BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR

Subject: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,kadir
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:25 AM

I don't understand why people are agains the war.

From the press I get the impression that america is doing a brave job. However, I am always cautious of it since it can be worded to give a particulat impression which the editor wants.

I tend not to think and worry about of the situation because of the fact that there are informations that are kept and discussed behind closed doors.

Therefore, it seems that the people that are protesting the war do not have a clear reason for there protest. This same thing applies for people who support the war.

I am intrested in what other people think.

Kadir

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:23 AM

against.john

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:08 AM

Why are people against the war? Because governments lie to us. All governments lie to us, because they wish to get us to kill for things we would not kill for. I will not kill or suport killing. Young men go and kill men women and children so that robber barrons can steal, can mug the world for companys like Halaburton. Why are people for the war, because they are gullable, blood thursty seeking revenge?
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:13 AM

In favour of peace.

Wars are not fought to secure peace, they are fought to secure victory.

(Victory offers material and power gains to the victor. Aggressors do not fight wars to secure peace.)

In favour of peace on an immediate basis, and withdrawal of coalition forces.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Alasdair
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:24 AM

Kadir,

The case is confusing because most of the people who are against the war are not pro-Saddam Hussein. Most of their arguments are about questioning the motives of the US and the UK.

No-one in their right mind would stand up and argue the case that Saddam Hussein is a just and fair ruler of his people who should be supported in his governing role by Western democracies.

later

Al

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:33 AM

You can bomb the world to pieces
But you can't bomb the the world to peace...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM

I hate war but recognise that at times it may be the only option. As such, I believe war should only be considered as a last resort. In this instance, the evidence I see is that there was no immediate threat to anyone and that with renewed pressure, the UN inspectors were making progress. I believe a peacful solution was possible had it not been for the determination from the outset of president Bush backed by our pm Tony Blair, to have a war.

Given the situation we are in now, I do wish our troops well and believe we are well past the point of no return. I just resent the fact the decision to go to war was taken.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 09:12 AM

All well and good Bobert, but Kadir asked you a question - Now, for goodness sake spit it out - Are you for, or against the war.

For my own part, Kadir, I concur with Guest Jon's first sentence:

"I hate war but recognise that at times it may be the only option." Unlike him, I believe that in this particular case it is both right and just.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Beccy
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:02 AM

I am grudgingly for it.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:13 AM

That's a good question and one I have been struggling with. It isn't so black and white for me.

I always prefer peace to war. I want everyone to get along. We don't have to all LOVE each other, or even LIKE each other, but I believe everyone can find some common ground on which to peacefully coexist.

Taking human nature into account, though, that isn't always possible, or even practical.

If all the reports of abuses are true, then Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and should be dealt with accordingly. He has shown his ass to the UN for the last 12 years, and they kept giving him One More Chance. Well, you can only do that so many times before you have to open up the Can of Whoop-Ass, otherwise the bully is going to keep on bullying and taunting and making trouble.

I want peace, but I don't necessarily oppose the war. So I don't really know what that makes me. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: mack/misophist
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:36 AM

Alasdair and KimC are right on the mark. It's not so much that opposing Saddam is a bad idea as it is that doing it now and under these circumstances is a bad idea. The UN Comission should have been given more time, we should have tried harder with France and Germany. We should have a diplomat as secretary of State and not a general.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:44 AM

no i'm just against Junior and his goons

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

What misophist said.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:09 PM

What Jon said (I'd only have to replace the 'ours' by something else).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: stevetheORC
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:33 PM

I am against this war, it is a unnecessary war, Iraq was no threat to the US or UK and there has been no proven link to September 11 or that it was arming terrorists, or that it actually has wepons of mass destruction.
Now if arming terrorist's is a reason for war then we should have declared it on Russia, China, all of eastern Europe ( same goes for WoMD) a number of Mid east countries and please explain what is a terrorist? For that matter the UK should have declared war on the US for allowing members of it's population to openly raise money to buy arms for a Terrorist organisation, and the Goverment sponsored takeovers of a few Latin American Countries.
This war is been fought for the Oil wealth and the power that Blair & Bush so want.
Please do not forget that prior to the 1st Gulf war we were only to happy to sell wepons to Saddam!! We should have disposed of him 12 years ago when we actualy had reason but we did not as the west was still worried about fundimentalism in Iran and Saddam even weakened could still pose a viable threat to that regime.

