read throughout your entire regurgitation in this thread; but I hope the statement, ?I'm leaving? means your getting on a boat so the American military can drop you off in some gulf desert. I have no respect for people who talk without action; they remind me of architects who have never used a hammer.

If that is indeed where you?re leaving to... I wish you and everyone else who is there good luck.


However, I agree much more with reitsma?s point of view...

quote:

---

live your life (reitsma 01-31-2003 06:37 AM)

---

Because if everyone lived their own lives and stopped forcing themselves upon everyone else (both in the individual and governmental sense) this entire problem wouldn?t be here to begin with.

Can you point to anything in the history of mankind that supports that last statement, Rooster? Anything at all? When has any tyrant stopped going about his business because anyone in a position to do anything about it minded their own business? As for your wishing bad things upon Morgan himself... what does that say about you?

[edit] typed in the heat of the moment. You said *everyone*. Well, here's one to match. If everyone loved everyone as themselves we would not be going to war. My point was that we all know that *everyone* doesn't live by those rules so that being the case, I stand by what I just said and would love to know how you propose to solve the problem of a country that the UN wants disarmed. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 01-31-2003).]

quote:

---

We are offering exile, and all sorts of room and time to stand down.

---

Hate to throw a spanner in the works, but you may have just hit the nail on the head.

What right do we have to make such an ultimatum in the first place?

The arms of the UK ALONE pose a greater threat to the world than the combined forces in Iraq.
Add to those, the collective aromouries of NATO, and you could obliterate the planet 10 times over.
Throw into the pot that the majority of the arms technology posessed by Iraq was sold to the by the UK, and you have a very large question mark over our current position.

To further complicate matters, the USA have contravened the very 'rule' regarding the development of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that they are so vehemently clinging to as a motive for this 'conflict' by not-so-secretly developping bio-chemical weaponry.

So where does that leave us? A forced inspection of US military facilities?

Whatever the motive... we (the western 'superpowers') are the agressors.

___________________________
Money is the game other people play, that I try to avoid by having just enough not to play it.
-Norman Mailer
[Dufty][Cell 698]

I wished nothing of bad things to Morgan. I simply feel that if a person has such firm beliefs in something that they should act on those beliefs. There was no sarcasm in my wishes of ?good luck?.

And no, I have no evidence to support my statement of minding one?s own business. I have no degree in social science and the statement was merely of my own opinion; I hope it?s alright for me to have a personal opinion.

If a, ?tyrant? of such were to live his own life and mind his own business there would simply be no ?tyrant?. Which the point I?m trying to make.

[edit]
And I have no solution for you as far as the disarming of Iraq and I highly doubt that a good one exists.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Rooster (edited 01-31-2003).]

...

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 02-01-2003).]

I just read Morgan's last thread... I don't think I've ever seen such ridiculous actions in my life. You hounded him out of here with fire in your mouths. Rather than try and explain yourselves politely and try and help him learn you GAVE UP. You all, including Morgan, acted like children. He had some points that were worth listening to. I think you should be ashamed of your actions in his last thread. You could've let him go and figure things out on his own rather than piss him off so that he doesn't ever try to learn. What happened in this thread was everyones fault. What happened in his last thread was an outright attack. It was uncalled for and completely unnecessary.

And if you think I'm treating you like a child being scolded.... GOOD! It might be about time someone did.

GrythusDraconis

Please don't shut this down because we have some good stuff going on too.

GD, If i were you i would tone down down your comments untill you understand the reason this blew up like it did, it was because of what was happening at the time..

Now if you look at this thread as it stands now there isnt that much for viewing, however, at the time (Morgan ramsey was hurling a large amount of verbal abuse) In fact besides calling people "bartards,fucking idiots" to name just a few,everytime time he made a point which was proved wrong in open debate, he accused everyone else of ganging up on him, he then proceeded to eidt his contributions to this thread, to make it appear he was hounded out of here.

Now i hope you were jesting, because to be honest you weren't obviously here at the time that this occured...otherwise your tone i feel would be slightly different...

we tried to engage him in a debate, he threw a temper tantrum, it was that simple, it wasnt the first time, it almost certainly wont be the last time if he decides to stay.

now if you want to try and get the real story of todays episode, try skaarj,emporer,myself,webshamen...we were al online, this was almost a live debate, with pretty much posts every few seconds

[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 02-01-2003).]

[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 02-01-2003).]

GD - I would simply like to add that ramsay was here before, with a slightly different screen ename...and he did pretty much the same thing.

