Topic awaiting preservation: Stop the war against Iraq

I'm against it, because i think that Bush's reasons are so inconvenient at all.

"Trust" is a dirty word that comes only from such a liar but "respect" is something I will learn...if you have faith!!

I think what you're trying to say is that his reasons aren't convincing. I think. What reasons are those? I understand that there are plenty but pick one and explain why you feel it isn't good enough. Just be prepared for some people to ask you questions that might make you change your mind... or strengthen your beliefs.

{To All}Remember people.... gently, gently...{/To All}

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

KILL SADDAM! KILL SADDAM! KILL SADDAM!

*quietly sits down and points to the silliness forum*

he's just doing all this because of his father.

"Trust" is a dirty word that comes only from such a liar but "respect" is something I will learn...if you have faith!!

You need to read up on this issue a little more before you set yourself down with an opinion.

most of the australians are against this...and I think that this Iraq war is just inhumane.
and America is such a coward, see?

"Trust" is a dirty word that comes only from such a liar but "respect" is something I will learn...if you have faith!!

I'm neither against nor for a war at the moment. I still don't think that all of the possible diplomatic channels have been exhausted quite yet.

I, like just about everyone else I've talked to about this, would love to see a peacfully resolution here but as it stands...

It feels like there's a war brewing. There's a lot of tough talk on both sides of the fence, probably because no one really knows what the hell is going on. The propoganda machines and gringing the midnight oil, threats and counter threats have been made, hate has been inspired.

Wars have been started over lesser things...

Edit: On and Yannah, our gonvernment isn't immune to this issue. It's not just America vs Iraq, after all, we've already sent several war ships and SAS troops to the gulf region.



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

Don't forget that the Cease Fire signed in 1991 was recently broken. Therefore, we will not see a new war! We will just resume our military action.

[Yannah]
I doubt that you represent the people of Australia so don't make comments such as "most of the Austrialians are against this." You must not know shit about Saddam Hussein if you think a war to remove him from power is inhumane. If you think America is a coward, go ahead and think that, but it is an irrational and illogical judgement.

drink RR, make beautiful PS, and smile at strangers... life is short enough as it is....

if that fails, lets have a war... humans are quite naturally inclined to self destruction, might as well be now as opposed to later....

~hops off towards the basement~

nicely said vp!

yes - enjoy your life, appreciate what you have, and make decisions that influence you and those around you instead of voicing opinions on subjects that you are more or less ignorant of.

live your life - deciding what you'll have for lunch will have greater effect on the future than deciding whether you agree with george dubya or not.

I'm not ignorant to this subject. I've been posting and researching daily on this subject. I've read countless articles of all biases on the U.S. vs. Iraq conflict. Everything. I'm tired of explaining to people why it's a good idea. There's too many idiots in the world to waste my time with... I'd rather be doing graphic design a wise man once said.

By the way, just so everyone knows, I posted a logo in the Print forum. Please check it out.

sigh....

did you just call america a coward? I mean really? Seems to me we were just attacked on our own soil.

Now personally I haven't seen the proof I'd like to warrant a war on Iraq and I also think we have domestic economic issues that are more dire. But spewing unsupported childlike nonsense like that is fucking crap. And I'm sure that there are plenty here willing to show you how uncowardly we are.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Personally I had to laugh early this morning when I heard GWBush saying in an interview that sending in troops and starting a war is his absolute last option. Bullshit it is. He's wanted to do it ever since 9/11.

yes we have sent some SAS troop there, but they said Howard's still deciding about it.

Skaarjj, when William Jefferson C*****n was still the leader of the free world, people who trashed him personally were often referred to as C*****n-haters. And then there were those people who respectfully disagreed with him and his policies and were heard every bit as well if not more so.

You know this feels strange to say, but I think I would be more worried if Yannah were a hawk instead of a dove on this particular issue. At 15, I know I would have been agreeing with her.

. . : slicePuzzle

VP - I couldn't have said it better myself, cheers! We Michiganders always seem to have just the right words, eh?

heh

Again, I must agree with Bugs (stop doing that! )...though I agree that Saddam must go, I really am suspicious of Mr. Bush's motives...

He sure is not leaving much of a chance for a peaceful solution...but then, removing Saddam is probably not to be accomplished with peaceful means *sigh*

I really am concerned for the Iraqi people...I hope that, in the case of the removal of Saddam, that the international community really does rebuild Irag, and has a plan...but I don't see that, yet...

However, rabidly attacking Mr. Bush will not help the situation...it will only drive him into a corner (IMHO). Peaceful, thought-out disagreement...that's the ticket.

And as for America being a coward...*shrugs* I feel that is overdoing it...or simplifying the issue horrendously.

It's good to have you online again WS I've been working on some more stuff for you in the philosophy section. It seems Europe is now clearly divided between the responsible and the irresponsible countries with this latest OpEd piece 8 countries sent to the Wall Street Journal. Did you get a chance to read it?

Could be my sleep deprived brain (WS know's all about whatI'm going on about here)...but bigs...what are you going on about I can't seem to place a word of that.

I also love how much like a parent talking to a child who doesn't agree with what they're doing Bush sounds. He says to the Iraqi people 'We're doing this becuase it's in your best interest' Really? Who is he to deicde what'sin their best interest...and quite frankly, how can he say blowing them up, shooting them, destroying their homes and al lthe other things that come with general warfare in their country is in their best interest?

Skaarjj, saying that Dubya *wants* to kill Iraqis is an attack on his person and something that you simply cannot know. There is no way that he is happy about seeing Iraqis die and certainly not happy about seeing our soldiers die and I just don't see how you can sit there and state with all certainty that "He's wanted to do it ever since 9/11". That's what I'm on about.

Besides, do you have a problem with the UN resolutions on this matter? Do you disagree with the UN demand that Iraq disarm? Walk with me talk with me on this

Yes, Bugs...I'm more than aware of it...I am in Germany...hehe...so I get the 'Iraq' stuff everyday...*sigh*

You'd be amazed at the things I have to hear everyday...and of how ignorant a lot of the viewpoints are...

*sigh*

I always respond with 'Google is your friend. Research it, and come to your own conclusions'...most, though, do not...they just parrot what they hear, and read in the press...

I even had one woman who seriously tried to tell me that Vietnam was still two countries...(a long discussion, that eventually broke down...started with Iraq, and eventually went off topic). Another, from Turkey, told me that the US was 'preventing' Turkey from drilling for oil in Turkey! After first clarifying the issue, this person was talking about the Kurdish regions of Iraq! Which is not a part of Turkey!

So, I get hit with this type of stuff everyday...

And yes, I am aware that the majority of Europe is behind Mr. Bush's war plan.

Vietnam is two countries!!! Hilarious!!! I have a friend who will be going there to visit after having escaped 12 years ago. He's going back as a tourist and to visit a few remaining family members. They're slowly opening up and hopefully will soon throw off those damnable shackles.

I never said that he *wants* to kill them...that would imply a personal connection, and I don't thnk he's about to pick up a rifle and go out in the field. I'm also not saying that he wants them killed, what I was pointing out was the contrast betwwen 'We're doing this for your own good' and the death and destruction that goes hand-in-hand with warfare. It's not like you can deny that. What I'd like to know is how he thinks he has the right to dictate what is in Iraq's best interests. Does he live there? No. Is he from there? No. Does he know anything of the country and its people aside from what he reads in intelligence reports and the like? No. So how can he dictate what is good for them and what is bad for them.

And bugs, I never brought up the UN resolutions. I personally don't know much about them. The UN says he should disarm? Fine...let him do that. At least the UN is a democratic body representing many nations, not just the interests of a few. Say what you like...GWB is calling the shots on it...in Australia John Howard is following along like a good little sheep, kissing arse all the while.

The UN weapons inspectors have so far failed to find any evidence that he has Nuclear Weapons...and so far GWB's reason for going ot war is becuase 'we know he has them'. Well if he knows he has them, and I mean knows it...sure as eggs is eggs, then he must have an idea where they are...why hasn't this been shared with the weapon inspectors so that they can look there. If he actually has evidence of them being there, why hasn't it been shared around. If he has proof...why does he refuse to show it?

I disagree with the UN entirely. What a joke! Did you know Libya is the UN Human Rights Chair? And that Iraq is on the First Committee of Disarmament and International Security!? What's this world coming to when the violator of disarmament resolutions is also on the committee? The UN is an organization and like any organization, it becomes corrupt over time. The UN is not backed my military power, therefore, in politics, the UN is powerless. No military power equals no power to enforce resolutions. It's a great place to work though. I knew someone who's dad worked for the UN. He was rolling in the big bucks!



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

Skaarjj, I guess we've already hit most of those questions here and here.

In this case (Bugs, I said stop doing that! ), I have to agree with Bugs...it has been discussed before, in the threads that Bugs so graciously pointed out...

And it's not necessarily about nuclear weapons, but Weapons of Mass destruction...which includes chemical and biological agents, as well as nuclear...NBC for short.

I would think that nano-weapons will also make the list in the future...and maybe genetic/cloning things...and possibly laser/energy weapons...all capable of being used for purposes of mass-destruction.

As for the UN...well, the security council is a small organisation within the UN...and a sore point (as well as a stumbling block) to true democratic processes...albeit that it, in and of itself, is democratic in nature...it excludes a large part of the world from participating...and so, on a bigger scale, is not really democratic at all...