Orc

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:55 PM

What Teribus said.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM

I'm against war, but I'm even more strongly opposed to this Iraq war.

In warfare, the more powerful side wins. Is that a civilized way to settle conflicts? In most wars, both sides see their cause as right, and there is usually a strong element of evil on both sides. In this particular war, George Bush has failed to prove that Saddam, no matter how evil he may be, is any threat to the United States. And while the evil Saddam has survived quite well so far, many innocent people have been killed, including many noncombatants.

On the other hand, I have to admit to being torn. Now that we're in it, I don't care to see the Americans lose. I just want to see peace.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM

Against. I have no love for Saddam Hussein, but I believe that the long-run consequences of the current U.S. invasion will be even further galvanization of the Arab World against the U.S. Ironically, I do believe that Mr. Bush and his generals are sincere in their stated aim of liberating the Iraqi people and doing it with as few casualties as possible. I just don't believe that any amount of rhetoric and goodwill will overcome the growing Arab perception of the U.S. as an openly imperialistic nation bent on domination of the Middle-East. I don't believe that domination's the real agenda here, but even the appearance of domination only adds fuel to the terrorists' hatred. I think Mr. Bush has enterd this endeavor with blinders on and that our children and grandchildren will be paying the price for years to come.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM

Against. Like Joe O and others above, now that we're in it, I don't want harm to come to our youngsters- and I don't want harm to be caused by our youngsters... But I am shaken and upset by what we are doing. How can we justify our actions, our very presence? Who and what are we protecting?

Did anyone see Charley Rose last night? (PBS) He had five commentators on, including two from the middle east. Rose ended up clearly dismayed and off balance at what they had to say, especially since a retired general essentially concurred with them.

If one were to go with the Middle Easterners, one would be compelled to believe that this is a no-win situation. And worse, much worse.

One of their contentions is that the Iraqi's are not necessarily pro-Saddam but that Saddam has been able to instill a nationalist spirit in them, despite his repressive regime- and in that nationalistic spirit they oppose and protest the presence, the invasion, of the West.

They also said that the West should have known from previous experience that the civilians would not embrace the 'liberators' and that the Shi'ite and Sunni would not rise up against each other- that when it comes down to it, it is their country, their problem. Kind of like: Yes, we know we have devils in our country, but they are our devils. It is not for you to say what we should do.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:27 PM

And if they find no weapons of mass destruction, Ebbie, perhaps they are right. However, if they do ...

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:35 PM

Bobert - Nice soundbite, but the bible doesn't say "thou shalt not kill", it says "thou shalt not murder", a subtle but important difference - I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to offer a viable alternative that doesn't involve the "deaths of innocents" that everyone deplores... {Note: leaving Saddam in power ensures the continuing deaths of thousands of innocents}

Larry - your statement is pure foolishness, & insulting to boot. Govts don't always lie, & rarely do they want us to kill. Worst of all, you say "Why are people for the war, because they are gullable, blood thursty seeking revenge?". If you could be bothered to read with an unprejudiced eye, you'd know that everyone who has spoken here in favour of the war (that I've seen, at least) has done so with a 'least worst case' attitude in mind - we support it because it's necessary, not because we like it. Your inference is disingenuous, deceitful, & distasteful.

mis - How much more time should we have given to the France/Russia/Germany alliance that indicated unequivocal veto, at the same time as having undeniable & substantial existing economic links to the current regime (never mind equally strong domestic political reasons in favour of the status quo), that may very well not be honoured by any successor?

