*moved* What's up with the weak U.S.?

This post is in response to KorpDeath's continued argument for war against Iraq.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying the U.S should go to war for any nother reason than the entire civilized world has already unanimously agreed 12 freakin' years ago that "severe consequences" will be had if SoDamn Insane doesn't disarm.....Has he disarmed? Has he layed out all of his weapons and systematically destroyed them for the world to see? No. Just so you don't think I'm actually asking you a question, I'll answer it for myself.

I don't like war, just like I don't condone violence of any kind. However, when faced with the fact that this guy means absolutely nothing but death, destruction, rape, carnage, I mean for God's sake he imprisoned Iraq's soccer team and coach for losing in the Olympics. Before you people go off and tell me what a bad person I am, and what a horrible country I live in try to understand the person you stand behind. Because if you don't back resolution 1441, then you back Sodom.

---

Quote:

---

Think of the iraqi children that are gassed on whim by they're dictator. Saddam Hussein's son rapes and kills when he feels "upset." They're was a russian ballerina Saddam's son raped, what about her justice? Think of the iraqi soccer team who was imprisoned and tortured for they're loss in the olympics, where is they're justice? Saddam is a monster who needs to be rooted (out? :)) before things turn worse.

---

Hold on one second. Anyone who supports a war, please, stop arguing the moral standpoint, for it is complete bullshit. Saddam has been doing terrible things for a long, long time now. No major superpower really gave a ****, because they're all looking out for number one, e.g. During the Iran Iraq war, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians:

Quote:

---

Late, in March 1986, the UN secretary general, Javier Perez de Cuellar, formally accused Iraq of using chemical weapons against Iran...Iraq attempted to deny using chemicals, but the evidence, in the form of many badly burned casualties flown to European hospitals for treatment, was overwhelming.

---

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

The US didn't do anything about it then (obviously). It was playing both sides for its own best interests. There is a web page here that goes into greater detail on this issue.

Quote:

---

One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: "we don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."

---

From the previously mentioned web page. Even when Saddam used chemical weapons on his own citizens, the US didn't do anything. It's a baseless argument.

Quote:

---

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes...In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”

---

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

No slight on the US or Rumsfeld, I'm just going insane with people thinking that a fundamental part of the push for war is the way Saddam treats his citizens.

OK, here are my arguments for not supporting this war. Please, if I'm wrong or have presented incorrect evidence, tell me. If you think my arguments are irrational, tell me. I'm perfectly open to opposing but rational arguments.

Here are some basic facts:

• Saddam is a pretty bad guy. No argument.
  No-one really wants Saddam to be in possession of WMD.
  Although it is thus far unproven, there is a chance that he does have in his possession WMD.
  It's possible that he provides/has provided weapons to fanatical groups, who may possibly use them on civilian targets/allied interests/US interests.

These are all valid reasons for the disarmament of Iraq. What they do not validate, however, is a US-led coalition raining death and destruction upon the Iraqi people. Especially considering the argument is only with Saddam. The single valid reason for war is to relieve Iraq of its WMD. It is not the US' job to institute occupation afterwards, and the US should have absolutely no part in deciding who will run the country or how the country should be run after Saddam has been deposed and relieved of his WMD. These things should be done by the UN, or at the very least by a body who does not have a conflict of interest regarding who will run Iraq or the way Iraq should be run. However, it is looking more and more likely that the US will play a great part in the way Iraq is run after the war is over. This is where my opposition to the war lies.

Believe it or not KorpDeath, oil is a pretty important commodity, and it is probably one of the reasons that the US is going to war with Iraq. If the US occupies Iraq afterwards, and there are oilfields intact, who is going to stop the US and her allies doing whatever it will with the oil? The temptation would be too great, especially considering the importance the US has placed on Middle East oil in the past.

Quote:

---

Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country.

Analysts said Iraq -- with proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, next only to Saudi Arabia -- could throw the global oil market into a tailspin by resuming full-fledged production if U.N. sanctions against it were lifted.

Besides India, countries like France, Russia, China, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria have signed or sought to sign agreements to develop Iraqi oil fields, rebuild refineries and undertake exploration activities.

Iraq is permitted to produce 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day under a U.N. oil-for-food programme, but actual production is about 1.5 to 2 million barrels.

This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies....The source noted that U.S. President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have strong links with the oil industry and alleged that the threat to attack Iraq was aimed at helping American oil companies.

In 1973, Iraq nationalised all oil companies. By displacing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, U.S. and British companies would be able to re-enter the country and get a major share of its oil industry.

---

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020923/43/1viab.html

Here are some more points to ponder:

• It is doubtful that Saddam would use WMD unprovoked. Simply because it's obvious that he enjoys his reign, and if he were to use them, his country would be obliterated.
  These missing WMD need to be accounted for before any war begins. A war with Iraq would be a great reason for a fanatical group to launch an attack, assuming Iraq has passed weapons on to said groups.
  North Korea is a nation which is an actual, clear threat to the US and her allies, yet 'diplomacy' is the answer to that problem, while 'war' is the answer to Iraq.
  UN approval would not make any difference, it was easy enough to get for 1441, and that link bascally demonstrates why the UN is losing relevance (not revelance ;))

So in short, my opposition to a US-led coalition waging war on Iraq is mainly because of the implications of this war, and also because of the conflicts of interest presented by the primary nations responsible for this war. UN approval matters neither way, for it is something that can be coerced out of nations, and therefore has little overall significance.

<edit>
"too long of a post to read"

Just making it an extra bit longer for this special person :)
</edit>

So just dispense with the diatribe adn line up with "no war for oil" protestors, Powertoad***..

I don't condone the mass killing of innocent civilians you short sighted.... whatever. You fail to address then if the world was not prepared for "serious conseq1uences" why did it unnanimously pass resolution 1441? This might be about oil for the franco-prussian alliance, but I don't see other than they how oil plays in to the politics...

If we wanted oil we would've kept all the Kuwaitis's had offered after we expelled the AGGRESSOR SoDamn Insane, or is that too far back for you?

While you are mixing apples and oranges Nortyh Korea has not been in direct difiance of one of the most important U.N resolutions passed. ( that is not to say all of those resolutions passed against Israel have merit but that's atotally different story.)

You are ignorant to believe that if the U.S goes to enforce a U.N. passed resolution then it will be able to do willy-nilly with whatever it pleases in Iraq. If that were true we would've annexed France in WWII and sold it ro our own real estate brokers..... Just because we disarm Iraq does not mean we can control all that goes on in that country.

Once again, the war for oil argument is plain crap unless you are accusing the Franco-Prussian alliance. They are the ones with the vested interest in Iraq. They are the ones sunk chin deep in Iraqi interest. No wonder they are dragging their feet and dying fo more time for inspectors. Promising destabilization of the region if the U.S. steps in and does anything. Sounds like extortion to me.



P.S. I've been trying for a long time to get the U.S. to do something, is it my fault they woke up? You're right nothing new here.....Maybe it took the changing of a president or two but better late than never. Once again, great argument for siting on your hands.......powertoad500. Keep those incredibly intelligent justifications for not standing up for what you've said. I pity your children.

Quote:

---

You fail to address then if the world was not prepared for "serious conseq1uences" why did it unnanimously pass resolution 1441?

---

Firstly, 'serious consequences' is not a clear-cut expression, like say, 'military invasion and forceful disarmament'. Secondly, and if you'd read the link to Mahakaal's post you'd know where I'm coming from, that UN resolution was passed 'unanimously' due to the wide influence that the US has over the nations that it provides aid to. Read the content in his post.