Ok gentlemen..oyu've made your ponit. I'm oing to graciously witdraw here, since I'm tooo tried to continue this debbate coherenlety aynway

I dont agree with sadam hussiens domestic policies, i certainly despise the way he has treated his people.

This isnt anything like the last time the gulf flared up, he had invaded a foreign nation.

This time he hasn't, Just because people do not like his policies, does not give anyone the right to remove him from power, hell that would lead to new precidents.

The key issue is has he got rid of all of his weapons of mass destruction yes or no?

Untill that can be proved 100% either way then commiting to a war is wrong, George bush has said he has lots of evidence, then he should share it, the security council with the permanent member system ensures that if someone decides on a course of action that will be backed by the UN, that everyone thinks it is fair. The veto system is there as a safeguard.

Now bush approached the un for resolutions to back up the disarmament process, but now because he may not get that final approval without 100% evidence, he says he will go ahead without the UN approval. THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG.

It will be based on what they THINK not what they KNOW, the inspectors have already stated that there is no nuclear/atomic program.

The warheads found, contained no evidence of ever being used or having chemical or biological agents inside.

So unless someone can show 100% that there are weapons of mass distruction, then i think putting troops on the ground, or attacking by air is wrong.

quote:

---

Don't forget that the Cease Fire signed in 1991 was recently broken. Therefore, we will not see a new war! We will just resume our military action.

[Yannah]
I doubt that you represent the people of Australia so don't make comments such as "most of the Austrialians are against this." You must not know shit about Saddam Hussein if you think a war to remove him from power is inhumane. If you think America is a coward, go ahead and think that, but it is an irrational and illogical judgement.

:Morgan Ramsey

---

MR where the f..k did you get that crap from, do you know personally what is being said in australia, there are a lot of people against this for the reasons i have stated, but to brush aside a comment like that, without being able to prove otherwise is ignorant and at best rude ill mannered and impolite.

the america is a coward part i dont agree with myself, however i think that the leadership needs a big wake up call. They approached the UN, they used its channels... They should be prepared to stand by that system, not take a unilateral approach if things dont go their own way like a spoilt kid. To many times in history has this happened, not just the us government.

Dont get me wrong I have been on the firing line in a warzone, i have been prepared to possibly die, but in this case at the moment i think unless proof is there then military action is wrong.

Ok as for the ceasefire being broken, when what where and how? If that was the case, then that alone would allow military action, under the terms of the 91 ceasefire agreement.

ALso on a side note:

Anyone remebr Agent orange in vietnam (chemical weapon used by US Forces)

Anyone remember when america used weapons of mass distruction twice in as many weeks on civilian targets.???

I am gonna throw a quote in here froma another thread (webshamen threw this link in), this is from people that actually fought in the first gulf war, and thier thoughts on the present state of affairs...

quote:

---

Twelve years ago, at roughly 2:00 a.m. local time on January 17, I was ready to go off guard duty when the call came down from the command post to wake up the platoon leaders ASAP. Not long after, we got the official word: U.S. forces were in contact. Lieutenant Dorr, my platoon leader, came back and briefed us: A hundred tomahawk missiles had been launched, and Special Forces were engaged behind the lines. We didn't need the briefings; all we had to do was look up at the sky to see hundreds of planes heading north for their bombing runs.


Imagine if Ronald Reagan had announced in 1985 that we were going back to Vietnam, and this time we were going to take out those commies. That's how surreal the whole discussion of invading Iraq is, because we have just about as much justification today. At least in 1991, we had the very real fact that Iraq had invaded and occupied its neighbor as justification for the war (forget that the U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam the go-ahead), and the just-war theorists had a lively debate. It was a fight in Congress and a very close vote, a vote that was swung by lies of babies thrown out of incubators concocted in a DC public relations firm.


The result of all this is clear: friends injured on the front lines in Iraq, 12 men in my division killed in action and many more wounded, tens of thousands more who came home sick. Only this week new research was published proving that the chemicals we were exposed to not only caused brain damage but also damaged fertility. This research vindicated thousands of veterans who reported their illnesses 10 years ago only to be told their ailment was in their heads.


Now, 12 years later, it is time for the country to sit up and listen to its veterans ? starting with figures including Generals Anthony Zinni and Norman Schwarzkopf who have consistently urged caution, certified war heroes such as Col. David Hackworth, and the hundreds of veterans who have signed petitions for Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans against the Iraq War.


As veterans who have served in wartime, it is our moral responsibility to ensure that those who serve in uniform today are not sent into battle without just cause. It is our moral responsibility to ensure that they don't needlessly die in a faraway desert for motivations that are unclear. Hold no illusions: Hundreds, possible thousands of Americans will die in the coming war. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die in the coming war.


All across America, hundreds of thousands of citizens are marching this week, calling out to their government to listen to the people, and in many cases they are joined or led by veterans. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who has had a friend die in his arms. No one knows the horrors of war better than someone who lives with the memory of having killed another human being.


The tide is turning. Today, the majority of Americans see war against Iraq as unwarranted and unnecessary. But we must keep at it, keep talking, keep putting up signs, until Bush's war on America and Iraq is brought to a halt.


Twelve years ago, among the lights that flew so high over us in the desert night, Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher was shot down over Iraq and never came home. Before the war ground to a halt in March untold thousands more died, at least some of them at my hand. Before the decade was over, another million innocent Iraqi civilians died. That must forever lie on the conscience of Americans, and the world, for letting it happen.


When I was in the Army, they taught me to respect and protect civilians, not to kill them. This war does nothing to protect American lives, but it will do everything to destroy the lives of many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. This war will not protect us from weapons of mass destruction, but it will make it more likely Iraq will try to use them. This war will not liberate the Iraqi people, but it will do everything to ensure they receive a new master, one ruled by corporate profits and oil to fuel more American consumption.


This war isn't worth the life of one American soldier. This week, thousands of American soldiers from my old post, Fort Stewart, are loading up on planes and deploying to Kuwait, to fight a war on our behalf. They go because it is their job, and because it is their mission to protect us.


It is now our mission to protect them.


Charles Sheehan-Miles, a Gulf War veteran and a co-founder of Veterans for Common Sense, is a former president of the National Gulf War Resource Center and author of the novel, "Prayer at Rumayla".

---

here is the source of that quote

Thanks WS for that link in a previous thread



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

Bugs: Was that tongue in cheek?:

quote:

---

responsible and the irresponsible countries

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok there has been said a lot on this topic, a lot of questions and some answers.
I also has an opinion on the matter. But let me first make some things clear.
1) Saddam has to go oneday
2) What happenend on 9-11 was realy bad,
3) The USA has not had a war on his own ground since the civilian-war or since it's existence.
4) The Last 25 years there was a lot of war going on around and in iraq.
5) Arabs are pretty angry since Israel is founded in their midst.
6) Both Iraq and the USA are oil producing countries. Most european countries are not.
7) The first gulf war has costed the lives off 100.000 iraqi's
8) Saddam is constantly on the move, some day in one of his palaces the other as an iraqi civilian walking on the market.
10) There are +/- 10 stand-ins for saddam who also are moving around a lot.
11) North-Korea is very open about it's intention to create the and atomic bomb.
12) Saddam will not give in whatever happens.

Knowing this facts, i think the best thing what could be done is not going to war with iraq.
Here is what i think would happen when the war starts.
Arabs and palestines will be realy angry and thus wil fuel their need for suicide terrorists, since that is as 9-11 proved an very efective waepon. Ghadaffi, who has let lot of those guys train in his country in the past will help any terrorist. Possible the arabs and palestines will close their ranks. And so forming an formidable block of power in the then overheating middle-east and the world. The other weapons they then could use is stopping or lessening the oil flow. Wich could harm both the european and the american economies.
I think it is not possible to capture saddam whitout destroyng the most off iraq and thus the lives of most iraqi's.
And do not think the remaining iraqi's will be pleased with such an action. An then instead of turning iraq into the friendly nation we all want it to be, i think it is going to be a real pain in the ass.
As for as i know iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 so if they are hit that bad they do have another reason to get angry. Also i did not remember hearing anything about any balistic missiles, or airplanes who could start in iraq and could be a thread for the the USA. The last ten years iraq was not allowed to import anyting they could use to make any dangerous weapon. European, American and other vessels and plains did control this very good.
Even when something has slipped throug it will not be enough to be a real danger.
So recap if the war in iraq will start
-the middle-east will be on fire.
-there will be more terrorists than ever.
-european, american, and prob's other important economies will get a real hard-time
-a lot off inocant people will die.
-And i my darkest scenario it will eventually lead us all in one massive holy war......





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

[This message has been edited by Rinswind 2th (edited 01-31-2003).]

... <-- look it's the periods again! reitsma... are you going to make a prediction of my return again?

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

That still does not give you the right ot tell Yannah that she does not know what she is talking about. I can tell you for a fact myself that most australian are either apathetic towards or opposed to war on Iraq. You do not live here Morgan...so do not presume to tell us what we do and do not feel.



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

quote:

---

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

.: Dead Kennedys :.

---

___________________________
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]

[Skaarj]
I never made such an assumption. You're taking the entire statement out of context. Jeez, this is why I hate the Asylum....

quote:

---

I doubt that you represent the people of Australia so don't make comments such as "most of the Austrialians are against this."

---

That is exactly what I said. I doubt (and I know) that an anonymous individual on the Internet does not represent an entire nation. Don't get all self-righteous with me.