StevetheOrc & many others - see above. It's easy to bleat that "Bush & his cronies just want the oil". Offer A) convincing evidence that that statement is true, not suppostion & unfounded belief; & B) equally convincing counter-argument that supports your French/Russian/German allies against the preceding equally plausible allegations.

Kadir - I'm half-with Teribus. I am not at all sure this war is "just" - I mistrust Bush (I believe Blair is sincere, if not necessarily entirely convincing). I do beleive it's right, if (quite possibly) for the wrong reasons.

(Reluctantly) For.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM

The United States will win this war, of course. But by initiating this illegal and unnecessary war, the U. S. has lost more than it will ever be able to gain back. Immediately following 9/11, sympathy and support of most of the world's peoples was with us. But now that the United States has turned into the Ogre, it will to take decades to recover their respect. If we ever do.

But the neo-conservatives currently in control of the government don't care about that. World domination is the goal, by economic and political means if possible, by military means if necessary. They have absolutely regard for the World Court or the United Nations or any authority beyond their own.

And no. Fear is not respect.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:45 PM

Dear Raedwulf: I never met a soldier that did not say they were not reluctant to fight. Lot of good it does the rotting corpse. As to governments telling the truth... read the book "The first Causualty" which focuses on the charge of the light brigade. From the writers of the bible to the little fellow in the white house, governments always lie. I would not honnor my degree in history and poly sci to say otherwise, it is just one of those sad sad facts. How can you look at the work of the CIA and MI 6 and say with a straight face that governments tell the truth, sorry, if it offends you well, the truth hurts, maybe that is why governments lie, but I doubt it, their lies hurt more than the truth.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:34 PM

Larry - I say again, READ WHAT IS WRITTEN. Not what you want to see. What is there.

Show me where I said that govt's tell the truth? I didn't. I said they don't always lie. You basically implied they always lie in your first post, & explicitly said it in your second. And that is a biased, lying... lie...

Gov'ts do not "always" lie. They frequently tell the truth as they see it, & most of the time (in all fairness), it's not much more inaccurate than the truth that you or I see. I'm a cynical bastard, & I have serious doubts as to whether the US Gov is currently telling much of a truth, hence my several remarks on this board about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Nevertheless, I remain wiser (I hope) than to label people who disagree with me with 'gullible', 'bloodthirsty', or other such insulting or divisive terms. Similarly, ask yourself, who is 'gullible' - the man who does his best to make sense of the confusion & chaos around him, or the one who says that this given source (be it govt, peacenik, ecowarrior, or other appropriate faction) "always lies"?

Your call, Larry...

P.S. In my limited experience, most soldiers, before the fact, are only too happy to fight - it's what they're trained to do. It's the fannying around of idiot politicians that pisses them off, as a rule.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:34 PM

Don Firth: at last we agree on something! True, the administration has no use for a "World Court," (thank God), and as far as the U.N. is concerned, why should they be supportive of an organization that doesn't enforce it's own rules? The U. N. is a organization composed of hundreds of nations that have only one thing in mind, the interests of their own country. I don't think it is composed of a consortium of human rights advocates, do you agree?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM

Like I've said before, anything that happens to Saddam is too good for him. But this unilateral first-strike business, shooting someone because of what they might do is essentially lynch law, and it will get us in trouble farther down the road. We have already lost much of the sympathy the world had fo us after 9/11.

The founders of our country were right in expressing a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind."

So I'm against Saddam, AND against the war. And against the next war we start. I want us to be the good guys.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM

It is interesting that even you with whom I agree, say the US will win this war. We did not win the Viet Nam war. If this one drags on too long and people get fed up enough of their children being sent home for burial, it could well be that the US will be forced to withdraw, thus another no-win major fuck up. It'd be a lot better to pull out NOW and work towards mending anti-Americanism worldwide and stabilising Iraq than continue down the path of Bully of the World.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: stevetheORC
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 06:26 PM

Raedwulf
I am not bleating as you put it I am simply stating My opinion if you dont like it then i'm sorry but tough I am as entitled to a opinion as much as you are. I ask what was the 1st target for the allied forces the 'Oil Fields'if you choose not to belive this then fine but I am yet to see a 'A) convincing evidence that this statement is untrue, not suppostion & unfounded belief' Sadam should have been taken out 12 years ago when we had the chance.
If as is suggested he has WoMD then suerly this attack will cause him to use them after all what has he or his regime left to loose?
I pray that I am wrong about the last comment.