Started arguments, then hurled insults and threw hissy fits, and then finally stormed out in a huff when people got pissy back.

So, no matter what anyone here did, it wouldn't have gone any other way with him.

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 02-01-2003).]

There was no debate on the topic. There was purely a flame war happening. I made a simple subjective opinion which I detest making. I wasn't in the right frame of mind last night and most of the night has disappeared from my mind. These fellows decided to extrapolate my statement, use it out of context, and generalize even more to their own advantage. These people are proof of the self-righteousness of some users of these forums. Yes, I've been to these forums before and GD knows that. The events that happened earlier this day were the product of rude and unacceptable behavior. My views are perceived as such but I wasn't in mood for debate nor did I care for any of the delinquent attacks on my character.

The basis for the name calling that I executed was this: leaving Saddam in power is inhumane. Removing him is not. Anyway, this is my last post on these forums. I feel pity for those of you who continue attacking my character when I'm gone. You're throwing stones at a brick wall, ladies and gentlemen. Before you cast another stone, take a deep breath, look at yourself objectively, and ask yourself, "Is what I'm doing right? Should I involve myself in situations as these? Should I attack the character of another on the exaggeration of a statement? Should I take words at face value or look deeper? Should I bare witness to my own actions and tolerate other opinions?"

Finally, I've noticed that the responses from the Aussies came very quickly. That is where thoughtlessness and subjectivism come into play. The main problem I have with this community is that most of you are self-righteous and believe that you're superior to anyone else. Your constant remarks to "learning my lesson" and such are examples of your ego-based insinuations. You've given me no lesson to learn. The only thing you have done is back me into a corner with my arms tied behind my back with a string of insults and your twisted imagination.

I realize that the body of this community is artists and the personality and mindset of artists and designers differes to a great degree. Where artists are subjective, designers are objective. I do not fit in with the majority here. I prefer to remain as conservative libertarian enjoying friendly debates at other forums. As I've told Mr. Doyle, I blame the colors.

Goodbye and fare thee well. If you wish to analyze and re-analyze my statements over and over again, you have problems with accepting others' opinions not I.



[This message has been edited by Morgan Ramsay (edited 02-01-2003).]

bye..


~So it's your birthday today? congratulations and have a nice day. So it's not? have a nice day too~

I think he had read Mein Kampf too much....or The Rise and Fall of Third Reich

...unsuccessful artist who turned dictator.....unsuccessful artist who is trying to rule asylum....

....how macho!!!

Morgan - You are far from innocent in this matter. I do not defend you for your sake. I defend you for the sake of those who don't deserve what happened just as you didn't. What happened here was a realistic, justified reaction to you and your statements. The... correct thing to do here would be to apologize and not do it again.

What happened in your other thread was none of those. That is my issue.

If you insist on leaving, do so. Lingering only makes it worse.

GrythusDraconis

[To All]I am terribly sorry to have put a speed bump in this thread. Such was not my intent.[/To All]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 02-01-2003).]

quote:

---

I realize that the body of this community is artists

---

I notice that you enjoy using that tagline as an excuse ramsay...but I feel obligated to point out that you are COMPLETELY wrong in that superficial assumption.

There are very few artists here actually. There are many developers and programers, many designers, and a handful of artists.

However, since you're leaving and not coming back ( ) you obviously won't be reading this anyway...

Now if people don't mind some people in here are trying to hold a conversation so if anyone has any cheap shots to make take it elsewhere. Thank you.

Bugs: Alternatives? This all depends on one's perspective/bias, etc. So here are my thoughts:

1. I have no general objections to removing Saddam (the things he did to the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs are enough to warrant such actions by themselves. I'm ultimately concerned about:
a) Motive
b) Timing (which might be connected to motive?) - why now? We knew Saddam was a bad egg a long time ago: while we were selling things to him (when he was Our Man) that we are now trying to take away), when he started turning on groups of his own countrymen, when he invaded Kuwait and all the time since (while we have been bombing Iraq every day and imposing sanctions - which seem to have only increased death and misery). So why now and why with such haste? It would have been better to set the wheels in motion a long time ago. Although we have discussed one of the major motivations (oil) we should also bear in mind the Bush also has his eye on the next election. Bin Laden et al. have faded away and he has failed to destory Al Qaeada and make the world a safer place (in fact it is probably less safe) and he has to be seen to be doing something or people will start to realise he hasn't actually dealt with the major problem (and he has taken his eye of the ball on more serious issues).