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

Ok now i have emotional problems because you think people dont know shit???? and i dont like what ya post??

So far all you have done is talk utter crap in this thread, or voiced opinions that are not backed by any fact, when confronted with this, you resort to either name calling, or sliding off into the shadows....

quote:

---

KILL SADDAM! KILL SADDAM! KILL SADDAM!

*quietly sits down and points to the silliness forum*
morgan ramsey

---

quote:

---

I'm not going to backup any of my statements since I've done so a million times before -- not specifically on these forums but on others.

---

Well show us these links to your posts elewhere so we can see what eveidence you have to support your case for war


as for the australians and the fact you are right.....

quote:

---

Wednesday 29 January: Do you think George Bush is doing a good job?
Yes: 15946 (32%)
No: 33624 (68%)

Tuesday 28 January: Does the US have just cause to wage a war against Iraq?
Yes: 17977 (38%)
No: 29816 (62%)

Monday 27 January: Do you think war with Iraq can still be avoided?
Yes: 13154 (55%)
No: 10553 (45%)

Thursday 23 January: Should Australian troops be going to the Gulf without UN approval?
Yes: 13222 (25%)
No: 38870 (75%)

Monday 20 January: Do you support as UN-backed war against Iraq?
Yes: 29157 (49%)
No: 30207 (51%)

Tuesday 14 January: Should Australia be more concerned about North Korea than Iraq?
Yes: 19575 (67%)
No: 9515 (33%)

---

from Australian web site

so by those figures i think yannah's opinion is that of the majority in Australia

I guess that means you are wrong....again.....

At least try and back things up when you are so postive you are right,

and finally

quote:

---

I never made such an assumption. You're taking the entire statement out of context. Jeez, this is why I hate the Asylum....

---

point 1:

You said you made a true statement that her opinion does not reflect that of most australians.....

look at facts and figures....above

you hate the asylum??? well get the fuck out...its that easy anyone can leave, why stay if its that bad????

quote:

---

I thought Yannah said "all" not "majority." It's late.

---

her exact quote was

quote:

---

most of the australians are against this...

---

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

watch this.

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

That individual though never said she represented the nation...and what were you saying about making unwarranted assumptions? Way to shit all over your own arguments by going and repeating the 'mistakes' you've picked up in other people's.

and I quote:

quote:

---

most of the australians are against this.

-- Yannah

---

An individual can express the opinion of most of the nation though if that person has an affirmed source that said opinion is valid...so there it goes...Tomeaglescz has presented the evidence that Yannah is right...Opinion polls taken of Australians...most of us DON'T support the war.

Now...before you go and tell us that we do evil things by making unwarranted assumptions, just make sure you don't trip over your own dragging arguments not practicing what you preach.

Don't let the cell door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Why is that you two are incredibly self-righteous? Do you have nothing better to do?

erm i am just simply putting forward the case for yannah's statement that most australians are against a war with iraq, now if you have a problem with that:

I guess by your own words you have emotional problems and need psychological help, if you find this affetcs you in such a place as the asylum

We could say the very same thing to you Morgan...why did you attack Yannah right at start of this...you appear to be pretty self-righteous when you pre-emptivley tell her

quote:

---

I doubt that you represent the people of Australia so don't make comments such as "most of the Austrialians are against this." You must not know shit about Saddam Hussein if you think a war to remove him from power is inhumane.

--Morgan Ramsay

---

I'd also like to bring that 'inhumane' point up again. So morgan...you don't think it's inhumane to condone the killing of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's simply to remove one person from power. I could give an analogy that I think will nail the point of exactly how inhumane it is...but I won't becuase it will most likley deeply offend you. However...I think you should stop and think very carefully before you post in here again...just examine what your saying. Your killing yourself at the moment. Oh and

quote:

---

Jeez, this is why I hate the Asylum....

--Morgan Ramsay

---

Really? Then why are you posting here may I ask? If you don't like having people not agree with you, you shouldn't have even come aorund here. Someone is always going ot argue with you, especially when you trip over your own arguments.

I can't hear you~!!!

My...that was childish.

Then again...no more than I would have expected out of you.

Still can't hear you.

#1I hate to tell you this, but as the asylum currently doesnt translate text into audio format, it would be technically impossible for you to hear us...

#2 And it through childlike behaviour like this, when confronted by truth and still beleieng that you are right when wrong that causes wars.....thank fuck you're not in a position of power

quote:

---

Wednesday 29 January: Do you think George Bush is doing a good job? (A good job at what?)
Yes: 15946 (32%)
No: 33624 (68%)

Tuesday 28 January: Does the US have just cause to wage a war against Iraq? (And what is/is not those causes?)
Yes: 17977 (38%)
No: 29816 (62%)

Monday 27 January: Do you think war with Iraq can still be avoided? (Do you and how?)
Yes: 13154 (55%)
No: 10553 (45%)

Thursday 23 January: Should Australian troops be going to the Gulf without UN approval? (Should Australia be in control of its military or should it follow the UN wherever they go?)
Yes: 13222 (25%)
No: 38870 (75%)

Monday 20 January: Do you support as UN-backed war against Iraq? (Why or why not?)
Yes: 29157 (49%)
No: 30207 (51%)

Tuesday 14 January: Should Australia be more concerned about North Korea than Iraq? (Why or why not?)
Yes: 19575 (67%)
No: 9515 (33%)

---

Now guess how many of those answers are intelligent responses. Yes/No Polls are simple and are not an accurate representation of the views held by citizens of any one nation.

A wise man once said:
"You have to face yourself, when you want to face an other.
You have to face yourself ,when you want to learn.
You have to learn to live.
The only way you can face yourself is to admit when you are wrong
and only when you you know when you are wrong, you could know when you are right"

another said:
"If you want to know how to win, you should know how to loose"

WTF??? Ok so now based on morgan ramsey's latest idea, no one is intelligent enough to know what yes and no means when in response to a simple question.. Also that the format for opinion polls such as these should be changed becuase he thinks that they are not intelligent responses..


Do me a favour come back with something sensible or shut up

If I really wanted to persuade or win any arguement here, I would, but until the Australians who responded to me in such a thoughtless manner become intellectuals, my research and time becomes waste when used on them.

quote:

---

The Most Dangerous Game

Opponents of war with Iraq have been arguing for some time now that, however depraved he may be, Saddam Hussein is a "rational actor," if only in the narrow strategic sense that would make him deterrable and, by extension, make invasion unnecessary in order to contain him. I'd like to add to that the radical assumption that George W. Bush, too, is rational. Or, if that's stretching credibility, that he's listening to advisors who are. If that's the case, then what, given a few more plausible assumptions about the relative preferences of the parties, can our old friend game theory tell us about the current conflict?

For simplicity's sake, let's begin with a standard two player game in a two-by-two matrix. Pretend Hussein has two fairly stark strategies to play: resist the U.N./U.S. disarmament efforts, or comply. Let's also suppose, somewhat more realistically, that Bush has an equally stark choice between using military force to depose Hussein, and leaving him in power. We'll represent the payoffs to each player (Bush, Hussein) ordinally, with 1 being a player's most preferred outcome, and 4 the least favored. Hussein would most like to be left alone while maintaining his resistance, but given his palpable concern with his own well being, would probably rather give in and be disarmed than face forcible ouster. If he is attacked, though, he'd rather be able to fight back with a full array of horrible weapons -- maybe try to kick off a "clash of civilizations" scenario -- than go gentle into that good night. Leaving a WMD-happy Hussein in power is the outcome Bush likes least, but a costly war -- lives lost and all those tasty oilfields potentially torched in the process -- is only slightly more attractive. It's a bit of a tough call between the scenarios in which Hussein is more compliant, but for the moment let's stipulate that Bush prefers not to have to send in the Army if he's satisifed that Hussein is playing ball. Those assumptions yield the following matrix:

chart at:
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2002_12_01_notesarch.html#90068610

In classical game theory, where both players simultaneously choose and play a strategy, this is bad news for all concerned. "Resist" is Hussein's "dominant strategy," which is to say, it yields a better outcome for him whatever Bush does. If Bush doesn't depose, he'd rather Resist, and if Bush does, he'd still rather fight it out, at the least going out with a bang, or a smallpox epidemic. Bush can predict this, and his rational response is Depose, giving us Resist/Depose as the unique Nash Equilibrium. This is particularly tragic, not only because war is never much fun, but because that outcome is Pareto-dominated by Comply/Leave: both players fare better in that scenario.

Of course, the actual situation is not quite so dismal, as evidenced by the fact that we're not actually at war yet. This is because the strategies chosen by the players are not simultaneous and independent. Bush?s threat is: if you don?t comply, then we will depose you. A sequential game of this kind is better modeled with the ?Theory of Moves? developed by a former professor of mine, New York University?s Steven Brams. On this model, we think of the standard matrix as a sort of game-board, with players taking turns either switching strategies or staying put, with an outcome being "final" when two consecutive turns end there. (After the first turn, that means: when someone stays put on their move, which in this instance we can think of as a player actually following through on an announced intention.)

Here, a different sort of problem arises: a problem not of convergence on a suboptimal outcome, but of failure to converge. Imagine we start in Leave/Resist, the status quo before September 11. Bush makes an opening feint, beginning to move towards Depose. On his turn, Hussein has the option of moving to Depose/Comply. He does so because, while this outcome is even worse than Depose/Resist from his perspective, he can predict that if he does so, Bush will use his turn to shift back to Leave/Comply. At that point, though, Hussein can get his best outcome by reverting to Resist, and the cycle begins anew. If this sounds familiar, it's because this describes fairly well the cat-and-mouse game the U.S. and Iraq have been playing since the end of the first Gulf War.