Quote:

---

You are ignorant to believe that if the U.S goes to enforce a U.N. passed resolution then it will be able to do willy-nilly with whatever it pleases in Iraq.

---

The US has been doing 'willy-nilly with whatever it pleases' irrespective of any organised body or nation in the Middle East for a long time. Look at the Iran-Iraq war. No-one is going to stop the US instituting a new regime and controlling the oil towards its own best interests.

Quote:

---

If we wanted oil we would've kept all the Kuwaitis's had offered after we expelled the AGGRESSOR SoDamn Insane, or is that too far back for you?

---

Well that was early 90's, and a large part of my post was about the Iran-Iraq war, which seems to be too far back for you to even acknowledge. This isn't about accepting oil for the US itself, it is about controlling the oil market as a whole. Control of this oil is in the US' best interests.

Quote:

---

This ensures that crude oil prices are kept high, as a steep drop is not in the interest of U.S. companies....

---

Do you understand yet? I'm not talking about the US taking all the oil and watching the price for petrol plummet as it is released upon the market - merely controlling it and thus ensuring the current price of oil is maintained. Of course, if it ever needed the oil for anything, it's all there for the taking...

Quote:

---

While you are mixing apples and oranges Nortyh Korea has not been in direct difiance of one of the most important U.N resolutions passed. ( that is not to say all of those resolutions passed against Israel have merit but that's atotally different story.)

---

You're right, North (sp?) Korea has not been in direct defiance (sp?) of resolution 1441. However:

Quote:

---

For the first time, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has confirmed that Pyongyang has the capability of hitting the western United States with nuclear-tipped missiles.

The announcement was made yesterday by CIA Director George Tenet during a hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee...Tenet said the North Koreans probably have one or two "plutonium-based devices" today.

Pyongyang has...expelled United Nations nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, restarted the mothballed Yongbyon nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium to make nuclear bombs, and threatened to resume missile tests.

Yesterday in Vienna, the IAEA governing board declared North Korea in breach of global atomic safeguards, a ruling that sends the issue to the UN Security Council, which could impose economic sanctions.

---

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/20...2003170136.asp

The argument is that it is a world issue, not a bilateral issue between the US and North Korea.

Quote:

---

"We promised not to test-fire long-range missiles during the duration of talks on the missile issue, but we cannot do so indefinitely."

"The new U.S. foreign and security team is making a fuss by saying that it will take a hard-line stance on us," the North Korean statement continued.

"But," the North Korean statement went on, "this is an attempt to reverse the past course of conciliatory and cooperative relations between us and the United States, and break our will with force."

Mentioning the Clinton deal to help with nuclear reactors in return for North Korea's suspension of long-range missile tests, the foreign office said:

"If the United States continues to fail to honor the agreement, we don't feel that we should cling to it."

---

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/101931.shtml

Quite frankly, if that's not a bilateral issue, I don't know what is. But the US will persist with its argument that this is a world issue. Iraq as a nation poses no threat to the US (although it may possibly towards its immediate neighbours and other Arab nations), while North Korea makes threatening moves indicating its hostility towards America and also openly restarts its nuclear weapons program... of course, North Korea is the more immediate issue.


<edit>

Quote:

---

Once again, great argument for siting on your hands.......powertoad500. Keep those incredibly intelligent justifications for not standing up for what you've said. I pity your children.

---

Sitting on my hands? I'm talking about the US-led coalition. As I stated, I've no problem with the disarmament of Iraq. But, this needs to be performed by a neutral body which has no conflict of interest in the Middle East itself. A UN peacekeeping force, or more extensive inspections. This would negate the need for an overtly violent solution, and once Iraq has the 'all-clear' that it possesses no WMD, then it's done. Life could (hopefully) return to some state of normality. But it is doubtful that this would occur, because if the embargoes on Iraq are lifted, US interests suffer. Another reason why they're pushing this war.

Also, I'm guessing it's a good thing that you think I'm old enough to have kids, considering I'm only 17 :). And hey, I pity your children :).
</edit>

I jsut joined this site about a month ago, and now just found my way here. I am very surprised that some of you are so hard on bush and the USA. Its funny how you people can bash the USA so much, but it is the result of wars and serviceman that have given their lives so your ignorant ass can pollute this site. It sounds like there needs to be some chlorine thrown in the gene pool. I am a very proud Marine, currently out, who was willing to die for this country. The USA has become soft and that is evident by some of your writings, we need to detroy this dictotor in Iraq. I have several friends who are Kurds and had to flee iraq and they are pissed that we haven't taken him out yet. North Korea teaching us a lesson put the pipe down dipshit. Anyway i love this site talk to ya later

/* Warning this post is tongue in cheek to bring some levity to this thread. Take seriously at your own risk /*

I believe the US is probably making a mistake attacking Iraq. I believe the true danger to America lies much closer and is much more insidious in its nature than anything out of Iraq or North Korea. There is one country that has been used as a stronghold against America or what is now American soil in many different wars. One country that has allied themselves overtly with our enemies on at least two occassions. One country that has lulled us into a false sense of security while actually having the ability to cripple our economy upon a whim. Yes you all know that I am talking about the Evil Empire Canada. Now they are being openly critical of our policies and calling us warmongers. This is a clearly overt and aggressive act. Finally I believe that there is clear cut evidence that they have BMI's (Beers of Mass Inebriation) which could cripple our capability to prosecute a war against them.

These BMI's could be transported over the world's least secure national border (a sign of just how much they have lulled us with their hypocritical posturing as a kind and friendly northern neighbor). Then they could be easily placed on any unsuspecting college campus in America and be spread by contact throughout the entire fraternity and sorority community. The effects are not just inebriation but could lead to wet t-shirt contests, stupid pranks, and unsafe sex.

I want to be very clear that these BMI's are not the same as the beers brewed in America which are practically tasteless and mostly harmless. These are beers with flavor and character that are sure to shock and entrap an unsuspecting American collegiate population.

Obviously this gives a strong argument for attacking and controlling Canada. The fact that they are the number one exporter of oil to the US and have some of the largest oil reserves in the western hemisphere is not an underlying factor in this decision at all.

/* Tongue in cheek humor has ended, you may now resume your regular reading of this post /*

While I am politically very conservative I am still unconvinced that war with Iraq is entirely necessary. Whether we go to war or not I support the men in uniform 100% but that is not the same as supporting the administration or the policy that sends them. I honor anyone who is willing to risk their life for my freedom and this country. That does not mean I must honor those who may use them improperly or unnecessarily.

We may need to go to war with Iraq. I have seen no post here and no evidence that makes that a given though and I believe that is why the debate continues. I also cannot believe that anyone can deny that oil has a part in this. I agree that Saddam is a monster, a murderer, and a tyrant and I would love to see him (and others who are as bad or worse) out of power or even assuming room temperature. This does not alter that fact that oil resources are still one of the most important economic strengths any country can have. Control is almost as good as possession. Is this the driving factor? I am not convinced it is, but to think it is not a significant factor seems extremely naive.

I think Powertoad has echoed many of my thoughts with one main exception, UN peace keeping forces have always been a misnomer since they use member countries armed forces. In every UN peace keeping effort the US has supplied approx. 80% of the troops, assets and funding. I see no difference between a US led coalition and a UN Peacekeeping force except that the first has proven effective (WW-II and the Gulf War) and the latter has proven singularly ineffective (Korea, Bosnia, Ethiopia, etc.) Does this mean a US led coalition would again be successful, that is not a given but it has a better chance IMO. Powertoad that is my one disagreement. Other than that I feel that we are concerned with many of the same issues.