So we could just slow down and take our time over this (is there any deadline other than self imposed ones?) and make sure we amass enough evidence to convince even the sceptics (who may not just be anti-war for obvious reasons as everyone is playing their own game on this one) and then return to the UN and get a second resolution. This would bring most of Europe on board and a lot of the Arab states and give us a better chance of surviving the aftermath of this - I don't doubt we can remove him I just don't want to set the world on fire.

There are many ways to remove a rotten tooth you could use dynamite (or rusty old pliers) or you could go to a hygenic surgery and have it removed properly with less pain and bother and a better chance of not causing worse problems than the one you seek to cure.

2. If we didn't have to move with such haste we could actually sit down and seek other people's input on this currently with the breakneck pace no one has much time to do anything rather than object in the strongest terms to things. If we took our time and listened there might be better ways proposed. There are a lot of Arabs who don't want to see their region go up in flames and it may be that with less time constraint there is a chance that diplomacy from some of the Arabic countres to work. Or someone might come up with another way (Tony Blair is always talking about the Third Way but at the moment there doesn't seem to even be a Second Way - its either 'my way or the highway' and people don't appreciate being given such stark choices when they feel that there might be alternatives).

3. Do we need to do anything? He isn't a threat, he isn't on the brink of developing any weapons why not sit on him for a bit longer and try and work with Iraqi people to overthrow him?

I don't like the idea of number 3 but the other 2 appeal to me. If we take our time so that we can engage in some actual debate (rather than just have people shouting 'whoa' at us) then we might reach a solution that would satisfy the majority of people.

So in the end there are alternatives but the sheer pace of developments is destroying any chance of actually exploring them and makes our chances of getting out the other end unscathed poorer.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well stated Emps.
Always the voice of reason.


___________________________
Money is the game other people play, that I try to avoid by having just enough not to play it.
-Norman Mailer
[Dufty][Cell 698]

quote:

---

We knew Saddam was a bad egg a long time ago: while we were selling things to him (when he was Our Man) that we are now trying to take away), when he started turning on groups of his own countrymen

---

BTW, the U.S. geovernment did not stop supporting Saddam after he carried out his attacks on the Kurds.

quote:

---

(while we have been bombing Iraq every day and imposing sanctions - which seem to have only increased death and misery).

---

Indeed. U.N. estimates 500000 Iraqi children died from bombings and sanctions during the last 12 years (and I guess not only children have died).
So, while I´m sure Saddam is an evil dictator (like many others, some of them installed by the U.S., some just supported or ignored), I don´t think he has ever brought nearly as much suffering to the Iraqi people as U.N. sanctions and U.S. bombings. But hey, moral superiority is not a statistical thing right?


Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but I find it outright scary how fast "preemptive war" against a country without the possibility to even attack someone farther away than a few hundred kilopmeters seems to be becoming a totally acceptable thing in the political world (luckily not so in the public opinion in most countries, but the leaders don´t care and are trying to change it - what have we got mass media for...)

Nicely put emps. I like your number 2 proposal the best.

I've stayed out of this for various reasons and I probably not as up-to-date or as widely knowledgeable in the current affairs as some of you seem to be but I do have a couple of things I'd like to add...

This so called "deadline" that's been layed down for the UN inspections... Who decided it? Why? Why didn this happen last year? Why not ten years ago? Why not 2 years from now?

I truly hope I'm not alone in feeling that after 9/11 the buzz surrounding Iraq seemed way off mark. I still can't seem to trace back any solid lines to where this whole Iraq thing ~re-emerged~ except from 9/11 and well, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with that. In the 199* gulf war there were at least some perceivable reasons as to why it started but now, I just don't see it.

From my perspective I can't help but string together the following events:

- 9/11 disaster
- America/UN declare war on terror
- America/UN can't find Bin Laden
- America/UN turns their guns on Iraq...

Seems like the best angle of approach if ya wanna pick a fight. In a strange way it reminds me of that scene in Braveheart when William Wallace trots off to insult the English army?s general to provoke an attack.

Form his perspective, a country with a massive military force just bombed the crap out of a neighbouring country hunting down a rebel terrorist group with a near 100 times less capable force. They can't seem to find any more of them and now their breathing down his neck. No wonder he's hiding stuff, god knows I would be too if I were him, if they found something they may not ask me to remove it, they may just push the little red button on me instead.