A cycle like this might be in Hussein's interests. Unlike Bush, he's not likely to be replaced by electoral "regime change" any time soon. If he can keep the game going, it seems reasonable for him to suppose that, sooner or later, the attention of the international community will turn elsewhere. Bush, however, has a piece of counterbalancing leverage. Recall that the move from Depose/Resist to Depose/Comply doesn't immediately make Hussein better off; it is advantageous only because he can rationally expect Bush to respond by shifting to Leave/Comply. Bush may be able to forestall that play by making a credible commitment not to revert to Leave at that point, at least after a fixed set of iterations of the cycle. That explains the somewhat strident "last chance" rhetoric we've been hearing from Ari Fleischer with respect to Iraq's "unsatisfactory" report. Repeatedly making public statements of that sort ties the U.S.'s threat-fullfilment credibility in future international games to its actions now, changing the payoff associated with backing off. In other words, the administration will want to attempt to convince Hussein that unless full cooperation is forthcoming now, they will invade despite future concessions or assurances from Iraq. They must, in short, appear somewhat bloodthirsty.

There is a further tangle as well. The decision to invade is fairly transparent; compliance is less so. Even with robust inspections, it is always at least possible that some further munitions or weapons labs are hidden away somewhere in Iraq. We cannot be sure whether Iraq is playing Resist or Comply. How to deal with this problem? One way would be to appear to have more information, and therefore a better idea of which strategy is being played, than we actually have. Perhaps -- and this is pure speculation -- this is why the administration has been so reticent about disclosing the mystery "evidence" of Iraq's further attempts to develop WMDs. Bush may be taking a lesson from old Perry Mason shows: you can sometimes extract a confession by pretending to have more evidence than you do. This also explains why the adminstration was so quick to declare Iraq's report -- amounting, apparently, to 1,200 pages of "Oh, dude, I'm clean officer. You don't need to check the trunk, really" -- unsatisfactory. If Hussein has been holding out, he may feel compelled to disclose some of his secret programs, fearing that Bush knows about them already, and will attack unless they're openly dismantled. Already, there have been revelations of secret arms deals with German firms in the report, something Hussein doubtless would have preferred to keep secret, since it weakens the hand of a nation opposed to war with Iraq.

Bush must walk a thin line. If Hussein believes that the U.S. is committed to invasion no matter what -- eliminating the bottom half of the matrix -- then Resist becomes a dominant strategy. Yet Bush must also send the message, for reasons outlined above, that he is more dedicated to invasion than would appear immediately rational. This seems like a fair description of precisely what the administration is trying to do.

One last wrinkle: are the preferences assumed for Bush correct? That is, could it be that leaving Hussein in power, even if he continues to seek WMDs, is not so bad as war from Bush's perspective? He may appear to have the preferences assumed in the model, but that may be because only if Hussein believes that the game sketched above is the game being played might it be rational to comply. Unfortunately, even if that's true, having made the commitment, future credibility now rests on Bush's acting as though these are his true preferences.

What's interesting here is that, if this analysis correctly models administration behavior, it would indicate that they do not believe, as some hawks have suggested, that Iraq is undeterrable and Hussein irrational. Instead, Bush & co. are behaving precisely as one would expect if they believed themselves to be playing against a rational opponent. Perversely, whether the administration's strategy succeeds may now depend on Hussein's being very different from the portrait they themselves have been painting of him.

---

quote:

---

The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq
By GEORGE PACKER


f you're a liberal, why haven't you joined the antiwar movement? More to the point, why is there no antiwar movement that you'd want to join? Troops and equipment are pouring into the Persian Gulf region in preparation for what could be the largest, riskiest, most controversial American military venture since Vietnam. According to a poll released the first week of December, 40 percent of Democrats oppose a war that has been all but scheduled for sometime in the next two months. So where are the antiwarriors?

In fact, a small, scattered movement is beginning to stir. On Oct. 26, tens of thousands of people turned out in San Francisco, Washington and other cities to protest against a war. Other demonstrations are planned for Jan. 18 and 19. By then an invasion could be under way, and if it gets bogged down around Baghdad with heavy American and Iraqi civilian casualties, or if it sets off a chain reaction of regional conflicts, antiwar protests could grow. But this movement has a serious liability, one that will just about guarantee its impotence: it's controlled by the furthest reaches of the American left. Speakers at the demonstrations voice unnuanced slogans like ''No Sanctions, No Bombing'' and ''No Blood for Oil.'' As for what should be done to keep this mass murderer and his weapons in check, they have nothing to say at all. This is not a constructive liberal antiwar movement.

So let me rephrase the question. Why there is no organized liberal opposition to the war?

The answer to this question involves an interesting history, and it sheds light on the difficulties now confronting American liberals. The history goes back 10 years, when a war broke out in the middle of Europe. This war changed the way many American liberals, particularly liberal intellectuals, saw their country. Bosnia turned these liberals into hawks. People who from Vietnam on had never met an American military involvement they liked were now calling for U.S. air strikes to defend a multiethnic democracy against Serbian ethnic aggression. Suddenly the model was no longer Vietnam, it was World War II -- armed American power was all that stood in the way of genocide. Without the cold war to distort the debate, and with the inspiring example of the East bloc revolutions of 1989 still fresh, a number of liberal intellectuals in this country had a new idea. These writers and academics wanted to use American military power to serve goals like human rights and democracy -- especially when it was clear that nobody else would do it.

Many of them had cut their teeth in the antiwar movement of the 1960's, but by the early 90's, when some of them made trips to besieged Sarajevo, they had resolved their own private Vietnam syndromes. Together -- hardly vast in their numbers, but influential -- they advocated a new role for America in the world, which came down to American power on behalf of American ideals.

Against the liberal hawks there were two opposing tendencies. One was conservative: it loathed the idea of the American military being used for humanitarian missions and nation building and other forms of ''social work.'' This was the view of George W. Bush when he took office, and of all his key advisers. The other opposing tendency was leftist: it continued to view any U.S. military action as imperialist. This thinking prompted Noam Chomsky to leap to the defense of Slobodan Milosevic, and it dominates the narrow ideology of the new Iraq antiwar movement. Throughout the 90's, between the reflexively antiwar left and the coldblooded right, liberal hawks articulated the case for American engagement -- if need be, military engagement -- in the chaotic world of the post-cold war. And for 10 years of wars -- first in Bosnia, then Haiti, East Timor, Kosovo and, last year, in Afghanistan, which was a war of national security but had human rights as a side benefit -- what might be called the Bosnia consensus held.

But on the eve of what looks like the next American war, the Bosnia consensus has fallen apart. The argument that has broken out among these liberal hawks over Iraq is as fierce in its way as anything since Vietnam. This time the argument is taking place not just between people but within them, where the dilemmas and conflicts are all the more tormenting. What makes the agony over Iraq particularly intense is the new role of conservatives. Members of the Bush administration who had nothing but contempt for human rights talk until the day before yesterday have grabbed the banner of democracy and are waving it on behalf of the long-suffering Iraqi people. For liberal hawks, this is painful to watch.

In this strange interlude, with everyone waiting for war, I've had extended conversations with a number of these Bosnian-generation liberal intellectuals -- the ones who have done the most thinking and writing about how American power can be turned to good ends as well as bad, who don't see human rights and democracy as idealistic delusions, and who are struggling to figure out Iraq. I'm in their position; maybe you are, too. This Bosnian generation of liberal hawks is a minority within a minority, but they hold an important place in American public life, having worked out a new idea about America's role in the post-cold war world long before Sept. 11 woke the rest of the country up. An antiwar movement that seeks a broad appeal and an intelligent critique needs them. Oddly enough, President Bush needs them, too. The one level on which he hasn't even tried to make a case is the level of ideas. These liberal hawks could give a voice to his war aims, which he has largely kept to himself. They could make the case for war to suspicious Europeans and to wavering fellow Americans. They might even be able to explain the connection between Iraq and the war on terrorism. But first they would need to resolve their arguments with one another and themselves.

In my conversations, people who generally have little trouble making up their minds and debating forcefully talked themselves through every side of the question. ''This one's really difficult,'' said Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian-born writer and thinker who has written a biography of the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin along with numerous books and articles on human rights. No one in recent years has supported humanitarian intervention more vocally than Ignatieff, but he says he believes that Iraq represents something different. ''I am having real trouble with this because it's not clear to me that containment has failed,'' Ignatieff told me. This kind of self-interrogation ends up with numerous arguments on either side of the ledger. Here's how I break down the liberal internal debate.

For War

1. Saddam is cruel and dangerous.

2. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction and has never stopped trying to develop them.