It scares me deeply that questioning the actions of a president (even one I voted for) is beginning to be called unpatriotic. I am probably as right wing conservative as you can get without owning a gun and the worst thing the left ever did was replace debate with name calling. Are we going to stoop to their level? I certainly hope not. I still support Bush and think he is a good president but I have not had my questions answered to my satisfaction. That does not make me unpatriotic it makes me a citizen who is trying to be informed.

PS
I hope you enjoyed my little humor, wait until I comment on why we need to invade those rock hugging Fosters chugging Aussies. :eek:

There were some valid arguements in the statement itself, but as Korp stated,they wouldnt carry much weight because of the author and his actions.
I grew up in the post Vietnam era, I knew some people that gave thier lives there, basicly for nothing. All the loss of life, equipment and money and the people there VOTE in a Comunist government, what a waste. There is nothing more sobering than a visit to the Vietnam Memorial in DC, the seemingly endless list of names etched in stone to make you think twice about going to war especially another non declared war in a foreign land.
I dont agree with all the things that our government does either, but i have to agree with Korp , stooping to the criminal tactics of the terrorist as Mc Veigh did put him in the same class with world terrorist organizations and statements made by him no matter how true are basicly treated as rantings of a psyco killer and loose all merit.

Go powertoad ,go powertoad your a smart cookie for 17 , what do they put in that british water ? ---Please dont kill us lowly canadians we will sell you all all the strong beer and kindbuds you want, remeber Celine Dion , Shania Twain and Avril lavigne--- ,ahh well maybe you should bomb us on second thought , also why does an argument loose merit depending on who makes it ?(credibilty in some peoples eyes ,i can see ) but its the same arguement regardless of where the words come from ,if a statement is valid or false its still remains so (the crazy ,strange and outcast make the best art and tend to see things normal people dont )

to whom ever antipointed me and said f@@@ you in there message ,grow up (i couldnt care less about the points but the words were childish and rude )

look it all comes down to this
"walk softly and carry a big stick"
that quote is what we americans live by

The quote was Teddy Roosevelt "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

I wish Bush would follow that advice. Shut his mouth, stage the troops await the UN decision. If it then comes to it wipe the jerk off of the face of the earth. However he continues to run his mouth banging the war drum.

But in this day and age, E5C4P3, that's not enough. You want to know what this all comes down to? It all comes down to the control of information. Information warfare.

During the Gulf Conflict (I won't call it a war cause it was anything but that) both sides let the other know what was going on throught the media. i.e. The U.S. had correspondents from the media show amphibious assaults taking place in south Iraq, so Saddam sent troops to try to squash the newly developed front. Were there any U.S. troops there, no. It was developed to fool him, and it did. Saddam on the other hand controlled what came from Iraq...Not only when correspondents delivered their news but also what the news was about and of course that only meant reporting how the U.S bombed schoools and churches, hospitals, etc. etc. Right now Saddam is telling his people that the U.S. president won't debate with him on International T.V. because he is afraid and totally unreasonable. He's telling his people this evil white imperialist is going to invade them no matter what. So the whole world is up in arms about this "war"... This is no war. The media makes it out to be one because they have possible financial gain.

The entire world's emotions is controlled by what it reads or sees or hears in the media.

Not just CNN and Fox my, oh so, enlightened neg antipoint givers, but every media from the Washington Post to Al Jahzeera, from Time magazine to the most unpronounceable Russian news program, every one without exception. All of them are in control not you, you puny lil' person. They control the vertical, the horizontal, and all of you bow to them as often as you can, knowing that YOU are the only ones with the REAL information, the only HONEST information.

12 years have gone by since the world passed judgement on this man, and now that the time has come, you all want to turn your back on your responsiblility and your only argument is "no war for oil". Pathetic

P.S. War does suck. But the U.S. isn't the one that brought this on. So blame the U.S. for everything you want, but always know that we will prevail and if any of your nations get into trouble, we will be the first to bail our asses out.

peace

i know i'm going to get negged for this commentary since there's so many sophomoric contributors to this thread. i think it's high time we skip past all the rhetorical melodrama and focus on the real heart of the matter. what is the heart of the matter, you ask? iraq is only a pawn in the whole game here. the game is the West's war against fanatical islam.

now before you decide i'm wrong and reply with the inevitable "but hussein is a secular dictator, not a religious one" argument i invite you to look at a map:

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm

now if you were the strongest nation on the face of the earth and you had just been attacked by fanatical muslims, which nation on that map holds the key to controlling the heart of fanatical islam militarily? iraq borders iran, syria and saudi arabia. whoever controls iraq has a key position in militarily occupying the entire middle east. i think it's high time we decided to invade iraq. you say UBL hasn't been found yet? maybe he's in iraq. hell, once we take over iraq, maybe he'll be in syria. then it'll be high time to invade syria. not in syria anymore? i guess he must have slipped back to saudi arabia, his homeland and not coincidentally where most of the hijackers were from. but now you're asking yourself, "how is this different from imperialism?" good question -- now here's the answer.

back in the day when imperialism was a pretty swell idea, developed nations would go around the globe looking for colonies to exploit for resources. imperialism was responsible for the development of the infrastructure of most of these countries. if you listen to the "no blood for oil" hippies who are currently forming a human shield around baghdad, then you might argue that we're just doing the same thing. contrary to the belief of San Francisco granola-eaters and 17-year-olds who think they know history because they read it off the side of a crackerjack box, the United States does not seek to colonize iraq. oil is obviously a strategic resource, but as Korp Death noted, if all we were seeking to do was exploit iraqi oil, we would have done it back when we whipped them the last time. no, oil is not the ultimate goal--destruction of the infrastructure of militant islam is.

islam is an interesting religion, every bit as historically significant as Christianity and Judaism, but the tenets of islam have been keeping muslims around the world in oppressive societies for centuries. while the rest of the world is in the 21st century, muslim nations are ruled by brutal dictators who exploit their enormous wealth to merely maintain their own rule. while the Iraqi people live in poverty, hussein lives in opulence in his many palaces. all the while he maintains a society that only joseph stalin could adore. the situation is only slightly better in iran, saudi arabia and syria. the dictators of these nations all seem content to live in the 15th century. women have no rights, Jews and Christians are persecuted daily, and a steady flow of money goes to support suicide bombers. whether you want to be at war with expansionist islam or not, make no mistake--expansionist islam is at war with you. 911 was only a small taste of what is in store for the West if we do not stop militant islam in its tracks right now. the course is clear and the motivation is a good one. this war is not about just iraq--it's about containing the spread of militant islam, (even though all the reasons President Bush state for going to war with iraq are justified as well).

now before i am pegged as a muslim hater, let's be clear about things. i'm a grad student studying engineering. if you can relate then you know the ethnic makeup of the majority of grad students today. i have friends named Mannish, Manoj, and Ahkbar. i know the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh. clearly i disagree with islam, but i'm also a firm believer in the first ammendment--disagreeing with islam is not the same thing as hating muslims.

so as for the war, i say hooray for the US troops. kick ass and take names--even if you can't pronounce them. don't stop until you get to baghdad, and don't waste money on a trial for hussein. a bullet is far cheaper. after we've gotten hussein out of the way, i think it'll be high time to discuss why syria is occupying Lebanon. iran will be next on the list of usual suspects. a little war every now and then is a good thing. so all you ladies who are quaking in your booties can rest assured now--the war is in the hands of men who can land jets on aircraft carriers at night.

stalin had a term for war protestors -- "useful idiots." all you people out there protesting the war had better get your story straight. where were the war protestors when hillary clinton voted in favor of war? where were they when slick willy attack iraq without approval of the UN or congress (on the eve of his impeachment trial)? here's a pop quiz for you. who do you think said this:

Quote:

---

This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq.