Steve the Orc

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 06:33 PM

I was against a turkey-shoot. For that reason, I silently supported Chretien's decision to not join the military action. Surprise, this is not a turkey-shoot. If it gets bogged down terribly in Baghdad, here's a twisted opinion for you, but it's what I believe: Canada should send troops then. Canadians should help Americans as they can to clean up the mess that Cheney made.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 06:51 PM

T:

Surely you jest! But you do like your answers, don't you? Yeah, it may come a shock (sans the awe...) to you but I'm against the invasion, which is quickly becoming a war. I'm also against the war.

Raedwulf:

You chastized my friend, Larry, for not reading you post yet you apparently didn't read mine. Your response had nothing, or very little, to do with waht a posted on this thread.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: uncle bill
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 06:57 PM

America is just a big , dumb , freindly dog that has been kicked in the teeth several times in the last few years by a bunch of arabs. I wasn't for this move from the beginning and I believe this will continue in several venues for the rest of our lives. However, as a vet myself, I would be really pissed if we pulled out. We did't finish the job in the last go-round so here we are again. It has become a religious war thanks to our enemies. Yes , I believe sometimes governments lie and often don't volunteer all the informantion they have and I'm not sure they should. Here we are again fighting a limited war. I don't like it, I don't like paying for it but I will support the troops . In Vietnam, we found out really fast that we weren't fighting for our own govt. , but for each other that were unfortunate enough to be there. I can't say that I like GW much but I truly hope that this turns out well for for him and all of the people over there. If it was any other country than the US, Iraq would probably already have been a smoldering hole in the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: khandu
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

Like others who have posted before me, I am torn.
I detest war. So many sad stories can be told from every war that has gone before.

I love peace. I desire peace in the world, as well as in my city, neighborhood and home.

I pursue peace as much as lies within me. However, I also know that if someone attacked my home and was a threat to the lives of my family, I would quickly do whatever necessary to end the threat. Whatever necessary.

I believe saddam is a meglomaniacal sadistic despot who has no concern for the people of Iraq. I believe that Iraq and the surrounding countries would be better without him. I believe he should not be allowed to exist as a man of power.

Is he a definite threat to my country? I do not know.

Should my country be at war to depose him and his ilk. I do not know.

However, since my fellow Americans are there, I support them and wish them home safely, soon.

Ken

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:18 PM

The only sufficient reason to take Saddam out is the human rights violations he commits. No clear threat has been presented that is enough to warrant a "pre-emptive" strike. I don't think that the best way to deal with a human rights abuser is to launch an invasion with the support of only a portion of free nations supporting us, but since it has been done, we'd best see it through. The damage has already been done in world opinion, and better to be seen as a strong bully than a weak one.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

Remember when they said we had lost too many people to pull out of Viet Nam, that it would dishonor those who had paid the ultimate price? Eventually we did it anyway. Unless we, the people, are quickly given an overwhelming or even plausible reason for being there, I think we should get out of Iraq as quickly as we can manage. Surely, as many spin doctors every government has, we can concoct a convincing reason for our reversal. Maybe even the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:25 PM