3. Iraqis are suffering under tyranny and sanctions.

4. Democracy would benefit Iraqis.

5. A democratic Iraq could drain influence from repressive Saudi Arabia.

6. A democratic Iraq could unlock the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.

7. A democratic Iraq could begin to liberalize the Arab world.

8. Al Qaeda will be at war with us regardless of what we do in Iraq.

Against War

1. Containment has worked for 10 years, and inspections could still work.

2. We shouldn't start wars without immediate provocation and international support.

3. We could inflict terrible casualties, and so could Saddam.

4. A regional war could break out, and anti-Americanism could build to a more dangerous level.

5. Democracy can't be imposed on a country like Iraq.

6. Bush's political aims are unknown, and his record is not reassuring.

7. America's will and capacity for nation building are too limited.

8. War in Iraq will distract from the war on terrorism and swell Al Qaeda's ranks.

At the heart of the matter is a battle between wish and fear. Fear generally proves stronger than wish, but it leaves a taste of disappointment on the tongue. Caution over Iraq puts liberal hawks, who are nothing if not moralists, in the psychologically unsettling position of defending a status quo they despise -- of sounding like the compromisers they used to denounce when it came to Bosnia. Fear means missing the chance for what Ignatieff calls ''a huge prize at the end.''

But wish makes a liberal hawk sound like a Bush hawk, blithely unconcerned about the dangers of American power. The liberal hawk is a liberal -- someone temperamentally prone to see the world as a complicated place.

This dilemma is every liberal's current dilemma.

The Theorist

After last year's terror attacks, Michael Walzer, the author of ''Just and Unjust Wars,'' among other books, published an article in the magazine he co-edits, Dissent, called ''Can There Be a Decent Left?'' Walzer harshly criticized leftists whose first instinct was to blame American policy for Sept. 11 and who refused to see the need for a war of self-defense against Al Qaeda. The article threw down an angry marker between the pro- and anti-interventionist left, and it drew heated attention to a 67-year-old political philosopher with a far-from-confrontational manner.

A year later, Walzer finds himself an ambivalent opponent of war in Iraq. Al Qaeda simplified things in favor of armed action; Iraq presents nothing but complication. ''The uncertainties right now are so great,'' he told me as we sat and talked at a cafe in Greenwich Village, ''and the prospects, the risks, so frightening, that the proportionality rule forces you the other way. And with a lot of other things going on -- suspicion of this government of ours, anger at the automatic anti-Americanism of people here and other places. It's all mixed up.''

Walzer is a strong advocate of multilateral action, and he faults the administration and its European allies for bringing out the worst in one another, American bellicosity and European complacency pushing the logic of events toward a war he says he doesn't believe is justified yet. The just-war theory requires that a threat be imminent before an attack is started. Since this is not yet the case with Iraq, an American war there wouldn't meet the criteria.

None of this means that Walzer is rallying opposition at teach-ins. In the 1960's, he was willing to join an antiwar movement that he says he knew would strengthen the hand of Vietnamese Communists ''because I thought they'd already won. I would not join an antiwar movement that strengthened the hand of Saddam.'' And yet he can't imagine one that doesn't. The nature of the enemy makes it almost impossible to be outspoken for peace, a dilemma that has created what he calls ''a kind of silent majority, a silent antiwar movement.'' Walzer's position offers cold comfort, for it ends up with Saddam still in power. ''It leaves me unhappy,'' he says.

The Romantic

These days, Christopher Hitchens sounds anything but unhappy. His militant support, first for the war with Al Qaeda and now for a war in Iraq, has led him to break quite publicly with former comrades. He has vacated the column he wrote in The Nation for the past 20 years and has said harsh things about the ''masochists'' of the anti-American left. Hitchens's apostasy has generated nearly as much attention on the left as the war itself, but over a three-hour lunch in Washington, his position struck me as more judicious than its print version.

Hitchens agrees with the ''decent skepticism'' of liberals who distrust the administration's motives, but he has decided that hawks like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz aim to use a democratic Iraq to end the regional dominance of Saudi Arabia. If this is the hidden agenda, Hitchens wants to force it into the open. He compares Saddam's Iraq with Ceausescu's Romania in 1989: it's going to implode anyway, and America should have a hand in the process.

In 1991, Hitchens was too suspicious of American motives to support the first gulf war -- a hangover, he says, from his days as a revolutionary socialist -- but on a visit to northern Iraq at the end of the war, he rode in a jeep with Kurdish fighters he admired who had taped pictures of the first George Bush to their windshield. It was a minor revelation. ''I'm not ashamed of my critique of the gulf war,'' he says, ''but I'm annoyed by how limited it was.''

Since then, Hitchens has steadily warmed to American power exercised on behalf of democracy. When I suggested that since Sept. 11 he has gone back to the 18th-century, when the struggle between the secular liberal Enlightenment and religious dark-age tyranny created the modern world, Hitchens readily agreed. ''After the dust settles, the only revolution left standing is the American one,'' he said. ''Americanization is the most revolutionary force in the world. There's almost no country where adopting the Americans wouldn't be the most radical thing they could do. I've always been a Paine-ite.''

British pamphleteer for the American revolution -- Hitchens has updated the role for Iraq. His relish for war with radical Islamists and tyrants (''You want to be a martyr? I'm here to help'') sounds like the bulldog pugnacity of a British naval officer's son, which he is. It also suggests a deep desire, and a romantic one, to join a revolution -- even if it's admittedly a ''revolution from above.'' ''I feel much more like I used to in the 60's,'' he says, ''working with revolutionaries. That's what I'm doing; I'm helping a very desperate underground. That reminds me of my better days quite poignantly.'' Hitchens has plans to drink Champagne with comrades in Baghdad around Valentine's Day.

The Skeptic

''Revolution from above'' was Trotsky's mocking phrase for Stalin's use of the Communist Party to collectivize the Soviet Union. It implies coercion toward a notion of the good. David Rieff, whose book ''Slaughterhouse'' condemned the failure of Western powers to intervene in Bosnia, compares revolution from above to Plato's idea of ruling Guardians. What they share, says Rieff, is a desire to pursue utopian ends by undemocratic means.

''I always thought there was more in common between Human Rights Watch and the Bush administration than either would be comfortable thinking, because they both are revolutionaries -- in my view, quite dangerous radicals. They believe that virtue can be imposed by force of law and force of arms. Christopher has the same view with his sense that a democratic alternative can be imposed by force of arms in the Middle East.''

Unlike Hitchens, an Englishman who ''liked the United States enough to have concluded when I was about 16 that I'd been born in the wrong country,'' Rieff is an American who grew up with a European education, traveled the world as a teenager and always looked askance at the notion of America as either savior or Satan. As an empire, America is neither better nor worse than other empires -- but to expect it to behave like Amnesty International is foolish. The difference between Bosnia and Iraq, Rieff says, is the difference between supporting democracy and imposing it. The former was a moral imperative as well as a strategic one; the latter is hubris. With Iraq, this hubris is leading to ''a hideous mistake.'' ''I accept everything that the Bush administration says about the wickedness of Saddam Hussein,'' Rieff says, ''but I do think it's a revolution too far.''

The Secularist

During the Congressional debates on the war resolution, it was just about impossible to hear an argument in favor of the administration without the words ''Munich'' and ''Chamberlain.'' The words ''Tonkin'' and ''Johnson'' were far rarer, which tells you something about the relative acceptability of World War II and Vietnam -- appeasement and quagmire -- as historical precedents. I wanted to ban all analogies, because they always seemed to be ways of avoiding the hardest questions. But the analogies are hard-wired, and Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, is right to say that Americans of the postwar generation ''have operated with two primal scenes. One was the Second World War; one was the Vietnam War. And you can almost divide the camps on the use of American force between those whose model for its application was the Second World War and those whose model for its application was the Vietnam War.''

For Wieseltier, whose parents survived the Holocaust, the primal scene is American power helping to end evil. Shortly before I met him at his Washington home, Wieseltier had seen a TV documentary with rare footage of the gassing of Kurds by Saddam's army -- a reminder of a primal scene if ever there was one. But that was in 1988, when America failed to intervene. Today, American and British pilots in the no-fly zone are preventing the very genocide that Wieseltier feels would justify an invasion.

Wieseltier is a secular liberal in the classical sense. He says he believes that the separation of religion and power marked a violent rupture with the past. This rupture created a new and universal idea of freedom and equality -- one that Islamic societies around the world have not yet been ready to face. Sept. 11 was a cataclysmic ''refreshment'' of this idea, after years in which only money mattered. But terrorism should not turn liberals into simple-minded missionaries; being a secular liberal means accepting that the world is a difficult place. ''Democracy in Iraq would be a blessing, but it cannot be the main objective for embarking on a major war,'' Wieseltier says. ''If there is one thing that liberalism has no time for, it's an eschatological mentality. There is no single, sudden end to injustice. There's slow, steady, fitful progress toward a more decent and democratic world.''

Wieseltier says he believes that Saddam's weapons and fondness for using them will probably necessitate a war, but unlike some other editors at The New Republic, he is not eager to start one. ''We will certainly win,'' Wieseltier says, ''but it is a war in which we are truly playing with fire.''

The Idealist

Paul Berman's book ''A Tale of Two Utopias: The Political Journey of the Generation of 1968'' traced a line from the rebellions of the 1960's to the nonviolent revolutions of 1989. It is essentially a line from leftism to liberalism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the great ideological battles of the 20th century seemed to have ended: liberal democracy reigned supreme.

Then came Sept. 11, which, Berman argues in a coming book called ''Terror and Liberalism,'' showed that, as it turns out, the 20th century isn't quite over yet.