---

--Tom Daschle on Clinton's unilateral action.

it is increasingly clear to me that anti-war protestors in the US are not anti-war, they are anti-US and anti-Bush. just look at who organizes the rallies--such fine communist organizations as the workers world party. what really galls me is that they're so hypocritical. where were the protesters when clinton was sending troops to meddle around in Yugoslavia? where were they when he was bombing Tylenol factories in the Sudan to take attention away from his sexual promiscuity? people have a right to their opinions, but those dolts who are going over to iraq to form a human shield deserve whatever they get--if that doesn't fit the textbook definition of treason, nothing does.

sorry if i skipped between topics. and for all the future people who will neg me for my own opinions, you're nothing but cowards.

Quote:

---

it is increasingly clear to me that anti-war protestors in the US are not anti-war, they are anti-US and anti-Bush.

---

Maybe some people just don't want war because when America goes to war, it usually involves killing lots of innocent people. Maybe it's because in war, there are no winners, only losers. Maybe it's because this matter can be resolved without more killing. Maybe it's cause these people don't want another 9/11.

Quote:

---

just look at who organizes the rallies--such fine communist organizations as the workers world party.

---

I cannot honestly believe you just pulled the communist card. Careful now. ;)

Quote:

---

what really galls me is that they're so hypocritical. where were the protesters when clinton was sending troops to meddle around in Yugoslavia? where were they when he was bombing Tylenol factories in the Sudan to take attention away from his sexual promiscuity?

---

I rather hear about Clint getting *******s any day if it means that I don't have to read about people getting killed.

Quote:

---

people have a right to their opinions,

---

You're right (about one thing finally). Everyone has the right to an opinion and everyone can also expect those opinions to be challenged, especially when they are as mindless as this.

Quote:

---

but those dolts who are going over to iraq to form a human shield deserve whatever they get--if that doesn't fit the textbook definition of treason, nothing does.

---

Depends what textbook you're reading. Go back to school...please. ;)

Quote:

---

Maybe some people just don't want war because when America goes to war, it usually involves killing lots of innocent people. Maybe it's because in war, there are no winners, only losers. Maybe it's because this matter can be resolved without more killing. Maybe it's cause these people don't want another 9/11.

---

by what standard do you claim that it usually involves killing lots of innocent people? you see, here's where the anti-war protestors always go wrong. they say that US sanctions are killing millions of innocent babies in iraq in hopes to flame the emotions of people against the US. but the truth of the matter is that iraq is killing them every day by not following the stipulations of the treaty she signed after the overwhelming defeat at the hands of an international coalition led by the US. if hussein would just be a reasonable person and not a brutal dictator intent on using WMD against the US and Israel, no iraqi civilians would ever die. this is black and white, people. hussein is killing the civilians, not us.

Quote:

---

I cannot honestly believe you just pulled the communist card. Careful now. ;)

---

but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out http://www.workers.org if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

Quote:

---

I rather hear about Clint getting *******s any day if it means that I don't have to read about people getting killed.

---

so how does that address the issue of him using war as a red herring to detract attention away from getting BJs in the oval office, lying about it under oath and then being legally impeached? maybe you prefer tabloid journalism to real news--you're from the UK and it's understandable, but those of us who really care about world issues don't like our world leaders dropping bombs for no good reason. Bush has plenty of good reasons, and the American public (outside of sympathizers of the WWP) is largely behind him.

Quote:

---

You're right (about one thing finally). Everyone has the right to an opinion and everyone can also expect those opinions to be challenged, especially when they are as mindless as this.

---

you were doing so well, and then you went and blew it with this statement. i'll avoid cleverly retorting with an insult. your ideas are largely cliched rehashings of what you have probably heard from others ("in war there are no winners" blah blah blah). please. spare me all the "war is like an earthquake" garbage and try to debate the issues. i'm happy to debate with you, but so far your argument has been thin.

Quote:

---

Depends what textbook you're reading. Go back to school...please. ;)

---

from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm:

Quote:

---

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

---

so how is going to iraq and impeding the actions of the US military not aiding the enemy? surely you must agree that at the very least forming a human shield is giving the enemy aid and comfort. you're from Britain, so your Constitution will be subtley different, but i'll bet it says nearly the same thing. my "textbook" is the Constitution of the US.

i'm a little confused by your go back to school comment. i admitted in my post that i'm in school. and i'm proud of the fact that i'm a student who doesn't blindly follow the masses of student protestors who actually believe hussein was democratically elected and Bush was not. please tell me you can debate better than this.

I would have to say that I find Moby Duck's arguments to be very clear, well thought out, and while some minor statements may be taken as inflammatory they are probably correct. I would be happier if Bush would just come out and say it.

Saddam is a brutal dictator, no one seems to argue this point.

Iraq is in a key location to controlling and influencing the majority of the Arab world.

Iraqi oil, contrary to popular belief, is not that important to American strategic interests since we import most of our oil from Canada, Central and South America. It is far more important to a few of our "allies" (like Germany and France but no one questions their motivations in opposing the war)

Someone (in another rant thread) mentioned the US specifically warning Iraq not to burn their oil fields like they did in Kuwait. However the damage in Kuwait was considered a ecological disaster not an economical one. Seems like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and <insert favorite environmental group here>, should have praised that warning.

I find it particularly interesting that while the people who are going over to Iraq as "human Shields" are legally traitors no one in the judiciary or the government has even hinted they should be prosecuted or even persecuted for their treason. I am certain that an Iraqi defector perceived as lending aid to America would not find this attitude reciprocated.

I also must admit that it upsets me when people throw the number of Iraqi's who have died because of the embargoes. First there are no reputable statistics. Second medical and food were never embargoed. American aid to Iraq from private citizens is equivalent or higher than the other Islamic nations surrounding it (and this aid is both considerable and mostly generated from middle class families). These statistics are well documented through numerous reputable sources. The United Nations has tried to send health workers but have been refused due to their unacceptable requirements that the workers be used where ever the need was (like with the Kurds) and not just where ever Saddam wanted them. I believe that Moby was right on target when he put the blame where it really lies (not a popular thing to do these days where everyone but the criminal is to blame) with Saddam who has constantly proven willing to sacrifice the lives of his people for political gain (or just to test weapons and lethality of chemical and biological agents).

By constrast I found most of the counter arguments made my Smirc and others earlier in this thread to be little more than snide name calling or unveiled ridicule with little or no content to back it up. It is as if saying "you're stupid" is an argument or "go back to school" shows your superiority and therefore allieviates you from the need to give a coherent response.

There was one thing that Moby Duck was totally wrong about. I hesitate to mention it because it will give those of you who love knee jerk responses an excuse to ignore all of his comments since he was proven wrong on one. However, and I have proof to back this up, he said Smirc was from the UK but the flag is Australian. I am certain no one has ever made so egregious a mistake before when typing into a chat room, e-mail, or message board like this. I no I nvr mak mstakes miself.