Even though Sudan is a dangerous man and he shouldn't be in power, honestly, was this really the "right" way to go about it?

Another thing that plagues me is the growing amount of anti-americanism. I've always know several people that have viewed Americans as stereotypically arrogant and pig headed but lately it's changed from "arrogant pricks" to "ill bent war mongers".

I can only see war making this worse and well, wasn't the whole 9/11 issue was caused from a severe and fanatical case of this very same thing. Bin laden's actions were indeed horrible but something drove him to do what he did. How much of the nightly news is now filed with reports of suicide bombings and the like... Are we really fighting terrorism or are we just fuelling it?


Then again, I?m probably dead wrong about most of this. As I mentioned earlier, I?m not as up-to-speed on current affairs as most of you seem to be.

quote:

---

Another thing that plagues me is the growing amount of anti-americanism. I've always know several people that have viewed Americans as stereotypically arrogant and pig headed but lately it's changed from "arrogant pricks" to "ill bent war mongers".

---

Just a personal comment on this:
Do I feel this way about the american people? No way.
Do I feel this way about the Bush administration? Hell yes, and everytime I hear Bush, Rumsfeld, and the likes talk, more so.

Damn...good post, MW...that about sums up my feelings, and thinkings on the subject, as well...I've never felt so...alienated before, with a president, and his administration...

I sincerely hope, that the will of the American people gets put forth...and triumps, before it is too late...

Though I agree (see Emps' list) that Saddam must go...not like this, and not under these conditions...there are much better ways, to build an international consensus, as threats, and alienation.

Most agree, that Saddam should go...why then, do they feel so divided with the Bush administration, and it's agenda? Because you cannot force agreement? Maybe...with us, or against us? Does that apply, as well, to those Americans, that have voiced (and shown) their disapproval? I served in the Armed Forces for 11 years, and I am a war veteran. Am I then the enemy, because I disapprove of Mr. Bush, and his agenda? Because I am not 'with' him?

if so, then it is a sad day, indeed...

Well I suddenly feel as though the world has gone completely mad overnight.
In this thread there is much sadness, rightly fuelled by the loss of 7 adventurers. (By which I simply mean people who took a great risk knowingly).

The western world seems to have momentarily stopped, to mark this extremely sad occasion.

But when was the last time we were encouraged to feel sad for the millions of innocent lives which have been lost as a direct result of our arrogance?

The children that MW refers to, were not adventurers... they did not embark on a mission, fully aware of the possible risks... nor did they simply not wake up one morning, having peacfully slipped away in the night.

They were torn apart by our missiles, poisoned by our depleted uranium shells or starved to death by our policy of zero trade but are we encouraged to mourn for them?

NO!

We are told that their death is a result of the actions of a brutal dictator, but even the butcher of baghdad doesn't have the stomach for such a cleverly concealed, perfectly executed genocide.

I suddenly feel very sick indeed.

<edit - bad english >
___________________________
Money is the game other people play, that I try to avoid by having just enough not to play it.
-Norman Mailer
[Dufty][Cell 698]

[This message has been edited by Dufty (edited 02-01-2003).]

Dufty: I must admit a similar thought crossed my mind earlier

I do feel horror and sadness for the children in Iraq (and many others who have died in that country) as I do for the people we have killed in Afghanistan by accident.

Part of my own sadness about the space shuttle incident is not just for the lives of the people lost but partly as it is a symbol of our struggling for something bigger and greater and sometimes no matter how hard we try we get thrown flat on our faces.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Dufty, I understand your...point. Know, however, that Saddam put a lot of those women and children directly in harms way...by puting his military and communications areas directly amongst them. I was very heavily involved in the...murder, if you will, of many of them. I think on them every day, they are burned into my head...what, in your opinion, were we to do? Ignore those targets?

Yes, the world should mourn them...I do. I lost a part of my humanity...yes, I mourn. There were some faces, that I could actually see...the blank, uncomprehending look...in the dark of night, they haunt my memories...it took me years, to come to terms with this...and I don't even want to go into the flashbacks...

And that is one of the reasons why I think Saddam has to go...he knew we would do our jobs...those people got sacrificed, not because we are blood-lusting butchers, but because he is.

"We are told that their death is a result of the actions of a brutal dictator, but even the butcher of baghdad doesn't have the stomach for such a cleverly concealed, perfectly executed genocide."