''The terrorism we face right now is actually a form of totalitarianism,'' Berman told me in his Brooklyn apartment. ''The only possible way to oppose totalitarianism is with an alternative system, which is that of a liberal society.'' So the war that began on Sept. 11 is primarily a war of ideas, and Berman harshly criticizes Bush for failing to pursue it. ''We're going into a very complex and long war disarmed, in which our most important assets have been stripped away from us, which are our ideals and our ideas. He's sending us into war with one arm tied behind our back.''

Berman argues for a war in Iraq on three grounds: to free up the Middle East militarily for further actions against Al Qaeda, to liberate the Iraqi people from their dungeon and to establish ''a beachhead of Arab democracy'' and shift the region's center of gravity away from autocracy and theocracy and toward liberalization. In other words, war in Iraq has everything to do with the war on terrorism, and the dangers of an American military occupation that might not be seen by everyone in the region as ''pro-Muslim,'' though they worry Berman, don't deter him.

Perhaps the boldest intellectual move he makes is to claim a liberal descent for these ideas -- connecting the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sept. 11 and Iraq. This lineage, Berman claims, is represented not by George W. Bush but by Tony Blair, ''leader of the free world.'' Bush has presented the wars on terrorism and Saddam as matters of U.S. security. In fact, Berman says, they are wars for liberal civilization, and the rest of the democratic world should want to join. It doesn't bother Berman to hear conservative hawks at the Pentagon like Paul Wolfowitz talking similarly. ''If their language is sincere,'' he says, ''and there is an idealism among the neo-cons that echoes and reflects in some way the language of the liberal interventionists of the 90's, well, that would be a good thing.''

But Berman, unlike Hitchens, doubts their sincerity. And in the end, Berman can't support the administration's war plan, ''because I don't actually know -- I believe that no one actually knows -- what is the actual White House policy.'' So he is left in the familiar position of intellectuals, with an arsenal of ideas and no way to deploy them.

one chilly evening in late November, a panel discussion on Iraq was convened at New York University. The participants were liberal intellectuals, and one by one they framed reasonable arguments against a war in Iraq: inspections need time to work; the Bush doctrine has a dangerous agenda; the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not encouraging. The audience of 150 New Yorkers seemed persuaded.

Then the last panelist spoke. He was an Iraqi dissident named Kanan Makiya, and he said, ''I'm afraid I'm going to strike a discordant note.'' He pointed out that Iraqis, who will pay the highest price in the event of an invasion, ''overwhelmingly want this war.'' He outlined a vision of postwar Iraq as a secular democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens. This vision would be new to the Arab world. ''It can be encouraged, or it can be crushed just like that. But think about what you're doing if you crush it.'' Makiya's voice rose as he came to an end. ''I rest my moral case on the following: if there's a sliver of a chance of it happening, a 5 to 10 percent chance, you have a moral obligation, I say, to do it.''

The effect was electrifying. The room, which just minutes earlier had settled into a sober and comfortable rejection of war, exploded in applause. The other panelists looked startled, and their reasonable arguments suddenly lay deflated on the table before them.

Michael Walzer, who was on the panel, smiled wanly. ''It's very hard to respond,'' he said.

It was hard, I thought, because Makiya had spoken the language beloved by liberal hawks. He had met their hope of avoiding a war with an even greater hope. He had given the people in the room an image of their own ideals.

---

Really? Then why do a consistant number of people from that nation who (probably by some trick of the light) just happen to be citizens of it answered, mostly in entreme terms and protests that they did support the war...you see...a yes/no poll does support the views of a citizenry...in the end all questions come down to those two simple answers 'Yes Or No'

quote:

---

I think the biggest point to come out of the thread is that there is a sizable opposition to the impending war on Iraq (I mean, at this point, who are we kidding, it's going to happen, the momentum has become too great it seems..)

So, in the spirit of debate, I begin by coming out on the side of military action. I do think nothing is gained by leaving Saddam in power. We will have to take him out eventually. This is an issue that should have been settled in 1991.

Now, what I don't understand is the anti-war position. I hear a lot of "the war is wrong" style argumentation, but I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why the US shouldn't pursue this action. All I hear from the liberals on this forum is condescending remarks towards viewpoints that don't jibe with theirs, but very little in the way of an alternative solution to the problem.

So, to all the liberals on the board, I want you to tell me why I should consider changing my opinion on this issue.

Why should the US not invade Iraq? What will the US gain by not invading Iraq?


P.S. I'll post my views on the situation, in case anyone cares..

1. Saddam is hiding something.

If he wasn't, he wouldn't be playing these charades with the UN and the US. The question of course is what? I for one, am not keen on giving this thug the benefit of the doubt. It's an even bigger problem waiting to happen. What I don't understand is how the left immediately assumes some kind of government conspiracy to deflect from the economy, or other domestic issues. Do liberals believe the American public is that stupid? Apparently so... as if the average american couldn't possibly handle worrying about more than one political topic. Come on, guys, that's a weak argument. What's the point of keeping this guy in power? His track record speaks for itself.

2. Saddam is the master politician, and at times he knows how to play it so the Western left falls right into his hands.

Saddam will never do anything to promote peace until there is a gun at his head forcing him to do so. As long as there is another hoop to jump through.. another UN resolution, a debate in the Sec Council, a vote in Congress.. Saddam will use this to bog down the process and keep stringing us along.. knowing the delays will allow the anti-war sentiment to keep growing and make the US government's work that much harder.

As evidence I will refer you to Saddam's history of exploiting procedural delays and capitulating only under fire. It took force to drive Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. At the outset of the U.N. inspections, he felt no obligation to comply except under threat of force. Missile strikes and troop mobilizations were necessary to halt Saddam several times: in 1993, after he tried to kill George H.W. Bush; in 1994, when he threatened to reinvade Kuwait; and in 1995, when he tried to crush the Kurds. Saddam drove inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 by making their job impossible, and he didn't let them return until George W. Bush made clear that that the alternative was an American invasion.

At every turn, Saddam used intervening deliberations to hint at conciliation and sow discord in the Security Council. He learned that there were issues on which Security Council opinion was divided and that by pressing on those issues, he could deepen the rifts among the members. In 1997, he lulled France, Russia, and China away from the U.S.-British alliance against him. Early in 1998, he used Kofi Annan's peace overture to thwart American and British military strikes. That fall, he pulled off another 11th-hour escape..With American and British planes in the air and headed toward Iraq, Saddam's right-hand man appeared on CNN and announced that Iraq would allow inspectors back in. Secretary-General Annan immediately accepted the overture, and the United States had to call off the attack. Naturally, Saddam reneged right away.

This is Saddam's genius. As long as war isn't the next resort?as long as there's some vote, consultation, or authorization that has to take place before the bombs begin to fall?he'll wait until that moment and fake compliance in order to kill the momentum against him. After he reneges and a new countdown begins, he pulls the same stunt.

Shooting Saddam may prove to be unnecessary, hopefully his cronies wise up and do the dirty work for us.... But don't expect him to hand over his weapons till our gun is a lot closer to his head. Inevitably, the next time we catch him fibbing or concealing or interfering in the inspections, there will be calls by the liberals for peace or more talk about what to do.

Here's an idea: Stop talking and start doing.

3. The other argument I don't get is that a war with Iraq will have destablilizing consequences in the Middle East.

How can you even say with a straight face that there is anything even remotely stable about the Middle East?

4. Liberals are mistaking means for ends.

Many people expressed relief when the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution ordering Iraq to submit to inspections. But resolutions aren't the goal. Inspections aren't the goal. Disarmament is the goal. If resolutions don't achieve inspections, or if inspections don't achieve disarmament, force must follow.

5. Liberals seem content with the gaps in the current agreements.

Loopholes in agreements are often easy to spot. The less visible and more exploitable problem is gaps in time. Every delay between transgression and punishment gives the Security Council time to waver and gives Saddam time to renegotiate. That's why President Bush wanted the Council's resolution to authorize immediate military action if Iraq reneged. If the Council orders troops to Iraq, Saddam will use the same ruse: When the troops arrive, he'll try to call a timeout.

6. Why are liberals so keen on negotiating with Saddam?

Haggling with Saddam goes like this: He shoots a rock through your window. You tell him to hand over his slingshot. He says he will if you'll give him $2. You give him a dollar. He says that hardly seems fair, why not throw in an extra 80 cents. You give him 40 cents. He asks for another quarter, you give him a dime, he asks for another nickel, and so on. As long as you're splitting the difference, the game goes on. You have to stop talking and grab him by the collar.

7. What is up with liberals and "fairness" regarding Saddam? Does he deserve it?? hell no !!

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has gone out of his way to assure Middle Eastern reporters that he'll be fair to Iraq. Bad idea. At a minimum, fairness implies that Iraq is entitled to unspecified considerations, which Saddam will be happy to specify. At worst, fairness implies even-handedness, obscuring the difference between perpetrator and victim.

8. Are liberals naive enough to believe that Saddam will actually cooperate?

Blix said he was going to Baghdad to seek cooperation with the Iraqis. That's asking for trouble. If everyone agrees to do the right thing, great. But if not, and if you can do it by yourself, go ahead. If you insist on Iraqi cooperation, you give Saddam the power to set terms by withholding cooperation. Ditto for France, Russia, China, and the rest of the Security Council. If Bush had insisted on getting the council's cooperation in demanding new inspections, he would never have gotten it. He got it by making clear that if he didn't get it, he'd go to war.

9. Why are American liberals so keen on switching the burden of proof to the U.S. government, and not Saddam where it rightfully belongs?