I oppose this illegal war.
I oppose the pain and suffering it will bring.
I oppose the high costs and higher taxes that will result from this war.
I oppose the greed that is the basis of the war.
I oppose the decline of humanity and division of people throughout the world this war has caused.
I oppose the path the US has taken and the renunciation of the UN.
I oppose the re-building of a war-torn state, when we can't even take care of our own.
I oppose Bush's plan for an Iraq over-haul including the transformation of educational, healthcare and banking systems.All funded by US taxpayers and administered by private US contractors $100 million to ensure Iraq's 25,000 schools have needed supplies while our schools are lacking in adaquate funding, adequate,text-books and teachers.
I oppose the fact that more than a million poor Americans are about to lose their access to publicly funded medical care and Bush is in the market for a corporate contractor to over-see $100 million upgrade in Iraq's hospitals and clinics.
I oppose the fact that Bush plays with our economy while Baghdad burns.
I oppose the fact that the US pushes our idealisms on others. Iraq being a strong political country, many people may want to get rid of Hussein, but they do not want to live under US occupation.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that, "Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Signed by Truman and ratified by US Senate. 1945
Under article VI clause 2 of the US Constitution, the charter is part of "The Supreme Law of the Land"
This charter contains only 2 exceptions to the use of force;
When such force is employed in self-defense, or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council.

The US/UK attack is illegal under international law. Bush managed to change this into his new plan, proclaiming the US can use force against any state that the administration percieves as hostile.
This new position, aimed at justifying an attack on Iraq is, as I said earlier, a public renunciation of the UN charters limitation on the use of force.
The worse, is yet to come. This could take us back to a world we knew before WW1 where there were no legal restraints on war. Countries could use force when-ever they wanted.
The US/UK is making the world a more dangerous place, and then we have Richard Perle celebrating the death of the UN.
Yes, I oppose the war. You asked!
Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:37 PM

Damn, get me on a role! Well I just wanted to add this for a little satire reading;

God Damn You
by Alan Bisbort

Mar. 20, 2003 -- HARTFORD (apj.us) -- ...and I mean that sincerely, George W. Bush.

Far be it for me, a sinful man who has backslid more times than Robert Downey Jr., to personally single you and your murderous cohorts out.

I gladly defer to Bishop Tutu and the Dalai Lama and Jimmy Carter and the Pope, more conversant in things scriptural or theological than I, or any of your unenlightened inner circle, will ever be. I will let them speak the truth, as far as any of us can know it here on this earth. To a person, they condemn your most unholy and unjust of wars in Iraq.

Pope John Paul II, 82 years old and almost too frail to muster the energy needed to combat one such as you, George W. Bush, said this on Tuesday: "Those who decide that all peaceful means that international law makes available are exhausted assume a grave responsibility before God, their conscience and history."

The Pope also said that he will not shut down the Vatican's embassy in Iraq during this war.

So, now you can have at the old men in their vestments and the nuns in their blood-stained habits, and all the huddling, shivering civilians who will, no doubt, try to take refuge at the Vatican's embassy in Baghdad. That is, what will be left of the embassy after your Blitzkrieg has suitably shocked and awed your presumed enemy. It's your God against their God, one on one, for the World Championship. Meanwhile, Osama, who's got a ringside seat, is having an animated and happy discussion with his God. He and his cadre of demented religionists can't wait to take on the winners.

As we have seen in your snubbing and then harassing (through Republican brown shirts) veteran news reporter Helen Thomas, you do not like to face 82-year-old truth tellers, do you, George W. Bush?

You are still the little impetuous and impulsive frat boy, still that D Student from the Skull and Bones Club, still the family Black Sheep, still the shakedown artist and flim-flam man, still the coke hound and party animal, let loose on the ultimate dance floor: worldwide Armageddon, at least as your feeble brain understands these theological matters.

Just as your concept of a Creator bears no resemblance to mine (or to the Pope's or to Tutu's, Carter's, Mandela's, etc.), your fantasy of heaven -- with "good" Americans like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott but not "bad" Americans like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X or Henry D. Thoreau sitting around shooting the breeze for eternity -- is not one I would wish on my worst enemy. And your idea of a "just" and "holy" war has cost all humanity some precious part of their soul. It will, if it hasn't done so already, poison forever America's great tradition of democracy, America's role as a beacon of hope in the world. To use an appropriately twisted metaphor, the virginity of American ideals have been brutally gang-raped by a cadre of unelected ideologues. This coupling will result, nine months hence, in a monstrous offspring that will slouch toward Bethlehem to be emitted from betwixt quivering gams, a black oozing thing that will drip its hate-filled goo for the next hundred years.

