 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why I support disarming Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Norton1 Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM Bracing for the Apocalypse Charles Krauthammer February 13, 2003 WASHINGTON--The domestic terror alert jumps to 9/11 levels. Heathrow Airport is ringed by tanks. Duct tape and plastic sheeting disappear from Washington store shelves. Osama resurfaces. North Korea reopens its plutonium processing plant and threatens pre-emptive attack. The Second Gulf War is about to begin. This is not the Apocalypse. But it is excellent preparation for it. Lengthy copy-paste article deleted. Please provide a link, plus a summary in your own words. Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Old guy Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:05 AM I agree with this except that I want to give Clinton credit for Bosnia and Serbia/Kosovo. Those two military actions were successful and they are proof that the antiwar protesters are misguided. Other than that I think Clinton was a lousy president. Somalia, aspirin factory bombings and some others were disasters. I did not vote for him. I voted for old man Bush and George Bush. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Louie Roy Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:10 AM Everyone are entitled to their own opinion and I will state mine since this thread has been posted.We should learn from past history that we can't just stand idle and hope that the situation corrects itself.In 1936 Billie Mitchell made the statement (that if we don't quit shipping all of our scrap iron to Japan they will be sending it back to us in bombs)and for this statement he was court martialed but in 1941 his statement proved to be true and many lives were lost in WW2.Hitler also was building up his supreme power and taking over all the little countries in Europe and butchering all they Jewish people and the USA stood by and let this happen until he finally decided to take us on.It took 4 years and many lives to correct our ignorants.The same thing is taking place in Iraq today and if we don't take care of the problem and disarm him WW2 will look like a boy scouts meeting.The time is now not tomorrow to disarm Iraq.Louie Roy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM One of the arguments against a war has been that it will destabilize the Middle East. If Saddam Hussein is allowed to continue doing what he's been doing, won't that destabilize the Middle East as well? (say, does anyone remember Kuwait?) Because President Clinton didn't take this situation seriously, President Bush is now left with the cleanup, and Clinton supporters are complaining about it. If your man had paid more attention to international affairs than to his Little Hobbit, we might not be having this conversation now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Bagpuss Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:27 AM Louie Roy - heres a link to some opinions from historians on comparing Saddam to Hitler vs Nasser. Blast from the Past |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:28 AM Those sound alot like real reasons... but with all due respect, they look poorly researched to me. I support disarming Bush, because he is just about the worst president in the history of this country. ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:06 PM Charles Krauthammer is a warrior and he thinks like a warrior. Maybe that's the kind of thinking you want to listen to. But Mr. Krauthammer, like many warriors, is a one trick pony. Fighting is the only approach he knows for addressing problems. I think it would be good for us to remember that disarming Iraq does not necessarily mean waging a first strike war against it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: DougR Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:21 PM Bagpuss: sounds to me as though those historians all went to the same University, and had the same history teacher. Interesting reading though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Frankham Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM Krauthammer is a well-known hawk. However: I think Iraq should be disarmed and would be OK with that if the US would disarm as well. The military solution in Bosnia and Serbia is a band aid on a large cultural sore and is by no means solved. It just isn't getting the press right now. Also, geopolitically, the Bosnia/Serbia issue and the Iraq situation is apples and oranges. What applies in one case doesn't always work in another. 22 Arab countries have met in Cairo to announce their solidarity to protect Iraq's borders. This didn't happen in Bosnia/Serbia. As I recall, that was a UN operation not a unilateral decision on Clinton's part. Besides, the inspections are working. If Saddam is cheating and hiding his weapons, it is now known world-wide. He is not Hitler, though. He's too cagey to attack without provocation because it's obviously not in his best interest to do so. Remember that with the rise of the Putsch and the Third Reich, Hitler was convinced that he could dominate the world. Saddam isn't interested in upsetting his dictatorial status-quo. But if the US attacks Iraq, it will give him the "moral" ammunition in the eyes of the Arab world to do damage. He is playing the Bush Administration for a fool by saying to his neighbors, look the US is just another imperial power who wants to boss you. You want that to happen to you? I think that the world would be surprised at his "allies". The way out of the quagmire is to let the UN inspectors do their necessary work and take time to get it right. Cowboy tactics will solve nothing but bringing American youth back in body bags and offering "freedom" to innocent Iraqi women and children by bombing them and calling it "collateral damage". Simplistic answers that the US should do what was applied in WWII make no sense. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM Looks like Mr. Krauthammer forgot to mention these bits of US history: U.S. Connection in Weapons of Mass Destruction By Robert Novak Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question earlier this month: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year old President pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered YES. An 8-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraqs war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Persian Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Hussein used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran. San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2002 Lengthy copy-paste article deleted. Please provide a link, plus a summary in your own words. Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,petr Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:58 PM the only reason inspectors are in Iraq right now is because of the threat of war from the US. its one thing to march for peace, but where were the peace marches when Saddam killed a 100,000 Kurds, or the thousands of innocent Iraqis. Even the outgoing Czech President Vaclav Havel, when asked about the current situation in Iraq, said that the world has changed drastically over the last decade or so - you now have rogue state developing weapons of mass destruction, and terrorists willing to use them. If something isnt done - one day there will be a nuke going off in a US or western city, (or it may be a nerve gas attack, or bio, or perhaps a dozen airliners will be shot down in one day with stinger missiles - what will happen then to the airline industry and the western economies) the simple fact is that terrorists require support of rogue states, or lawless regions to operate from, and if the trend continues we should be prepared for the consequences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM I'll be very interested to see what is posted on this thread. I tend to feel that 'conservatives' are not good at articulating their own beliefs and reservations. Through this thread I hope to be convinced otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:02 PM It does remind me, however, when I asked my husband late in the night what he thought about a certain aspect of religion. He responded by saying, Well, my foster mother always said, etc... I said, No, I mean, what do you believe? He said, Oh. I see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Kim C Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:06 PM My belief is that Saddam Hussein is a cruel and ruthless dictator who has committed serious human rights violations, and needs to be stopped. Exactly how, and by whom, I do not know. My reservation is, I really don't want a lot of people to get killed. Something I have been thinking about... here in America, we don't like for people to tell us how to live. So why should we insist on telling others how to live? Why do we insist that our way is the best way? Shouldn't other people around the world have the right to live the way they want to as well? But then, how many people really want to live under a cruel and ruthless dictator? (how was that?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 19 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM I am definitely in favor of disarming Iraq. Further, I would support Hussein being ousted. Just like Kim C said, I don't want to kill a lot of people. Further, i don't want the U.S. to disrupt the rule of international law, or Bush to unravel the Constitution in the name of security. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM Oops. Looks like Mr. Krauthammer forgot to mention these important bits of US history as well: Oops I found this part particularly interesting: Bush recently requested $3.5 million in funding for a consortium currently building nuclear reactors in North Korea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: artbrooks Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM In the interests of historical accuracy, the quote that begins the article that CarolC links to, the infamous "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," was invented by reporter Peter Arnett. This was his way of summing up a conversation in which an American advisor to a South Vietnamese Army unit told him about the destruction of much of the town of Ben Tre by the Viet Cong who were trying to take it from its Vietnamese defenders. Also in the interests of historical accuracy, and since someone mentions this above, nobody came back from Vietnam in a body bag. Body bags were used for casualties until they could be evacuated to a rear area such as Saigon or Danang, and then they were embalmed and shipped to the United States in aluminum caskets. There was enough wrong about the Vietman war and about the potential one in Iraq that it is unnecessary to invent additional things or to perpetuate old lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM I don't know enough about that quote to argue with you about it, artbrooks, but that wasn't that part that I thought was important enough for me to post a link to here. In fact, I was a bit concerned that it might put people off to reading the rest of the article, which I think is much more important than that one quote. But since I didn't write the article in the first place, I didn't feel that it would be a very good idea for me to try to edit it. There is a lot of information in that article that provides a good counterpoint to the things that Mr. Krauthammer asserts, and that was why I posted a link to it. Please ignore the title and opening paragraph if they bother you, and read the rest of the article before passing judgement on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: artbrooks Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:02 PM Is there something I said that would make you think I didn't? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:07 PM I guess not, artbrooks. My mistake. I am concerned, however, that some people might ingnore the article in its entirety just because of that one part, so I would encourage people to read the whole thing before passing judgement on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:14 PM Carol and Norton, please note this from the FAQ: The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #19340 Message #738292