Dufty, I believe he most certainly does. How much have you read about his exploits? For instance, during the Gulf war he packed 400 civilians into a military control center precisely because he knew it was going to be a target of allied bombs. That was a very convenient bit of propoganda when they were incinerated. Do you *really* believe he won't do whatever he deems necessary to retain power? I can offer example after example of similar actions he has taken since he assumed power years ago.

Emps, WS, I am encouraged that you both appreciate the need to disarm Iraq. I am also encouraged to know that you both understand that there will come a time that it will have to be done by force *unless* Hussein decides to voluntarily stand down. It would seem that we have come to the question, do we wait or do we go in.

To answer that question it would help to have a crystal ball. A Palantir perhaps? Anyone? Is there a risk in waiting a year, two, three, longer? Emps, you have clearly stated that there is no risk.

I cannot agree with that and here is why. The actions of 9/11 demonstrated a real threat that has been brewing for decades. That threat comes from Islamists (as they are called) who are engaged in an attempt to reinstate Islam's dominance in the Middle East -- a restoration of the truly great Arab civilization of the 7th century.

This is *not*, as Jestah argues, about us not being "nice" to the them. This has everything to do with idealogy, hatred, and desire for power. I have so far described the desires of Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden.

What connection is there to 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc? It is not necessarily a direct connection. The world has changed my friends. We are in a transitionary period where those who understand the changing landscape of geopolitical power will survive and those who prefer to remain in the Cold War mentality will lead us into serious peril.

Global terrorism spans countries and borders unlike our former adversaries. The chances of Saddam Hussein "donating" some of his arsenal to those who are willing to take it to the US and/or any other country they deem evil, is *real*. THAT is why we cannot afford to string this out indefinitely.

If I truly believed we could contain him, I would be much more willing to hold off on war. But you must also consider the state of the Iraqi people. MW, you can trash the US and it's motivation until you are blue in the face but you CANNOT ignore atrocities being committed at this moment by OTHERS in this world. It is a fact that Hussein rules his country with an iron fist. It is a fact that no one on this board believes he is not an evil ruler and the people of Iraq would not be better off with a democratic and free system of government.

Are they ready for it to be forced upon them? I doubt it. Can it be forced upon them anyway? Yes. Should it? Do we have the right to do it? Dufty, you asked this earlier. I will leave that for you to decide. I doubt there is anything I can say at this point in time to change any of your minds on why the US does what it does or why sometimes it is necessary to kill and maime and destroy. It is far too unpleasant a thing to want to have anything to do with.

It is the same reason you all sit in comfortable countries with plenty to eat. How many of us will be directly affected by the actions of someone like Hussein? How many of us really care about the slave trade in Sudan? How many would be willing to fight to have brought an end to the massacres in Ruwanda?

I am NOT going to defend everything the US has done in it's short history on the world scene because I cannot. We have done some terrible things. But I am not willing to lose perspective on this world because we are not perfect! Quite frankly, it infuriates me that some of you can do this. You will read the list of terrible actions on Michael Moore's page and use that as an excuse for why you won't lift a finger to fight evil when you have the chance. (again this is directed only at those who actually think those thoughts)

I have more to say but I needed to get this much out before the thread gets too much further along.

I do recognise the need to remove Saddam... but at what cost?
The handling of this entire situation, however, is questionable at best.

quote:

---

sometimes no matter how hard we try we get thrown flat on our faces.
:Emps

---

It is at times like this that we should take stock of our situation, then rise above it.
After all... isn't that what makes us human?


___________________________
Money is the game other people play, that I try to avoid by having just enough not to play it.
-Norman Mailer
[Dufty][Cell 698]

People are dying RIGHT NOW due to inaction. People will die 6 WEEKS FROM NOW if we go in. You cannot sit idle and think that will save you from bloodshed.

Bugs:

quote:

---

Is there a risk in waiting a year, two, three, longer?

---

Who knows? This all relates to:

quote:

---

Emps, you have clearly stated that there is no risk.

---

No I haven't - there is no such thing. We have him contained we have inspectors in attempting to ascertain what the actual risk is and, if possible, takes steps to reduce it.

What I do know is that we are at a higher risk from:

1. Not getting North Korea back to the table. We have taken our eye off that ball by concentrating on Saddam.

2. Storming in without a consensus from the international community (and that is an achieveable goal).

3. Reprecussions from increased anti-western sentiment from the lack of 2.

There are a whole range of risks and it is our responsibility to chart a course that minimises the risks - not just to our own troops and the people of Iraq but also to the whole world on a longer term basis because what happens in the next few months will have an impact on the whole world for decades. I want a safer world to live in and I think slowing down taking or time to explore the options and trying to get as mnay people onboard as possible will result in that safer world.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugs: Oh and:

quote:

---

Emps, WS, I am encouraged that you both appreciate the need to disarm Iraq. I am also encouraged to know that you both understand that there will come a time that it will have to be done by force *unless* Hussein decides to voluntarily stand down.