So, as the Pope implied, God damns you, George W. Bush.

And god damn you, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove and Condi Rice and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

And God damn the whole lot of you to be punished by being forced into one another's company for eternity. God damn you for having rigged our democracy and God damn you for having made the world more dangerous for my innocent son and the children of millions of other Americans who will reap the whirlwind from your deeds today. God damn you for lying from Day One of your insurrection in January 2001 and God damn you for what you plan to do in 2004 to deny what's left of our democracy's dignity the right to resoundingly toss your asses out on the sidewalk.

What has been done this week in America's name will forever stain our nation's legacy of hope for the world. It will go up, alongside your asterisk as the first president to ever be selected by the Supreme Court rather than elected by the people. And, we are hoping and (yes) praying that your illegitimacy will somehow get the rest of us off the hook, that history will be kind enough to the rest of us to put into perspective that you were forced on us like King George III. That you usurped power, you abused power, you ignored the Constitution and even international law.

In the weeks before this most shameful moment in American history, I read stories in local papers about congregations in various towns who had been discussing the war. In these stories, more often than not, the quoted priests, ministers or rabbis came out in favor of this slaughter. It is because of this that I may never darken the door of a place of worship again, those former havens of peace from which even Jesus would now be given the bum's rush.

Mark Twain's "War Prayer," which his family and friends advised him not to publish for fear of it being regarded as "sacrilege." He told them, "I have told the whole truth in that [poem], and only dead men can tell the truth in this world. It can be published after I am dead

An excerpt:

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord...We ask it, in the spirit of love of Him Who is the Source of Love and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. AMEN."

Yeah- AMEN, Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:40 PM

Like Jon said. It's wrong, but now it's started, I can hardly want the United States to lose. So I guess I'm "torn" too. But it is such an incredible crock ............

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:53 PM

Alan Bisbort: Surely, this is boiling over in homes nationwide at the moment. Americans are decent people and I sincerely believe they are being visited by a sinking sense that we are involved in something indecent.

My sense of Bush as a despot was confirmed when it was noted by a Knight Ridder correspondent that, just prior to addressing the nation on March 20, he was pumping his fist in the air, mugging for cameras and saying things like "Feels good."

This, my fellow Americans, is a sick man. I can't prove it, of course, and my charge can easily be dismissed as partisan demonizing (something the right wing does so much better than I do). But I know this in my gut. It's just palpably, undeniably there, if you have the stomach to look for it.

Google

Thank you, Rustic Rebel.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 09:32 PM

As Uncle Bill said: "America is just a big , dumb , freindly dog that has been kicked in the teeth several times in the last few years by a bunch of arabs..." who are recalling an American cruse missle which tore a big hole in a hotel hosting a comference of OPEC leaders, fired by a big dumb freindly dog, who didn't really mean to lean on the fire button, but you know how rover is...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM

Dear Raedwolf... if in fact Governments DO ever tell the truth, especially in matters of war and peace it is by accident, just as a broken clock is right twice a day, sometimes governments think they are telling a lie, but are so hopelessly missinformed by the liars who make up their incompetant "information" agencies, that they find they have accidently told the truth, but luckly, that only happens on occation, generally, you can make book on the fact that it is a lie.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 01:43 AM

You are very welcome Ebbie, and thank you my dear.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Troll
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:19 AM