Quote:

---

There was one thing that Moby Duck was totally wrong about. I hesitate to mention it because it will give those of you who love knee jerk responses an excuse to ignore all of his comments since he was proven wrong on one. However, and I have proof to back this up, he said Smirc was from the UK but the flag is Australian. I am certain no one has ever made so egregious a mistake before when typing into a chat room, e-mail, or message board like this. I no I nvr mak mstakes miself.

---

you're right. i was wrong, the flag is Australian. i will not edit it like it never happened. all i saw was Union Jack, and i made a mistake. thanks for the correction.

Quote:

---

by what standard do you claim that it usually involves killing lots of innocent people?

---

By what standard? What is this a RFC protocol or something? Killing civilians is pretty black and white. It is a fact that the US killed civilians in the Gulf war as well as the recent bombings related to 9/11.

Quote:

---

you see, here's where the anti-war protestors always go wrong. they say that US sanctions are killing millions of innocent babies in iraq in hopes to flame the emotions of people against the US. but the truth of the matter is that iraq is killing them every day by not following the stipulations of the treaty she signed after the overwhelming defeat at the hands of an international coalition led by the US. if hussein would just be a reasonable person and not a brutal dictator intent on using WMD against the US and Israel, no iraqi civilians would ever die. this is black and white, people. hussein is killing the civilians, not us.

---

No I don't see. You think that because Sadam is killing people anyway that whatever the US does is OK...they were gonna die anway right. Morbid point of view you got there. But when I said killing innocent people, I was more referring to dropping bombs on them (by accident, on purpose, whatever, it still happened).

Quote:

---

but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out http://www.workers.org if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

---

You imply that because they're communists they must be crazy. Maybe they just want peace. And even if they do have more "sinister" motives for wanting peace. Isn't that a good thing? I rather them protesting for peace instead of inciting war.

Quote:

---

so how does that address the issue of him using war as a red herring to detract attention away from getting BJs in the oval office, lying about it under oath and then being legally impeached?

---

You make it sound like Clinton started a war to draw attention away from his sexual antics. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that this was already a part of America's military strategy at the time and Clinton's people just tried to work it in his favour. Keep in mind that Clinton had a more peaceful two terms than Bush has had two months.

Quote:

---

maybe you prefer tabloid journalism to real news--you're from the UK and it's understandable, but those of us who really care about world issues don't like our world leaders dropping bombs for no good reason. Bush has plenty of good reasons, and the American public (outside of sympathizers of the WWP) is largely behind him.

---

1. I'm from Australia ;)

2. Australian's, like most people, do care about world issues (cheap shot *******)

3. Bush has more reasons not to go to war than to go to war. The main one being that there are other ways of getting Iraq to disarm without going to war.

Quote:

---

you were doing so well, and then you went and blew it with this statement. i'll avoid cleverly retorting with an insult. your ideas are largely cliched rehashings of what you have probably heard from others ("in war there are no winners" blah blah blah). please. spare me all the "war is like an earthquake" garbage and try to debate the issues. i'm happy to debate with you, but so far your argument has been thin.

---

Maybe the reason "make peace not war" sounds cliche is because it's a good idea not because everyone who says it is crazy?

Quote:

---

so how is going to iraq and impeding the actions of the US military not aiding the enemy? surely you must agree that at the very least forming a human shield is giving the enemy aid and comfort. you're from Britain, so your Constitution will be subtley different, but i'll bet it says nearly the same thing. my "textbook" is the Constitution of the US.

---

America doesn't have a problem dropping bombs on civilians so I doubt some protesters are going to get in the way of a good military campaign. It is these people's democratic right to peacefully protest the actions of the government. This is called passive resistance, not treason.

Quote:

---

i'm a little confused by your go back to school comment. i admitted in my post that i'm in school. and i'm proud of the fact that i'm a student who doesn't blindly follow the masses of student protestors who actually believe hussein was democratically elected and Bush was not. please tell me you can debate better than this.

---

The point these people are making is that, whatever happened before aside, they don't want a war. Just think about that one single point. The majority of people protesting for peace just don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. Sure, there are other parties protesting motivated by other reasons but on the whole, it's just ordinary people who don't like to see innocent people getting killed.

Quote:

---

By what standard? What is this a RFC protocol or something? Killing civilians is pretty black and white. It is a fact that the US killed civilians in the Gulf war as well as the recent bombings related to 9/11.

---

but you're making my case for me. saddam is killing his own civilians. he has murdered thousands of Kurds directly, and thousands of his own civilians both directly and indirectly. most people don't characterize him this way, but he is actually the biggest killer of Muslims in the world. if you accumulate the deaths of his own civilians with the mass slaughter of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq conflict, it adds up to millions of Muslims. his goal is to kill more civilians. yes, civilians die in war and the knee-jerk reaction is always to assign blame to the US for civilian casualties. but who started the Gulf War? saddam started it by invading Kuwait. so if you assign blame where blame lies, saddam hussein is directly responsible for all civilian and military casualties. this isn't moral equivalency--he invaded an ally of the United States and we responded by liberating Kuwait. he's at fault.

as for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, i don't know the exact statistics, and any unnecessary death is unfortunate. but who started the war against the West? it was UBL, al-qaeda and his sympathizers, funders and motivators around the world (including the taliban). if the taliban would have cooperated and handed over UBL, the bombing campaign would likely have been unnecessary. look at the results--we liberated that country from a brutal, oppressive regime in a matter of weeks. it was one of the most efficient military operations in history. also consider that sources estimate anywhere from 100 to 4,000 civilian casualties because some people include militant taliban as civilians (Human Rights Watch estimated 1000). the taliban exacerbated the situation by stockpiling weapons and quartering troops in hospitals, mosques and schools.

Quote:

---

No I don't see. You think that because Sadam is killing people anyway that whatever the US does is OK...they were gonna die anway right. Morbid point of view you got there. But when I said killing innocent people, I was more referring to dropping bombs on them (by accident, on purpose, whatever, it still happened).

---

try to think logically for a second. you make no distinction between dropping bombs on people on purpose or by accident. that is really the moral argument at the very heart of the matter. hussein kills on purpose--he murders his own civilians and used chemical weapons against allied forces in the Gulf War (see Gulf War Syndrome causes). civilian deaths caused by the allied forces were by accident. there's a huge moral difference. tens of thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered and they were given food and water. prisoners taken captive by Iraq were tortured and displayed on tv as propaganda. so who are the good guys? you seem to think the allies (which Australia was a part of) are just as evil as hussein for liberating Kuwait. that's utter nonsense.

Quote:

---

You imply that because they're communists they must be crazy. Maybe they just want peace. And even if they do have more "sinister" motives for wanting peace. Isn't that a good thing? I rather them protesting for peace instead of inciting war.

---

well i'm glad you admitted they're communists. i think people protesting for peace is a great thing. in iraq, if people protested saddam, they would be murdered. i think the peace protesters are just largely misguided. they want peace, but they don't understand the concept that peace can only be achieved through war sometimes. and yes, given the evidence of the effects of communism around the world (USSR, N Korea, Maoist China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc) i do think communists are crazy.

Quote:

---

You make it sound like Clinton started a war to draw attention away from his sexual antics. Do you really believe that? It's more likely that this was already a part of America's military strategy at the time and Clinton's people just tried to work it in his favour. Keep in mind that Clinton had a more peaceful two terms than Bush has had two months.