---

I think if you were to have a straw poll around the world you would find that most people do support this position (including most of the Arab ones) - what people are against is the haste with which this is being put together and the feeling they don't have a say in what is happening. The Devil (and our future) is, as always, in the details.

[and while I'm throwing around cliches like there was no tomorrow:

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions ]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. Would it be fair to say that you think it unlikely we will be attacked by any weapons emanating from Iraq then? Because if you think that is possible now or in the near future, while we are waiting, then are you suggesting that is a risk should be willing to take? I think it is a very likely and real threat.

Let me respond to each of your reasons for this course as I understand them.

1. North Korea is a *separate* issue and we can, and must, deal with both threats at the same time. There is simply no other option. We have two problem areas that both require attention. Our foreign policy architects have been preparing for a dual hot spot scenario for decades. Precisely anticipating the situation we currently find ourselves in.

2. We disagree that this is an achievable goal. I don't believe there is *anything* at this point that could convince Germany to move against Iraq. I believe France will reluctantly go along only after the action is imminent. Most of Europe has agreed with our current course, not sanctioning war but certainly taking a hard line backed up by force if that is the last resort.

Besides, building a coalition is *precisely* what is taking place. I don't think this is a rush to war at all. I know I've said this before but the inspectors would not be there unless military pressure was applied. Would you agree with that?

Also the job of the inspectors is *not* to access the risk but to verify disarmament *with* Iraq's cooperation. Hitherto we have not seen Iraq's cooperation in this process and that comes straight from the head of the inspections himself. In fact, we are seeing now evidence of the same sort of cat and mouse game that was happeing in '98.

3. I will make an unpopular stand on this one. Our living up to the belief by the likes of Hussein and Bin Laden that we are in fact a paper tiger would lead to far more anti-western sentiment from the Islamic world. Anti-western feelings from other quarters is rooted in other reasons. If we allow the UN to be a feckless organization then it will only serve to encourage our enemies to continue in their ultimate goals. If we show the world that we are finished with supporting people like Hussein *and* willing to take them down, they will respect that stance far more than any inaction could possibly produce.

I am *not* suggesting we attack every country we don't like. Please don't take that as my meaning. What I am suggesting is that now that we have defeated Communism and Nazism and had ignored the threat of Islamists, it is time to defeat that as well. This means that Iraq has to be disarmed, the fanatics in Iran must yield to their people demanding freedom, we must stop supporting the Saudi royals *unless* they take on the Wahabis and begin massive social reform, etc.

My read of history tells me that appeasement and isolationism have only brought on horrific pain and suffering for our brothers and sisters in this world. We have a chance to stand for the ideals we hold dear. We have a chance to clean up our act (I am specifically thinking of mobrul and how he says we are the world's worst terrorist nation), while we insist on a better situation for the rest of the world.

quote:

---

3. I will make an unpopular stand on this one. Our living up to the belief by the likes of Hussein and Bin Laden that we are in fact a paper tiger would lead to far more anti-western sentiment from the Islamic world.

---

While I agree that military action may gain you some kind of "respect for the strong", do you REALLY think there is a more effective way of spreading hatred against the west than by killing some ten (or hundred) thousands of Muslims?

quote:

---

If we allow the UN to be a feckless organization then it will only serve to encourage our enemies to continue in their ultimate goals.

---

Do you think you are strengthening the position and reputation of the UN by saying "if they approve military action, fine, if not we don´t care"?

quote:

---

If we show the world that we are finished with supporting people like Hussein *and* willing to take them down, they will respect that stance far more than any inaction could possibly produce.

---

OK, my time for an unpopular statement:
I firmly believe that you are willing to take Hussein down, even some others like him, but somehow I am not convinced that the (and especially this) U.S. government and secret services are in any way finished with supporting dictatorships if it´s convenient. Of course while history is my main reason for this belief, it may very well prove me wrong in the future and I sincerely hope it does.

quote:

---

We have a chance to stand for the ideals we hold dear. We have a chance to clean up our act (I am specifically thinking of mobrul and how he says we are the world's worst terrorist nation), while we insist on a better situation for the rest of the world.