The rest of the world isn't going to love us no matter what we do so put that one out of your mind as a reason we should pull out. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, in my opinion living in a fools paradise
Saddam is not, at this time, a direct threat to the US but where is it written that we have to sit by and wait until someone who is our sworn enemy gets his act together. The countries who opposed the war inthe UN, France, Germany, and Russia, all have a big financial stake in keeping Saddams rule going so their opposition is hardly a surprise and is certainly not based on any moral principle.
The truth is that Saddam is just one of a number of dictators who need to be taken down so that their people can at last taste the freedoms that we take for granted and eagerly relinquish for the sake of so called "security".
That said, I don't like war but I recognize that it is sometimes the last option available. The other options have been exhausted in my estimation.
I vote "for" with a prayer that it will be over quickly so that no more innocents will die.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 03:31 AM

"Saddam is not, at this time, a direct threat to the US but where is it written that we have to sit by and wait until someone who is our sworn enemy gets his act together."

Well, North Korea is closer to getting its act together than Iraq was. Should we then go to war with them? And all the rest of those "dictators who need to be taken down" too? Saudi Arabia? Cuba? Parade magazine had a list of the ten top tyrants in the world; that'd be ten wars, but of course that would just get the ten worst guys; there's lots more...

The USSR was evil & had lots of WMDs but I don't recall that we had to go to war with them.

And there's no way that the war will be over quickly enough that no more innocents will die. If you have a war, innocents will die. If you vote for war, you inevitably vote for innocents to die, and praying for them is just making it easy on yourself by laying the blame on God.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Skeptic
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 04:29 AM

troll,

Looks like neither or us could sleep so continuing from dinner.......

Realistically, the question is moot. More appropriate, I think, would be what are appropriate conditions for us to get out? Just leave? Oust Sadaam and leave? Oust him and rebuild Iraq?

So I am "for" only in the sense that we are there and the dangers inherent in not successfully finishing this (by pulling out) would seem to outweigh the costs of continuing (at least in the long term). Doesn't mean I have to like it (or plan to) but we are there and barring action by Congress (such as de-funding the war) we are there to the bitter end.

That the rest of the world isn't going to love us is a far cry from saying we don't need their support - whether specifically in he case of Iraq or in general as part of the global economy. We remain (last I heard) the nation with the largest foreign debt. Not an enviable position to be in. And while some may not like us, that doesn't seem to be justification to write them off.

The argument for preemptive strike is appealing on an impractical level, though it has the benefit of generally being non-falsifiable in the final analysis. Ethically, it's part of the vigilante argument and seems to fly in the face of at least one of the basic principles that are claimed as founding principles of this nation. (That we are a nation of laws)

As you note, certain countries seem to have a financial stake in Sadaam remaining in power. Conversely, as we have seen from the recent series of bids (issued to a 'select' group), the US would benefit financially from Sadaaam being out of power. Thus at least one element of your argument cab be turned around - that the US has a financial interest in overthrowing Sadaam and thus our position is not based on moral principles. Neither argument is valid but the latter seems to better illustrate one problem with the former.

Yes, Sadaam is the worst (or near the 'top" of the list of worst) of a bad lot. But then the President of Malaysia has problems too, and we count him as an ally. Whether others of our erstwhile allies are as bad (or worst) is arguable. Saudi Arabia comes to mind. Their press is very controlled and solid information is hard to find. Is that sufficient reason to attack Sadaam. Or anyone else. It seems a very slippery slope argument as the repercussions from such a policy are frightening (if speculative).

Is it your argument that we should become the world's policemen or embrace neo-colonialism as our foreign policy?

The justification to attack were:

The UN resolutions and requirement to disarm - essentially a non-argument as whether the new round of inspections would have succeeded is a moot point. Whether or not the inspectors could have succeeded will remain the great unanswered question. Bush made the determination that they would not and I suspect this question will haunt him.

Possession of WMD - not yet proven - though still a possibility - if so, it becomes and "ends justifying the means" sort of thing which makes me very uncomfortable. That some of the "proof" turns out to be faked and we didn't recognize that doesn't give me lots of warm fuzzy's about our reason's for being there.