---

yes, i do believe that. you need to read the news more often though. clinton engaged US troops in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Nigeria, and some others i can't remember. he did so largely without consulting Congress, which is unconstitutional. so aside from the fact that what you just said isn't true, i do disagree with all of clinton's uses of our military. not because they were sometimes unethical--they were--but because they didn't serve our vital national interests. but you didn't hear the antiwar protestors up in arms over those little quagmires, did you? in fact, judging by your statement you may not have even known about them.

Quote:

---

3. Bush has more reasons not to go to war than to go to war. The main one being that there are other ways of getting Iraq to disarm without going to war.

---

what are those reasons? what are the other ways? the anti-war and anti-Bush factions always have criticisms, but they never have solutions. what are your solutions? do you want more UN resolutions? because we all can see what good those do. do you want to sit down and talk with saddam and hope he'll see the error of his ways? good luck with that one. what exactly do you propose?

Quote:

---

America doesn't have a problem dropping bombs on civilians so I doubt some protesters are going to get in the way of a good military campaign. It is these people's democratic right to peacefully protest the actions of the government. This is called passive resistance, not treason.

---

first of all, the first statement is slander. to suggest that the US government has no problem killing civilians is false and irresponsible. our country specifically develops precision weaponry in the hopes of eliminating civilian casualties. compare that to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. compare that to suicide bombings in Israel. compare that to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. our enemy targets civilians, and you would accuse us of being the same? shame on you.

and i said protesting is ok, just as long as they don't do it in Baghdad. when they protest in Baghdad, aiding and comforting the enemy while impeding the US military, that is treason.

Quote:

---

The point these people are making is that, whatever happened before aside, they don't want a war. Just think about that one single point. The majority of people protesting for peace just don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. Sure, there are other parties protesting motivated by other reasons but on the whole, it's just ordinary people who don't like to see innocent people getting killed.

---

maybe they had better start considering who's getting bombed. you said they don't want more people getting the **** bombed out of them. well they never protested UBL when the WTC got the **** bombed out of it. investigations laid out by Colon Powell have linked iraqi agents and iraqi money with al-qaeda efforts world-wide and have tied direct links to suicide bombings in Israel. it seems the war protesters don't mind people getting bombed, just so long as its the US and Israel.

on the whole i am glad you decided to debate with me. you are clearly passionate about your views. even though i think you're wrong, you're very persuasive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by moby_duck

on the whole i am glad you decided to debate with me. you are clearly passionate about your views. even though i think you're wrong, you're very persuasive.

---

LOL....so very humble! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by moby_duck
but they're communists. it says so on their webpage. check out <http://www.workers.org> if you have any doubts. they organized the recent protest in San Francisco, NY and Los Angeles, and they freely admit they are Marxists. again, this is black and white. i didn't call all anti-war protesters communists, but if you're going to line up and have your voice heard you had better know who you are standing with.

---

It says they are socialists. Marx's Communist Manifesto was a blue-print for a "communist" society. Marx was wrong. A communist society is an utopia. Workers.org knows this, and -although they refer to the Manifesto a lot- acts to it. Socialist, not communist.

Quote:

---

back in the day when imperialism was a pretty swell idea, developed nations would go around the globe looking for colonies to exploit for resources. imperialism was responsible for the development of the infrastructure of most of these countries. if you listen to the "no blood for oil" hippies who are currently forming a human shield around baghdad, then you might argue that we're just doing the same thing. contrary to the belief of San Francisco granola-eaters and 17-year-olds who think they know history because they read it off the side of a crackerjack box, the United States does not seek to colonize iraq. oil is obviously a strategic resource, but as Korp Death noted, if all we were seeking to do was exploit iraqi oil, we would have done it back when we whipped them the last time. no, oil is not the ultimate goal--destruction of the infrastructure of militant islam is.

---

The "no blood for oil"-hippies... I'll let that one slip.. Don't want those Vietnam-veterans being part of that hippie-scum group in the news again...
And while oil might not be the main goal, it still is the point of interest. Bush's oil-contacts are indeniable. "As Korp Death noted"... don't know what he was talking about, but maybe we should ask Red Adair... oh look, it's about Kuwait, not Iraq. As far as I know, "you" didn't whip Iraq last time.. you liberated Kuwait.

I'm drunk... excuse me.... Marx for president!

Quote:

---

look at the results--we liberated that country from a brutal, oppressive regime in a matter of weeks. it was one of the most efficient military operations in history.

---

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! God forbid that we 'liberate ' anymore countries.

Quote:

---

LMAO!!!!!!!!!! God forbid that we 'liberate' anymore countries.

---

i'm not generally a proponent for nation-building. as long as the new warlords aren't proponents of flying planes into buildings, i'm ok with doing business with them. if the UN can maintain a semblance of order with the Kharzeid government, it will still be better than it was before. what concerns me about the warlords is the increased drug trafficking since the Taliban was routed. i think opium is the number one crop in Afghanistan now.

Quote:

---

but you're making my case for me. saddam is killing his own civilians. he has murdered thousands of Kurds directly, and thousands of his own civilians both directly and indirectly. most people don't characterize him this way, but he is actually the biggest killer of Muslims in the world. if you accumulate the deaths of his own civilians with the mass slaughter of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq conflict, it adds up to millions of Muslims. his goal is to kill more civilians. yes, civilians die in war and the knee-jerk reaction is always to assign blame to the US for civilian casualties. but who started the Gulf War? saddam started it by invading Kuwait. so if you assign blame where blame lies, saddam hussein is directly responsible for all civilian and military casualties. this isn't moral equivalency--he invaded an ally of the United States and we responded by liberating Kuwait. he's at fault.

as for civilian deaths in Afghanistan, i don't know the exact statistics, and any unnecessary death is unfortunate. but who started the war against the West? it was UBL, al-qaeda and his sympathizers, funders and motivators around the world (including the taliban). if the taliban would have cooperated and handed over UBL, the bombing campaign would likely have been unnecessary. look at the results--we liberated that country from a brutal, oppressive regime in a matter of weeks. it was one of the most efficient military operations in history. also consider that sources estimate anywhere from 100 to 4,000 civilian casualties because some people include militant taliban as civilians (Human Rights Watch estimated 1000). the taliban exacerbated the situation by stockpiling weapons and quartering troops in hospitals, mosques and schools.

---

So your only excuse for the US killing civilians is, "well they started it"? I couldn't get away with that excuse in first grade. What make you think you're going to?

Quote:

---

try to think logically for a second. you make no distinction between dropping bombs on people on purpose or by accident. that is really the moral argument at the very heart of the matter. hussein kills on purpose--he murders his own civilians and used chemical weapons against allied forces in the Gulf War (see Gulf War Syndrome causes). civilian deaths caused by the allied forces were by accident. there's a huge moral difference. tens of thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered and they were given food and water. prisoners taken captive by Iraq were tortured and displayed on tv as propaganda. so who are the good guys? you seem to think the allies (which Australia was a part of) are just as evil as hussein for liberating Kuwait. that's utter nonsense.

---

Try to think logically for a second. If you were in Iraq and you saw bombs falling from the sky. Would you say, "oh don't worry, it's only the US dropping bombs by accident." The fact is when, the US goes to war, they usually end up dropping bombs on innocent people. I'm not going to speculate as to whether that was on purpose, calculated for the greater good or sheer accident. The fact is that to the people getting bombs dropped on them. It makes no difference. They're still bombs and they still kill people.