---

If I could only believe that the Bush administration had equally sincere motives, not just equally beautiful rethorics, I´d be more than happy with the U.S. invading Iraq.

I have the utmost respect for people who are standing up and ready to give their lives for a just cause. But I am afraid people are often made to believe they are fighting for a just cause while being sacrificed for totally other reasons. Again this is based on history (not only of the U.S.), and I really hope I´m wrong and it is not happening right now and it won´t happen again - But I tend to be pessimistic in nature.

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 02-02-2003).]

Yes Bugs. Yes.

But... (and you knew that was coming, right?)

To do this, we need a united front. Mr. Bush is being very untactful, IMHO. Threats, cohersion...not a solid foundation for a united front. We had this after 9/11. We (the entire world) were rudely awakened...and forced to take the situation (and the very real threat) seriously.

But this type of thing cannot be conducted on whims, emotions (despite how emotional the issue is), and inflexibility. We cannot scare our own allies to death...we need to be stand-fast, and represent the ideals that make our nation great - yes, this is true. Mr. Bush is making terrible mistakes (IMHO) along these lines...we do not stand united under him. Why?

We (as a nation, as a world), cannot face a threat, and defeat it, divided. 'United we stand, divided we fall'.

Rushing things, especially this, is wrong (IMHO).

I am very aware of the dangers. I am very aware of the threat. I agree that Saddam must go. I agree, that the extremist Islamic belief is a danger, as well. In this, we dare not take the short view...we dare not. We must consider the long run. For this conflict, and others like it, we need our allies. We must present a strong face, against this. Or we will fail. We can win all the battles, and still lose the war. Vietnam taught us this. In Vietnam, we were mislead. Badly. We allowed a situation to occur, that the enemy could use against us, effectively. As a result, we lost. We lost, at home. Not on the front, but at home.

Now, I am not suggesting, that Iraq will be like Vietnam. More than likely, our military will grind it into dust, and very quickly. But the situation is very similiar, if we do this practically alone. The political ramifications could echo within the American heartland for untold years to come...not to mention, how many Moslems are viewing this. A united front, with UN backing, will help aleviate some of this...for the Islamic world to go into a Holy war, with the entire UN, is unlikely...and impossible to win. Granted, they could do a lot of damage, and many would die...but...

To do this, as it now stands, would be a mistake, IMHO. We risk much...and that, I feel, is not necessary. I would, if the situation demanded it. But as it is, I don't think it does. Saddam will fall...now, or later. The question is, what of the other threats? Win a battle, lose a war...why?

We need to give the UN a chance. If they fail, then we must act. This is what I mean. We need to give our allies a chance. We also need to listen...and Mr. Bush doesn't seem to want to. This scares me. Therefore, we must take the time, to allow all this...

To decide alone, that we are right...is dangerous, IMHO. We need to ask ourselves, where this will lead...and who is going to lead it. We also need the the views of others, to balance this...IMHO.

Alright, time for me to repent some of my pervious views and to say that something does need to be done but...

I quote Emps...

quote:

---

what people are against is the haste with which this is being put together and the feeling they don't have a say in what is happening

---

That's where I seem to be comming from right now and it's not just because of Americas actions but also the actions of my countries gonvernment. Maybe I would prefer to sit in my comfy lounge chair and ingorantly oppose any war like actions but does that make be a bad person? Am I not allowd to admit that I'm scared of what may happen if a war does start?.. because I am scared.

I continue to see polls that lean against a blood thirsty solution but Bugs is probably right. Sometimes bloodshead may be needed to resolve extreame matters but even if that's true, what other problems will it cause?

I may be wrong here but weren't a lot of the problems we're currently dealing with caused by wars?

There seems to be a large ammount of factors we can't be sure of if we do go in guns blazing, like what happens after that?... I only hear talk of war, nothing beyond that. If Sudan "strikes back" at out agressions and manages to take even more innocent lives will it not be out fault because we were "trying to stop him" from doing "evil" by bomming the crap out of him?

I think I'm mostly confused as to why all this is happening now. I'm still not convinced nor have I heard anyone admit that they fucked up for not doing this sooner. That and the currently un-unified global stance on the matter makes me very very uneasy about this whole thing.

Honestly I'm not sure what we should do but as things currently lie, I for one vote against a war solution. Even if it's for no other reason than this feeling of absolute dread I have pitted in my stomach. If that makes me a bad pserson then so be it.