He is a monster and needs to be removed - unarguable as to the characterization (and I'll add that in some ways he was our monster and that when Britain and Germany in the late 80's pointed that out and called fro sanctions, we wouldn't go along) And maybe we need to clean up our own mess.

Support for al-qaeda - Proof of which seems at best a hastily erected structure of circumstantial evidence and not a little wishful thinking. Though a significant number of Americans, according to some polls, think he was directly involved in 9/11.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Mars
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:04 AM

A good many of the "weapons" possessed by the former USSR were dummies. Fakes. They were built simply to parade around in the streets and impress the people.

When this war is over, I predict that a good many of you naysayers will jump sides and claim you supported the President all along.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Troll
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

Skeptic, I saw an article on Boortz that said we should pull out as soon as the UN passes a resolution telling us we should.
Clint, North Korea has demonstrated that it has WMD's and the means of delivering them. They will have to be handled differently. You simply don't invade a country with nuclear capability, especially when it's headed by someone as fanatical as Kim Jung-Il. We will have to deal with NK, but our job MAY be made easier if we demonstrate that we do in fact have the will to do what we said we would do.
As for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East, if the US/UK can set up a viable democracy in Iraq, it may induce the govts. of the surrounding countries to reform their forms of government just to avoid an uprising. Some of them are already working on a more democratic form of government. A good example of this is Qtar, where the young ruler is pushing reforms to bring the country into the 21st century.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:04 PM

The countries who opposed the war inthe UN, France, Germany, and Russia, all have a big financial stake in keeping Saddams rule going so their opposition is hardly a surprise and is certainly not based on any moral principle.

Granted. The US has profit-dazzled eyes also. But even our allies, the 45(?) nations that tacitly and rather anonymously support the military action have mixed motives. There is no great subtlety to the carrot and the stick approach used by the US to try to get allies on board. Debts forgiven, massive aid promised, the bully befriending the lonely one in the schoolyard - you must admit that motives all around are somewhat suspect.

Hi, Skeptic. Been wondering about you.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: DougR
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 02:16 PM

Ebbie: Anonymously? If I could do blue clickies I could probably direct you to a website that lists all forty-five of those countries. Google could probably pull up the list for you.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 06:55 PM

Bobert - Yes I read your post. "You can bomb the world to pieces
But you can't bomb the the world to peace..." It's a very, very nice soundbite. It offers nothing that solves the problems of Iraq. Nothing that I have read (&, I admit, I drop in & out of Mudcat, & may have missed many solutions that have been offered...) of yours, or anyone elses, solves the problem of Saddam slaughtering Iraqis willy-nilly.

I have asked the anti-war brigade many times, "What is your solution?" I still await an answer. Any answer. Your soundbite is no answer at all. People have died, are dying, & will continue to die under Saddam's rule. What have you got to offer that is better than a war to remove him? For the umpteenth time of stating, I don't want a war, I just see it as the last bad available option. Offer me a better one! You've offered me nothing except pious words so far.

I know where you're coming from, you've made it very clear very many times before. But it's easy to criticize. Offer an alternative. What I posted had everything to do with your simplistic take on the matter - offer me an alternative to war!!!

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 07:09 PM

SteveO - Oh, I'd entirely agree, Saddam should have been taken out 12 years ago. Field Marshal Montgomery quoted something to the effect of "politicians start wars, the military fights them, but the politicans never let the military finish them..." & that says everything, I think.

I also hope that Saddam doesn't have the much vaunted WMD (though there is a nasty side of me that can't help hoping that he does & will use them, which would make all the sheep seem very... sheep-like...)

Nevertheless, I want proof. You have admitted that you are are only offering your opinion. Any muppet can allege anything they like. It's easy to throw... mud... and hope something sticks. I'm not interested in your biased guesses, offer me facts!! I've already stated I'm cynical. I don't unequivocally believe GWB. Nor do I believe the peaceniks. Until someone offers some solid proof, you are all just so much hot air.

And until you can offer some facts & proof, pro- or anti-, I respectfully suggest that everyone should just clam up!!