Please remember that Mudcat is a Music Forum. We welcome discussion of all topics, but we give special emphasis to music. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Oldguy Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM I support the disarming of Iraq because it needs to be done to promote peace and stability in the world. The longer it is delayed, even by well intentioned people, the harder it will be later on. It will result in more loss of life, at a greater expense and the country will be harder to rebuild. It will have to be done inevitably. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:21 PM The question is, isn't there any better way to go about it than all-out war? And if not, why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: artbrooks Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:23 PM Here, by the way, is an actual report of a scientific investigation of the effects of DU on Gulf War vets. You have to open the link into Word to read it...this section begins on page 33. This study involves solid particles; I have not been able to find any studies or anything that amounts to anything other than speculation regarding the dangers of inhaling DU "dust." This certainly doesn't say there is no danger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 19 Feb 03 - 04:50 PM Sorry Joe. The article I posted by Robert Novak can be found here: Click (wait a few seconds for it to load to the article) And here: Click Ironically (considering the issue of music versus non-music posts), the second link is to a guitar site. Here's their home page: Click |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:02 PM "I support the disarming of Iraq because it needs to be done to promote peace and stability in the world. This is the kind of thing I would like to see explored in this thread. How do you perceive peace and stability to be accomplished through our current plans? Are you relying on the presence in Iraq of the US and its allies after the war to accomplish it? Keeping in mind that changing the system of government in the area has been tried many times and over a period of many years and it has NEVER succeeded. Do you foresee the US selecting a replacement ruler? Or installing a democracy? Keeping in mind that these are people who do not have a history of anything close to democracy. I have a friend from Poland- and historically their government is a LOT closer to a democracy than anyone in the middle east's is- and they're having a BIG problem with the new system and its host of new expectations. Or do you mean that by eradicating the Iraqi regime, there will be peace and stability in the world itself? Keeping in mind that taking out Hussein will have done little or nothing to address the climate in which terrorism flourishes, does nothing about al Quaeda and bin Laden or Israel/Palestine or alleged cells of terrorists-in-training in the US or a host of other items. Please. I would like to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Oldguy Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:03 PM Forum Lurker - PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 19 Feb 03 - 05:05 PM Wait a minute. This is/was/will be a 'war on terrorism'. That is why we are engaging in overseas conflict. REMEMBER?.... The one good thing I've seen Bush do, is call the attention of the world to the potential menace of Saddam. That was all he needed to do... aside from turning over pertinant evidence, and keeping the public informed and the forum alive (which I see little of)... That's all folks!!! The rest of our energies belong to the destruction of al Qaida. All the rest of this warmongering, posturing, and name calling, is superfluous, and harmful to our hard fought aliances around the world. I'm sorry friends, but I actually believe that Bush is a paper lion, and he hasn't got the principles necessary for the effective admonishment of other regimes. The only thing he seems to have going for him right now is access to WMD and a low threshhold... but I digress... If we wish to be moral leaders, then perhaps we ought to start behaving morally with our foriegn policies... like... how's about now!!! ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Steve in Idaho Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:44 PM No link to the original article. I am swamped at work and at home so have not had the time to set at the puter and do as requested. With the original deleted it makes this a post without meaning. I will respect the Cat's policy and not further discuss my views on the upcoming conflict. I will confine further discussions to music. Simply - I support the action as espoused by the current American administration. If we don't do this we are setting ourselves up for destruction. We have already been attacked many times. Take care you all - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:02 AM Here you go, Steve: Bracing for the Apocalypse by Charles Krauthammer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: DougR Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:19 AM I never thought I would see the day when Carol C. would post an article by Robert Novack. Will wonders never cease? The other article you posted, Carol, other than the headline of the article was not a criticizm of GWB, at least in my opinion. It clearly stated that the money will not be used to construct nuclear reactors, and is simply the fullfilment of a pledge made when the agreement was reached with N. Korea. If he didn't honor the agreement he would be trounced on by the left wing folks wouldn't he? Ebbie: if you don't know why Saddam should be disarmed, no conservative is going to be able to convince you that he should be. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:29 AM CarolC, all I get from the NK article is that the US is honoring its commtiment under the 1994 agreement even though NK is not. I'm not sure of your reason for citing it. Everyone keeps saying that we need to get rid of Saddam by non-violent means. OK. HOW? Some say by letting the inspectors "do their job". Which is? The inspectors job should be to check on the destruction of proscribed weapons listed in the agreement which Saddam Hussein signed to end the Gulf War. There is no proof that he ever did. So what happens if they stumble over a large cache of, say, anthrax? Is Saddam going to say "Well golly gosh. How'ed THAT get there?" Or," OK guys. You caught me. Guess I'd better 'fess up to where everything else is hidden". Yeah, Right. So lets hear it. What plan do you have to get him to disarm without the use of force? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:38 AM Ebbie: if you don't know why Saddam should be disarmed, no conservative is going to be able to convince you that he should be. DougR, sometimes you are too disingenuous by half. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: DougR Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:40 AM Thank you Ebbie. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Sam L Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:34 AM I support disarming Iraq, and am not entirely opposed to war. Nevertheless I feel our current President is making a terrible job of articulating the case, expressing Kingly impatience with opposed views, and much more. I don't know a great lot about the option of supporting other factions who would like to overthrow Hussein, but it's suggested by some who do know more about it, and if it's an option at all, it seems like a good idea. Surely somebody would like to run that country. It's silly to respect that Saddam is the legal leader of Iraq, it's merely reified in terror. He has a pretty solid resume of aggression, and will become a problem if he can. I don't really understand U.S. liberal respect for other cultures on some points. I believe in some basic human rights and I believe in them everywhere, always, no matter whose great tradition and culture, and blah blah blah. On the other hand I don't understand the (sometimes)conservative view that we aren't the world's police. We're the biggest power, and we should help, and stand for the better side of our culture, certain ideals, not just export the worst. We can't go to war everywhere, but we'd do well to aid and assist those who reflect our ideals--why not?why shouldn't we? who do you have to ask permission to believe in what you believe? We should not just befriend those who serve our economic interests, whatever beasts they might be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: leprechaun Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:53 AM Saddam has the weapons alright, you betcher ass. And he's scrambling to keep 'em hidden from the puny little inspectors. If you don't belive that, I got former prince of Nigeria I'd like to introduce you to. Old Saddam wouldn't be scrambling at all if we didn't have our weapons trained on him. Sanctions and inspectors wont' work with the likes of Saddam without the threat of force. Good on George W Bush! He willing, and even appears eager, to charge in there and crush Saddam. That's the only language Saddam understands. Is George W Bush actually eager to do it? Hell no he ain't! But Saddam thinks he is, and that means George W Bush is a good president. Does George W Bush have the evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? Hell yes he does! Is he going to share this evidence with all the nice folks on the Mudcat? Hell no he won't, not yet, not while the sources are still at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Kim C Date: 20 Feb 03 - 10:50 AM I wonder if Iraq's weapons aren't in a neighboring country. Has anyone else thought of that? All of this brings me back to a scene in The Two Towers. Merry and Pippin are trying to convince the Ents to join the fight against Saruman. The Ents say, this isn't our fight. And the Hobbits say, if you don't stand up for what's good and decent in the world, pretty soon there will be nothing good or decent left. I wholeheartedly believe in peaceful, reasonable negotiations and discussions on the front end. Absolutely. But what is there left to do when negotiations don't work? More negotiations? I have heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:00 AM Hey Leperichaun!... You said 'Saddam has the weapons alright, you betcher ass'... prove it, or we're sending the bombers to bury your house in twenty feet of flower pedals... ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:06 AM If Blix had reported that he was getting absolutely nowhere, some of those arguments might have some strength. But if you read his report you'll see that he didn't say anything like that. It's as if you had some people levering open a door, so as to get into a building, and just as it is starting to move open, a bunch of people charge up with a bulldozer and are furious because they are restrained from flattening the entire building. Here is a link to an article by an Iraqi exile and opponent of Saddam writing passionately in todays Guardian against the idea that this attck is anything that is likely to be in the interest of his fellow countrymen and women back home: "Having failed to convince the British people that war is justified, Tony Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing them...Despite what Blair claims, this has nothing to do with the interests and rights of the Iraqi people. The regime in Iraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have regime change without the people of Iraq." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:21 AM I never thought I would see the day when Carol C. would post an article by Robert Novack. Will wonders never cease? I know what you mean, DougR. Surprised the hell out of me when I found myself agreeing with Pat Buchannan (sp?) on the Israel/Palestine situation, too. I don't know if I'll ever recover from the shock of that one. The other article you posted, Carol, other than the headline of the article was not a criticizm of GWB, at least in my opinion. It clearly stated that the money will not be used to construct nuclear reactors, and is simply the fullfilment of a pledge made when the agreement was reached with N. Korea. If he didn't honor the agreement he would be trounced on by the left wing folks wouldn't he? I didn't see it as a criticism of Bush either. I posted it because of this bit from Mr. Krauthammer: --North Korea: When it threatened to go nuclear in 1993, Clinton managed to put off the reckoning with an agreement to freeze Pyongyang's program. The agreement--surprise!--was a fraud. All the time, the North Koreans were clandestinely enriching uranium. They are now in full nuclear breakout. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:12 PM Leprechaun, how about this scenario: Dubya has proof that Columbia has WMD's in violation of a treaty, but he can't show us the proof because it would compromise the sources. Does that mean we can invade? What if it were Canada? You can't honestly expect us to take a president's word alone as solid proof for war, when we won't take it for proof that he didn't have an affair. And Kim C, life would be a lot easier if it were a novel in which everything was bound to come out all right, but it's not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Troll Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM Lurker, get real. You don't compromise your sources. Do it once and the entire world clams up because you are no longer reliable. CarolC, the article you cited and Krauthammers column have very little in common. There are companies that entered into the NK nuclear powerplants contracts in good faith. They stand to lose a great deal of money since NK reniged on the agreement and a lot of jobs may be lost. Is it so wrong to help them survive until this problem is resolved? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Kim C Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:30 PM Lurker, I didn't say that it was, and I don't believe that it is. The idea that evil flourishes when good people do nothing is a lot older than Tolkien. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: CarolC Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:27 PM CarolC, the article you cited and Krauthammers column have very little in common. There are companies that entered into the NK nuclear powerplants contracts in good faith. They stand to lose a great deal of money since NK reniged on the agreement and a lot of jobs may be lost. Is it so wrong to help them survive until this problem is resolved? I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just keep seeing people like Mr. Krauthammer making vaguely worded insinuations and expecting the US to shape a foriegn policy and the decision to start a first strike war against another country on the basis of those insinuations. I was trying to highlight this practice and bring it to the attention of people who would use Mr. Krauthammer's words as proof of the need to wage a first strike attack against Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Forum Lurker Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:31 PM So, Troll, you think that we should take the unsupported word of our president as assurance that a war in Iraq is justified? If our intelligence network in Iraq is so fragile that no evidence whatsoever can be revealed without compromising it, I'm surprised they can gather any information at all. It's not that insufficient evidence has been presented it's that NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER has been presented. It should be possible to reveal some small amount of evidence without undue risk, and it would greatly decrease resistance to his plans. The fact that he's given us nothing to go on makes me think that he doesn't have anything at all. Further, it seems a very bad precedent to go to war without the casus belli being clearly presented. Kim C, I don't disagree that we sometimes have a moral obligation to take action. That action is not always cut-and-dry, however, and the wrong action can breed far worse evil than inaction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Sam L Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM Well, in any case, until the first strike actually happens, I'll reserve a little bit of judgement about the wisdom of threatening it. Every day that it doesn't happen, but spurs peaceful actions like inspections--that would not have occurred otherwise, may be put down to some good. I mis-trust Bush, but hope for the best, even if it made him look good. I'd just have to live with that, somehow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: leprechaun Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM No, please Tommy, not flower pedals! (I'd like to get some flower pedals for my bike) And McGrath, I actually had that happen to me once. Me and my fellow jack-booted thugs were lined up outside the door with our guns ready, except for my buddy who was getting ready to swing the battering ram. Then I reached out and tried the doorknob. It opened. Boy was he pissed. I don't think GWB is the guy interpreting the satelite photos or talking to the informants. Perhaps you's like to think he just makes all this crap up or pulls it out of his ass. I suspect he has more significant resources than that. On a much smaller scale, I have thirty or so prolific drug dealers whose door I could kick tomorrow morning if I didn't mind burning my sources. But I'll wait until I can do it so they have no idea where it came from. Sad for me that they get to continue selling drugs in my city until I can squeeze them without risking my informants'safety. But I refuse to put somebody at risk and I refuse to break the rules. Sure that gol-durn Constitution gets in the way every once in a while. But without it, there's be no challenge at all. Now for Bush, the stakes are a lot higher. I hesitate, and some turds get to keep selling drugs. He hesitates and New York City gets blown away with a suitcase bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Forum Lurker Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:21 PM Yeah, because Saddam has suitcase nukes and will use them if, but only if, he finds out who's selling information to Bush? I don't see the logic there. I imagine that you could at least tell someone what evidence you have on at least one of said dealers without compromising your source so badly that you couldn't put him into Witness Protection. If Dubya has the information he needs, he can pull out an informant or two to keep them safe, and reveal what they have to tell. If he doesn't, then I guess he'll just keep telling us to trust him on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:42 PM Ouch. Uh, tell ya what, leprechaun... I'll spell your handle properly, and you don't call me that awful name... So, ...we're loading up the bombers right now... what's your flower preference? Orchids, Roses, Lilacs, Dephiniums, Tulips, Whole wheat, or would you just like a big mixed arrangement? ...or have you got proof of Saddam's WMD? ;^) ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why I support disarming Iraq From: leprechaun Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:31 AM Sorry Thomas. Tulips, daffodils, roses. Orchids would be nice, but aren't they awfully expensive? I don't have proof on Saddam, I just feel it in my bones. Don't worry, none of our national leaders are going to take action based on my bones. The U.N. won't let them. And Mr. Forum, people don't get the witness protection program for turning in mid-level drug dealers. Six months of witness protection for one person would eat up my entire unit's budget for two years. And I'll still nail the buggers. I just won't do it right now. But as I said, I'm on a much smaller scale than the president of the free world. There's no way GWB is making that much noise based on an informant or two. I imagine it's a tad bit more complicated than that. |