Drac, no of course it doesn't make you a bad person. You don't oppose war because you want to hurt anyone. But you have to be as informed as possible to know whether your opposition will cause more harm than good. Very few people oppose fighting when they believe it is called for. Knowing when is obviously the tricky part as this thread clearly demonstrates.

You wonder whether a lot of the problems we're currently dealing with were caused by wars? Ask yourself why your first language is not Japanese. Ask yourself why Emps didn't grow up reading Nazi text books. I am pulling out some of the most obvious ones from the last century. This is not a perfect world and sometimes war is wrong and unjustified and just plain evil.

quote:

---

...nor have I heard anyone admit that they fucked up for not doing this sooner.

---

Hindsight is 20/20 but I think the consensus now is that we f*cked up for not doing this sooner. And we have also just plain f*cked up many times since. For instance, there was a viable and real attempt to overthrow Hussein in 1996 that we under C*****n allowed to be massacred in front of our very eyes. Our fighter pilots patrolling the Northern no-fly zone begged their superiors to intervene but were ordered to stand down. It makes me want to puke when I look at our track record but that does not mean we give up on trying to do the right thing now.

I understand what it is like to dread rumors of war. At a younger age I was near suicidal because I thought a nuclear holocaust was my future. I know that I was not alone in that fear. But I can tell you that learning more about how the world works and formulating opinion about how we should proceed as free peoples helps drive the fear away. If nothing else, I hope these discussions cause you to get involved and push for what you believe is right through your system there in Aussie-land.

Bugs, you still haven't addressed the Mr. Bush issue...you seem to be avoiding it. So I will ask, do you support Mr. Bush, and his administration? Do you trust him? Do you think, that he could have done things better?

I am not comfortable with Mr. Bush, his administration, and the way they have attempted to do this.

I have been avoiding it because it is an issue that comes down to opinion and none of us know the guy personally. The other reason I have been silent is because I get angry when so many of you literally run him into the ground on a personal level. I'm not angry that you have the opinion, it's just that I do not think he deserves it at all and I don't want to respond emotionally.

That being said, and since you asked me directly. I will tell you that I do trust him. I am *extremely* pleased and I will admit surprised by the administrations restraint and competence. I will freely admit that when Mr. C*****n was elected although I supported him in the primaries I knew he would be a foreign policy disaster. In fact, I do think the C*****n administration made some serious errors in foreign policy some of which laid the ground work for 9/11. President C*****n is an extremely intelligent man but his administration operated from a different set of values and beliefs. I feel just the opposite with the Bush administration thus far.

Could he have done things better? Well, sure of course but not by anyone else we had to choose from. I think Gore would have been completely out of his league with the current war.

I would be happy to go into why I support him in more detail if you like. Maybe we can discuss that more in another thread? In fact, I was preparing some comments for the State of the Union thread. I wanted to hit some of his proposals point by point to let you know more where I stand on domestic and foreign issues .

Thanks Bugs...

That clears many things up, for me personally. I would be more than willing, to hear you out...as always.

For those of you against the war (and from the UK), go here and sign the petition.

Last count : 33,210 have done so.

Anybody know of a petition where US citizens can sign?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-04-2003).]

And as a follow up to Dufty's concerns about why we are so upset by the death of 7 astronauts this article compares and contrasts their death with 7 Canadian schoolchildren who also died this weekend:
www.guardian.co.uk/columbia/story/0,12845,888528,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I can't truthfully answer that, at least, not for everyone...

For me, maybe it's because those Astronauts were living my dream...and died. However, I felt more sadness for the Families of those left behind, than the Astronauts, themselves. Dying, while persuing ones dreams, is a noble way of dying, IMHO.

The other deaths mentioned, those children, though tragic (and there can be no doubt, that it is a tragedy), really only have an indirect impact on me (probably because I myself, am a parent...and the death of children affects me somewhat).

As for the reason one is in the news, and the other isn't...I think mostly has an economical reason - the space shuttle disaster sells better. It also has a bigger impact on more people, IMHO. With the space shuttle, rides the hopes and dreams of many...while only a few have hopes and dreams in those particular children. And while I cannot honestly say, that I feel love for any of the people who have died, the death of the Astronauts affects me just a little more.

Now, that may sound a bit cold, or inhuman. And certainly, no one life has more (or less) value as another. But I think that we are talking about emotional value here, and that is always subjective. Maybe that is the reason.