Quote:

---

well i'm glad you admitted they're communists. i think people protesting for peace is a great thing. in iraq, if people protested saddam, they would be murdered. i think the peace protesters are just largely misguided. they want peace, but they don't understand the concept that peace can only be achieved through war sometimes.

---

I never denied they're communists or whatever because it doesn't matter. If they want to protest for peace that's fine by me. Peace can, be achieved after war has taken place but by definition war is not peaceful. But peace can also be achieved without any war taking place at all. ;)

Quote:

---

. and yes, given the evidence of the effects of communism around the world (USSR, N Korea, Maoist China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc) i do think communists are crazy.

---

I assure you that communists are not crazy. They might have very different political beliefs to you and I but they are quite sane.

Quote:

---

what are those reasons? what are the other ways? the anti-war and anti-Bush factions always have criticisms, but they never have solutions. what are your solutions? do you want more UN resolutions? because we all can see what good those do. do you want to sit down and talk with saddam and hope he'll see the error of his ways? good luck with that one. what exactly do you propose?

---

Hmmm...other ways. How about letting the UN actually do its job without jumping the gun and starting a war? How about more sanctions? How about using any diplomatic means available to get Iraq to disarm. War should not be entered because Iraq is not disarming fast enough or because it's the easy way out. War should be entered when all other diplomatic efforts have failed completely. If you ask me "well haven't the US exhausted all the possibilities", then my answer is no. Bush's first response to 9/11 was bombs. It should have been his last. He didn't even try any other ways of solving the problem. I ask again why it is that Clinton lead a relatively peaceful two terms compared to Bush? Why is Bush so keen for war?

Quote:

---

first of all, the first statement is slander. to suggest that the US government has no problem killing civilians is false and irresponsible.

---

No it's not slander. It's fact. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Gulf war and more recent events in Afghanistan. The US chose to drop bombs on areas where they was a very high likelyhood of killing civilians. If anyone is being irresponsible, it's not me.

Quote:

---

our country specifically develops precision weaponry in the hopes of eliminating civilian casualties.

---

Yes and until they develop weapons that have a "don't kill innocent people" option, war should be avoided at all costs.

Quote:

---

compare that to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. compare that to suicide bombings in Israel. compare that to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. our enemy targets civilians, and you would accuse us of being the same? shame on you.

---

Like I said, in the end it doesn't matter why bombs are falling from the sky and killing people. It's the bombs that people have a problem with, not the reasons. Put your self in the place of someone living in Iraq. Would you honestly care about Bush's cause? Or Sadam's? My guess is, you'd simply prefer not to have people trying to kill you. That's why these people are protesting for peace. For everyday people like you and I.

Quote:

---

and i said protesting is ok, just as long as they don't do it in Baghdad. when they protest in Baghdad, aiding and comforting the enemy while impeding the US military, that is treason.

---

They called Ghandi a traitor too. ;)

Quote:

---

So your only excuse for the US killing civilians is, "well they started it"? I couldn't get away with that excuse in first grade. What make you think you're going to?

---

i think my argument was a little better than that. you're not going to drag me down to your level by paraphrasing two whole paragraphs with a childish phrase. counter the argument, don't restate it in a stupid way.

Quote:

---

Try to think logically for a second. If you were in Iraq and you saw bombs falling from the sky. Would you say, "oh don't worry, it's only the US dropping bombs by accident." The fact is when, the US goes to war, they usually end up dropping bombs on innocent people.

---

i think that's already been established.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to speculate as to whether that was on purpose, calculated for the greater good or sheer accident. The fact is that to the people getting bombs dropped on them. It makes no difference. They're still bombs and they still kill people.

---

thank you, Captain Obvious. in all your writing you never once address the real issue, you just pour on the ethos all day. quit your crying and be a man--innocent people die in war. but the question i believe we are trying to answer is how best to deal with saddam hussein and the worldwide spread of militant islam. you are so reluctant to ever criticize the real evil ones. saddam hussein is the biggest murderer of Muslims in the world, but you call the Allies evil for doing what is morally right by liberating Kuwait and punishing saddam for his contempt for UN sanctions. somebody has to deal with the really hard jobs, and also deal with the constant bitching of duplicitous nations like france who are only trying to hide their own involvement in illegal violations of the UN embargo.

history will prove Bush right, just like we were right for saving Europe from Hitler in WW2 and toppling the USSR in the Cold War. you say "they're still bombs and they still kill people." i say evil dictators kill people--bombs save people. hitler was a mass-murderer. Allied bombing defeated him. milosevic is a mass murderer. Allied bombing got him convicted of war crimes. UBL was a mass murderer. now he's probably dead in a cave somewhere under a daisy-cutter. they say he's still alive, but i have doubts. try to get with winning team here--being weak facilitates more saddam husseins to go about their business.

back to the original point i was trying to make earlier, militant islam is at war with you whether you like it or not. UBL and his acolytes see Western civilization as decadent and their only goal in life is to kill infidels. how does one defeat such an enemy? how can you reason with someone willing to lay down his life because he honestly believes that killing as many infidels as possible will send him to heaven? the only way to stop a suicide bomber is to kill him before he kills you. collateral damage is just an unfortunate side-effect, and my theory is that iraq is just a stepping stone to dealing with the whole middle east.

Quote:

---

I never denied they're communists or whatever because it doesn't matter. If they want to protest for peace that's fine by me. Peace can, be achieved after war has taken place but by definition war is not peaceful. But peace can also be achieved without any war taking place at all. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol or morphine or idealism -- Carl Jung

---

you should go to iraq some time and ask if you can speak to saddam. talk some sense into him--you know, reason with the man. and then maybe you'll be able to do what the UN has failed to do for over 12 years. give peace a chance! lol.

Quote:

---

I assure you that communists are not crazy. They might have very different political beliefs to you and I but they are quite sane.

---

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. maybe Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't practicing "real" communism, but they still killed hundreds of millions of people under a red banner. i'm not making those numbers up. do a google search to find some estimates from various sources. i'm not going to open up a debate on why the communist manifesto is crazy--i had to begrudgingly read it in high school and it's a boring topic. i think communism is wrong, but you can believe whatever you want. being a communist doesn't stop people from being elected, even in the US. just look at hillary clinton :) . her book, "it takes a village," is a blueprint for a communist society.

Quote:

---

Hmmm...other ways. How about letting the UN actually do its job without jumping the gun and starting a war? How about more sanctions? How about using any diplomatic means available to get Iraq to disarm. War should not be entered because Iraq is not disarming fast enough or because it's the easy way out. War should be entered when all other diplomatic efforts have failed completely.

---

before ConfirmedKill moved this thread to its new, dubious title and started shamelessly promoting hate-speech as actual political commentary, the topic was the weak UN. i've already stated my opinion on why the UN is worthless to US national interests. the founding fathers of the US warned against "burdensome diplomatic entanglements" but FDR screwed all that up back in '45. there have been 14 UN resolutions and saddam hussein has laughed at each one of them. eventually, the civilized world has to stand up and push back or there is no point to having the UN in the first place.

Quote:

---

If you ask me "well haven't the US exhausted all the possibilities", then my answer is no. Bush's first response to 9/11 was bombs. It should have been his last. He didn't even try any other ways of solving the problem. I ask again why it is that Clinton lead a relatively peaceful two terms compared to Bush? Why is Bush so keen for war?