Keep the burden on Saddam. If you show Saddam a photo of himself holding a canister of nerve gas, he'll say he's gotten rid of the gas since you took the photo. If you try to get into his basement to show that he's still got the gas, he'll block the door. That's his strategy: to make evidence collection your problem. Four years ago, he succeeded: U.N. inspectors left Iraq because he wouldn't let them do their job. To avoid that mistake, we have to make evidence collection Saddam's problem. Bush has done so by making clear that he'll disarm Iraq by force unless inspectors disarm it peacefully. Blix says effective inspections are in the Iraqi interest because "otherwise, they would not be credible." But the only reason Iraq cares whether the inspections are credible is that if they aren't, Bush will strike.

10. The more we argue amongst ourselves, the more credibility Saddam gets.

Over the weekend there was a huge rally in D.C. against military action in Iraq, and an ever increasing furor over the debate of action or inaction with regards to Iraq. In a nutshell, that's what Saddam wants us to do: zoom out from the offense on which everybody agrees?Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?to a broader debate over American military activity in Iraq. Blix has worsened the problem by suggesting that his inspections could lead to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Saddam would love to drag Arabs and Muslims into his fight by making his disarmament contingent on Israel's.

11. Liberals seem to have forgotten recent history.

We spared him in the Persian Gulf War in exchange for his agreement to inspections. Then he dragged his heels on the inspections, and after a few years, everyone forgot the original deal. Inspections began to look like a favor he was doing us. They aren't. They're his probation in lieu of being toppled. If he violates probation, we have to follow through.

12. Liberals seem to want to separate diplomacy from force.

When the Security Council passed its resolution, pundits and foreign leaders congratulated Secretary of State Colin Powell for leading the administration's diplomacy camp to victory over its war camp. But if the hawks hadn't been noisily preparing for war, the diplomats wouldn't have obtained the resolution. If Iraq cooperates with the inspectors in the weeks ahead, people will say that it shows military power isn't necessary. In fact, it strengthens the case for his ouster.

13. The American Left seems to trust Saddam more than they do their own country.

I find this one particularly disturbing. Like Johnnie Cochran, Saddam knows that the best way to deflect scrutiny from the defendant is to put the U.S. on trial. The inspectors are too well regarded to be charged with malice, so Iraq instead accuses the United States of manipulating them. Iraq contends that the resolution gives some countries pretexts to interfere in the inspectors' work, subjecting them to the pressure and desires and claims of specific countries, first of all the United States, which has aggressive goals.

Like a driver caught in a speed trap, Iraq plans to argue that the rules have been rigged to manufacture crimes and prosecutions. War, not Iraq, is the real enemy, if you believe the Iraqi spin.

However, the purpose of the resolution, as conceived by the Bush administration, is to force Saddam to choose between compliance and defiance. Saddam, though, wants a third option: defiance in the guise of compliance. The antiwar movement is eating this ruse up.

If the preceding arguments give the Security Council enough of an excuse to drag its heels on authorizing war, he'll have succeeded.

---

and one more thing why edit the posts and remove the contents????

Probably because one is Australian, and resented it when his views are misrepresented? And because Yannah did make a point...though I feel one could have made an issue out of the 'coward' part...

Though the language was a bit harsh, I can understand why such a reaction is to be expected...most Americans, IMHO, would react much the same in the same situation...

Though I find it quite humorous, that Yannah was right...Ouch!

@ Yannah, though part of your post was indeed correct (thanks, Tom), calling the US cowards is not.

So...I think we have established the facts here...can we please move on with the topic?

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

Morgan you are way out off line...
If you think not every individual can think by itself.
Every single individual has choosen to answer this poll and made the decions to vote what he did based on the knowledge he or she had on that moment.
So any given poll represants the knowledge of the voters who did the poll.

IF you think they are stupid just 'cos they do not agree with you think again.
and beare it is this "we know what is good for you" mentality which make alot of people angry on americans.
Thouh they are not the only ones who think this dangerous way.
And i has to say a lot off them don not think this way.



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

Morgan...can I ask...how were we rude and thoughtless? Did we offend your poor little illusion that you are always right? Geee...I'm sorry for exposing you to the real world.

And how is it any less thoughtless than you just coming right out and tell one of the Australians that 'she musn't know shit' if she thinks the way she does.

Again mate...in your relentless persuet(sp?) of proving yourself right...you have taken a few stpes backwards by accusing someone else of doing something bad, when you had done the self-same thing earlier in the thread.

Again you're assuming that I somehow inferred that their intelligence is inferior. That is partly true, actually. The one who sits down and questions the question is the one who searches to better understand the question for an answer cannot be arrived at in such a hasty manner through yes/no quizzes.

In all seriousness, if you think for one moment that it is inhumane to remove Saddam from power, you are a fucking idiot.

MR You are not thinking by yourself are you?
You spit out the rubbish the USA propaganda machine has put in your head...
Shut up and be silent.

Now could someone close this thread before we have to get real nasty.


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

er... australians???????


want to make that australian.....


i am english

and wait untill they become intellectuals????

Five Ways to Lose an Argument on Iraq
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/9/18/184142/095

quote:

---

All about oil?
Jan 23rd 2003
From The Economist print edition

Why invading Iraq would not produce an oil bonanza for America

?IF WE are the occupying power,? said Colin Powell, America's secretary of state, on January 22nd, Iraq's oil fields ?will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people.? The Bush administration was examining different ways of managing the oil fields in the event of America invading Iraq, he said. Stung by criticism in much of the world that lust for oil is driving its enthusiasm for war, the Bush administration is trying to reassure sceptics that Iraqi oil would not be run only to suit America. Yet even without these assurances, it is far from certain that Iraqi oil could be the bonanza for America that its critics imagine.

These critics claim that any post-Saddam regime?which they presume would be a puppet of America?would move quickly to start pumping out vast quantities of oil. It would surely give in to American pressure to leave the OPEC cartel of price-fixers. Iraq's gushing wells would quickly undermine the cartel's grip, prices would collapse and OPEC might even be destroyed altogether?taking with it such unsavoury regimes as Saudi Arabia's.

Actually, even if Mr Powell's assurances turned out to be flimsier than they appear, there are good reasons to think Iraq would not become either an OPEC-slayer or America's private petrol station. Two new reports on the subject stress the constraints and challenges?not the easy pickings and limitless bounty?that Iraq's oil represents for America.

One report, by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the James Baker Institute of Rice University, argues that Iraq's oil is not the prize it seems from afar. Iraq has vast reserves, but its infrastructure is, in the words of Dutch experts who inspected it a few years ago, in ?lamentable? condition. A decade of sanctions and under-investment have cut Iraq's output and done permanent damage.

In the short run, a war would further disrupt Iraqi production (especially if Saddam Hussein were to destroy oil wells): the result would be greater market power for OPEC and maybe $40-per-barrel crude, says Phil Verleger, an energy economist affiliated to the CFR. After that, even assuming that rebuilding the oil sector were a top priority for a new government, and oil revenues were immediately redirected for that purpose, the CFR-Baker study reckons that it would still take nearly a decade and up to $40 billion to revive Iraq's oil sector. That could lift Iraqi output to 4.2m-6m barrels per day, up from around 2.5m bpd today. However, it would still fall far short of Saudi Arabia's whopping output of over 8m bpd today. That is why no truly independent Iraqi government would ever leave OPEC to go for volume instead: the Saudis have so much more oil than anyone that they will always win a price war.

Besides, talk of a speedy revival of Iraq's oil sector may be too optimistic. A report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) observes that, after a regime change, there would be many competing claims for money that would slow investment in oil: buying food, financing reconstruction, paying for ?democracy building? and keeping the peace. Iraq also has debts of over $100 billion?not including war reparations due to Iran and Kuwait for Mr Hussein's past aggressions. However, this argument would be weaker if an occupying American government footed the bill for oil investment.

In an effort to curry favour with anybody ready to oppose UN sanctions, Mr Hussein has offered juicy chunks of Iraq's oil bounty to companies from Russia, China and France?countries whose geopolitical strategies are also tainted by oil. Whether America could tear up such contracts and ?pre-contracts? is unclear. American and British firms, which have been prevented from bidding for such contracts, would lobby to have them scratched and retendered (along with other Iraqi oil contracts) in a contest in which they have (at least) a level playing field. But to avoid a legal morass, the CFR-Baker report recommends the immediate creation of a UN dispute-resolution mechanism. Unless some way is found to provide a secure legal framework for oil concessions, much-needed foreign investment in Iraq could be delayed by years while the lawyers bicker.

In short, for all the accusations that America's war plans are motivated by the goal of cheaper oil, there would probably be no such prize, at least for many years. As the CFR-Baker report says: ?There has been a great deal of wishful thinking about Iraqi oil.? It does not expect a bonanza.

---

ok i have refrained from making personal comment so far, except for pointing out that i found your original post in response to yannahs somewhat rude?

but how about this for a suggestion or a hypothetical situation.


You are a pain in the ass, i think you might have something which could harm a lot of people, so what i am going to do is walk down your street with a shit load of weapons, kill anyone that gets in my way, including your familly to get to you, even though they may be innocent parties. then i am gonna kill you....


yup sounds perfectly humane to me

And since there's a few of you starting to call me names (which is hypocritical because the same few was telling me I was doing wrong by calling others names), I'll post my "literature" list. After you read what I've read, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that I am not an idiot or an ignorant savage.

quote:

---

I don't expect too many people here to have read any of these books. Nevertheless, please take a look despite the length.