---

no no no. Bush's first response was to "bring the terrorists to justice." despite calls for blood from war-hawks like me, we jockeyed with the Taliban for weeks trying to extradite UBL before it became obvious that they not only were unwilling to cooperate, but they were with UBL all the way.

i'm not going to talk in circles with you about how clinton was so peaceful. clinton was weak. while he was commander-in-chief he passed up several chances to capture UBL. on clinton's watch, North Korea violated every last tenet of the nuclear appeasement pact we signed with them while we fed their million-man army. clinton severely weakened the powers of the CIA by restricting their ability to hire informants. thanks to him, nobody knew India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons until they set some off. he crippled the US military by cutting funding through all branches. even though he shook hands with Middle Eastern leaders for several photo-ops, the current wave of violence broke out in Israel during his last term. add that to all the irresponsible military campaigns in which he engaged US troops (that i already mentioned and you failed to address), and clinton was an utter failure as a world military leader. maybe getting BJs from underage interns instead of protecting the sovereignty of your country is ok in Australia, but here in the US some people tend to frown upon it.

Quote:

---

No it's not slander. It's fact.

---

you're confusing your opinions with facts.

Quote:

---

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Gulf war and more recent events in Afghanistan. The US chose to drop bombs on areas where they was a very high likelyhood of killing civilians. If anyone is being irresponsible, it's not me.

---

well i'm glad you decided to rehash the old Hiroshima and Nagasaki issue from WW2. in each case you just mentioned, war was declared on the US in a brutal fashion and we were forced to respond. Pearl Harbor, hussein invaded Kuwait, and 911. pay no attention to the fact that none of the aggressors gave half a thought to civilian casualties. my response to civilian casualties resulting from foreign aggression? -- war is hell.

Quote:

---

Yes and until they develop weapons that have a "don't kill innocent people" option, war should be avoided at all costs.

---

and then let's all plant a tree and sing kumbaya. i really wish you didn't write that. it really detracts from your credibility. unless that was a joke, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Quote:

---

Like I said, in the end it doesn't matter why bombs are falling from the sky and killing people. It's the bombs that people have a problem with, not the reasons. Put your self in the place of someone living in Iraq. Would you honestly care about Bush's cause? Or Sadam's?

---

what are you talking about? being in the warzone wouldn't deter my motivation for doing what is right. it does matter why the bombs are falling, and hussein can easily avoid them by complying with the UN. he won't though, and the US and her allies will finally start the real war on terror.

Quote:

---

My guess is, you'd simply prefer not to have people trying to kill you. That's why these people are protesting for peace. For everyday people like you and I.

---

it's 'you and me,' and i would prefer to have honor than be a coward and hope nobody gets hurt. i can only turn the other cheek so long before i hit back.

i'm sure you're just waiting to post your next response. you've been given vigorous positive points for all your retorts, no matter how short and irrelevant your arguments are.

We can throw quotes at each other all day here so I'm not going to continue this debate. You can declare victory and tell yourself that you are a "real man" as you so eloquently put it. Whatever floats your boat. I will consider myself fortunate to have been educated by so knowledgable a teacher and take my "weak", "Australian" arguments elsewhere. I retire knowing that I debated without taking cheap shots or putting words in the mouths of others.

But before I go understand this:

1.) Just because someone protests for peace, doesn't mean they are a traitor, anti-American, a communist or any of the above. Most of the people protesting for peace just want peace. It's that simple.

2.) If you don't agree with someone's political viewpoint, it doesn't mean they're crazy.

3.) Pawning the lives of civilians in America for the lives of civilians in Iraq does not give you any sort of moral high ground. It just keeps America's own backyard clean. Maybe that's all you need to be able to sleep at night.

Word to ya mother. ;)

I have been following this debate with some interest. Indeed I have interjected thoughts before including a history lesson on the use of atomic weapons in WWII and the use of chemical biological weapons this century.

SMIRC I believe you willingly gloss over many good points made by Moby Duck about civilian casualties. I don't understand why. While I do not find myself as militantly minded as Moby I am free to admit that I agree with most of what he said.

As to civilian casualties they do happen in war. There is no way around them and that is unfortunate. America has proven as, or more, protective of civilian lives as any nation on earth during conflicts while still following accepted practices of that conflict. That means that you can point to the WWII and see many instances where numerous civilian casualties were caused. Bombs were not accurate and saturation bombing of cities was an accepted practice. This led to enormous civilian casualties. However, even there, America normally attacked cities of military importance and targeted industrial centers rather than civilian populations. Germany, on the other hand, targeted civilian populations in an effort to demoralize England. England and America learned from this because it was that shift that may have saved England since the previous bombing of industry and airfields had almost brought the RAF to its knees.

If you want to point out civilian casualties caused by the US (and her allies Britain, Canada, and Australia) you should look at Berlin or, better yet, Dresden. Dresden was a minor military target but was a huge political target, why? because the Russian army was close enough to see the effects of the bombing and moved into the city in a few days. That attack was a message to our Russian allies as to the strength of our air force. America bombed it by day, Britain and the Commonwealth bombed it by night. Deliberate saturation bombing followed by incindiaries to cause a firestorm that killed over 100,000 civilians. Historically Dresden stands out, not because of casualties, because it is one bombing campaign that should be considered a crime against humanity. One out of thousands. Historically the precedence is that the aggressor is to blame for the casualties. Only in this debate is America blamed for all the casualties caused in all the wars we have participated in irregardless of provocation, circumstance, or truth.

Civilian casualties are an accepted cost of war. Tragic, yes, but to say you should not go to war unless there are no civilian casualties is saying you will never go to war. We no longer meet on battlefields where a relatively few civilians can pack up and leave. In fact we never really did except for a few battles. Sieges of cities have been disastrous to civilians throughout history and it is a lot easier not to kill "innocents" with a sword than with a 500 lb. bomb.

To some the no war idea may be acceptable and in an ideal world I would love for it to be true. We do not live in an ideal world. There are madmen like Hussein around. There are dictators and tyrants who feel free to kill their own civilians and then extend their terrorism to the rest of the world. I believe that by stopping Saddam we are attempting to alleviate his killing spree. One report in the news shows that Saddam has already threatened the southern most Kurd city with chemical attack when the first US bomb falls. He has warned the city publicly that he will wipe it out in retaliation against any US aggression. I find that odd and insane that a dictator would tell his own civilians that he will kill them for the actions of a foreign nation. Odd and insane for most, pretty normal and common for Saddam. Of course since he is linking to American actions I suppose we will be blamed when he does it.

I do believe Bush made a mistake. I believe he wanted the same type of consensus that Bush Sr. had with the Gulf War. If he had prosecuted the war quickly then there would have been the standard hollow protests by a few nations trying to improve their stance with moslem nations (France for example) a few real protests by people who idealogically oppose all wars (I disagree with them but at least they are true to their beliefs and nature so I respect them) and a number who would wait to see if he was successful to decide whether to support a victory or profit from a defeat (I would put most people in politics in this category except for those who have hitched themselves irrevocably to Bush's coat tails).

As it is the debate has been allowed to rage and tensions have risen. I now believe that Bush would be wise to wait for one more UN resolution to be passed and wait for its time to run out, which I believe it will, then he should strike without seeking more UN approval. I honestly feel he should drop the US/UK proposal, allow France's and Germany's delaying proposal and then we should all hope and pray that Saddam and Bin Laden do not use the ensuing months (three I believe) to set up a series of terrorist attacks that I am sure will not be designed to minimize civilian casualties.