POLITICAL/HISTORY BOOKS

? The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
? Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
? Rogue Regimes: Terrorism & Proliferation by Raymond Tanter
? Essentials of California Government by Dr. Michael Newbrough
? Liberty and Consciousness by Dr. Michael Newbrough
? America & The World: Essentials of Foreign Policy by Dr. Michael Newbrough
? Essentials of American Politics by Spitzer, Ginsberg, Lowi & Weir

INTELLECTUAL BOOKS

? Mythology?s Last Gods by William Harwood
? Darwin?s Dangerous Idea: Evolution & Meanings of Life by Daniel Dennett
? Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett
? Wrinkles In Time by George Smoot
? The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark by Carl Sagan
? The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe Report by Timothy Ferris
? At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman
? The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins
? The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio
? The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene
? Time's Arrow & Archimedes' Point by Huw Price
? The Time Before History by Colin Tudge
? The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore
? An Intimate History of Humanity, Theodore Zeldin
? The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
? The Hubble Wars, Eric Chaisson
? Howard Bloom's The Lucifer Principle
? Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter
? The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond
? Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond
? The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
? Timescale by Nigel Caulder
? Virus X by Frank Ryan
? Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos by Roger Lewin
? Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski
? Slight of Mouth by Robert Dilts
? No Logo by Naomi Klein
? Culture Jam by Kalle Lasn
? The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
? Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson
? Media Virus by Douglas Rushkoff
? The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking

MISCELLANEOUS LITERATURE

ESSAYS BY JOE E. DEES

? Statistical Thought In Social Sciences: A Phenomenological Basis
? The Human Dialectic of Absolute Premises: Christianity and Marxism
? Gender and Nature in Contemporary Neo-Paganism
? Zen Buddhism and Existential Phenomenology: The Dancer and the Dance
? A Game Theory Analysis of the U.S.-Iraqi Conflict

ESSAYS BY DAVID MCFADZEAN

? A Computational Laboratory For Evolutionary Trade Networks

ARTICLES

? Five Ways To Lose An Argument On Iraq by kuro5hin.org?s dachshund
? Various FAQs by the Church of Virus? Hermit

ESSAYS BY ELIEZER YUDKOWSKY

? ANY ESSAYS BY THIS MAN

---

I think we've said all that can be said now....


This thread is dead.

quote:

---

I think we've said all that can be said now....

---

I very much doubt it - esp. as it was closed whilst I was preparing a reply

I'll move this to P & S where we can kick around what is the hottest topic of the moment.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Right so skirting around the fact that you can't say all [insert nationality here] are for/aagainst war with Iraq without being proved wrong.........

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

On the question of who is 'responsible' or not see this:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,886148,00.html

It appears the British and Spanish leaders didn't consult with certain EU leaders before issuing their letter which is only going to cause problems. This is a map of how Euorpe stands on war with Iraq (note: PDF):
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2003/01/31/europe_iraq.xpress.pdf

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Thanks Emps. That is a very nice little maps.
Clearing some things i think.

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

Thanks for that emps...and you're right...you can't say that 'all' are for are against something...the best thingi s though...None of us ever did...Morgan just said we did.



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

Thanks for the info, Emps. Very interesting...

So...why is this issue dividing Europe? And the rest of the world, for that matter?

You know, on the surface, it's really a cut-and-dry issue, isn't it? But wait...underneath, maybe it isn't...

I would like to know, why some lands support Mr. Bush's stance, and why some do not. Is it maybe because Mr. Bush's stance on Iraq is not clear (well, other than the military one)? I personally don't quite know what to make out of Mr. Bush's motives for Iraq...maybe the rest of the world is also mulling this over? Food for thought...

Skaarjj: Quite so back to the actually important issue the impending war.......

And for those against the war:
www.peacepledge.org
www.nonviolence.org/iraq/
www.unitedforpeace.org
www.votenowar.org
www.antiwar.com
www.endthewar.org
www.stopwar.org.uk
www.moveon.org/nowar/
www.nowarblog.org
www.why-war.com
www.iraqwar.org &#0124; &#0124; www.againstbombing.org - a bit of an odd one.

I am impressed by the sheer number of web sites out there.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

WS: Its not really about "lands" in most countires its around 50:50 (except in the Middle East and France and probably some other countries) - although the UK is pretty evenly split on this we are the #2 country driving this through which does seem a little odd and likely to backfire on Tony Blair if things go wrong. In fact virtually the whole of the cabinet are against the war without a second UN resolution (except for Hoon the defence minister who has been described as having gone 'native' in the Ministry of Defence).

Is there actually anywhere in the world that has a large majority in favour of war with Iraq? What are the numbers like in the US at the moment?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

OK Here is a formal challenge to Morgan Ramsay:


A Formal debate in the phillosophy Thread on the following topic:

Is the worlds position that the slaughter of thousands of people is justifyable in removing Saddam Hussien from power or merely that of an extremist few???

Rules:

1.Posts must be left in their original state at all times.
2.No temper tantrums or personal slights


We will make this a team debate so please find someone prepared to back your argument, as the title suggests it cant be a one person per team debate

It's a little too specific and I would, actually, prefer to stay out of political and morality debates on this forum. Don't forget that I'm leaving as soon as Thaddeus gets my e-mail.

i thought you would have liked a go at that, since its exactly your position

Jumping in a bit late here.

Most of the people I speak with think that this war is the only way for GWB to remain in office. His domestic policies are flopping, he does not have the sucess he once showed in the polls. He will obviously lose in 2004 unless he pulls a big bomb out of his ass.

tomeaglescz: Its too emotively phrased - good try though.

And I thought I'd share this:



___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I would, actually, prefer to stay out of political and morality debates on this forum

---

Please stopit - it hurts my ribs, and now I can't see shit for tears!

___________________________
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]

Holy crap!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe all this happened after I fell asleep last night! Simply amazing.

Emps! I love how you pull out the little presents I insert in my posts sometimes. You know I consider France and Germany's positions irresponsible, the 8 countries that have sided with a strong position against Iraq referred to their plan as negligent. I don't see a huge difference between irresponsible and negligent in this current context. I expect Russia and China to oppose us as a matter of principle.

Do you think my characterization went too far?

[edit] Diplomacy first? Without a military build up there would be NO diplomacy happening right now at all. We are waiting for a peaceful solution. We are offering exile, and all sorts of room and time to stand down. This simply cannot be an indefinite wait. There are real people in the field and real conditions that warrant a decision one way or the other. Right? What am I missing in that analysis? [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

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

Umm...you expect Russia to go against U.S. action? um...I hope not

Bugs!:

quote:

---

I love how you pull out the little presents I insert in my posts sometimes.

---

and I love you dropping those little nuggets in to make sure I read everything carefully

So onwards:

quote:

---

Do you think my characterization went too far?

---

Yes. It smacks of if-you-aren't-with-us-you-are-against-us-ism. My viewpoint is that the concerns of countirues like France and Germany are:

a) Useful brakes on our (US/UK) 'enthusiasm'

b) An expression of a more widespread (and pos. more extreme) but unpsoken/unheard viewpoint that there are possibly other (better?) ways of going about this without 'unilateral'/unsanctioned (literally) war. We need a constructive debate and there is a growing feeling that our leaders are steamrolling us into a future we could/should avoid (igniting the Middle East with ill-timed intervention).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

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.

Some quick points:

quote:

---

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 would say that with inspections teams on the ground we are currently safer than we were when there were no teams. If we are going to go after high risk areas then there are others (some of which are putting us at much greater risk):

a) The nuclear and biological facilities in the former Sovier Union which due to underfunding (part of which promised by the international commnunity) are leaking the very WoMD that we are attacking Saddam over.

b) The arms bazaars on the Pakistan/Afghanistan borders where anything can be bought.

c) Libya and Syria which have both been notorious for training terrorists in the past.

d) Pakistan's nuclear programme which is directly reponsible for 'rogue states' (specifically North Korea) acquiring the means to start a nuclear programme of their own).

e) Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc. which are breeding grounds for the kind of radical Islam which motivated the 911 terrorits, etc.

but, of course, some in that list happen to be people we have allied ourselves with.

I find your reply to point 3 the one that makes me the most nervous but I'm glad you have said it as it probably explicitly says something which the US administration are thinking but are not prepared to say out loud.

I would also ask when does this pre-emptive action become meddling in other countries/regions politics. Tony Blair has said there are a dozen other states that need to be addressed are we going to go sticking our noses in there?

This article is interesting in that regard:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,888443,00.html

during the Cold War it was the 'War Against Communism', in the eighties and nineties it was the 'War Against Drugs' and now (post-911) it is the 'War Aginst Terror' but nothing seems to change - we seem to be supporting one group of evil and corrupt people largely because they are 'Our Men' holding back the tides of whatever we have deemed the enemy this decade. The biggest irony is that Saddam and Bin Laden were Our Men when it suited us and now they have bitten the hand that fed them we find it expedient to remove them. In the end nothing ever changes except tens (hundreds) of thousands of people get killed.

Would a better strategy being to stop this Neo-imperial political meddling that we have been doing for so long (and which has brought us nothing but problems) and actually work through organisations like the UN to work to promote things that might have longer term benefits e.g. addressing isssues equality, environmental change, etc.?

Hmmmm those quick points turned into longer ones - more later.........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

New thread here.