BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: stevetheORC
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 08:19 AM

Raedwulf

As for my opinion been biased I must point out that it is no more so than yours. Please offer me proof, facts to support your views!! and stop behaving like a MUPPET and CLAM UP.
IM an ORC NOT A FUCKING MUPPET OR A SHEEP

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 07:57 AM

Gee Mars... if you live by 12 years is quite long enough to negotiate, then drop a bomb... I sure as hell don't want to organize the workers in YOUR shop!
Cheers
Larry
Damn that's cold! Just think... We have given you Jews TWO THOUSAND YEARS to become Christian BOOM! We gave you Indians FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to move... BOOM! We gave you Democrates ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS to become republican BOOM!

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:17 AM

Fair enough Jon

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:08 AM

Teribus, I think we have both misread each other to some degree.

I don't dispute that a difference in standard would be expected. I wouldn't even dispute that work produced by a graduate student could be accurate and appropriate. I asked:

"How can that be considered credible evidence when presented as government dossier?" I was not questioning the accuracy of the information but the way it was presented.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 03:42 AM

Guest Jon,

I think I mentioned in my post that the author did complain that the British Government did not accredit him - that was his beef. He also clearly stated that what he had written was accurate and relevant - which in your post, raising the subject, seemed to pour scorn on.

There is a tremendous difference between the standard of work one would expect from a student when compared to that of a post-graduate writing a thesis for a Doctorate.

The document prepared and presented to the British Government, contained only parts of the post-graduates work, it also contained passages from publications such a Jane's, that were relevant to the subject being presented - those parts of the document only provided back-ground information.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 07:28 PM

Terribus, did the British Government cite the references it used? It was hardly a top seceret confidential source. I'll agree that I didn't check but it was my understanding that what was passed off as a dossier from inteligence sources in fact included the work of a student. As such I don't see the "rank" of the student as important, rather, the failure of the Government to cite it's source that clearly wasn't an intelligence source.

Perhaps they did and I missed something or perhaps they felt it was better "spin" without being open about the source?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:41 PM

Dear Raedwulf, Hugs to you too!
My reply to your first question, about an illegal war comes from the UN Charter and the US Constitution, We did not have authorization by the UN Security Council, nor did we go in for self defense. Someone said you can't start a war by what if. It is an illegal war under the International Law.
Second response to your questions- I thought about the two being placed together myself and questioned it, but two seperate things really. I do not want to pay for a war. Right now the state I'm in is having a budget crisis. My job may be in jeopardy along with many hundreds more. We are a state, like many more that are having the same problem, can't afford a war. It is affecting our economy.
That brings me to your last comment about caring for our own and screw the Johnny Foreigner. First of most Americans ARE Johnny Foreigner, you know what I mean there, right? A lot of us came from somewhere else, or our ancestors did. But the point is, I think we do need to take care of our own shit right here. I think we have to become less dependent on other nations and quit pigging out on other nations natural resources. If we could learn to be more self sufficient, using less oil, less wood, less of all, we might actually make some friends instead of enemies. In order to do this we need a higher value put on our educational system, not tear it down and pay for another countries education before ours.
Unless of coarse, the entire idea of this war IS to take over another country. Well then I guess we will need it there too in our new country. What will we call it? Ameriraq? Ok that was probably uncalled for, but Raedwulf, can you honestly tell me, why you think we are over there? I've heard several different reasons from our government, then they decided it was best to say, in order to pacify us, that it is all for freedom. Now in my eyes that is certainly a good reason to go bomb the hell out of the country don't you think? The way the country is responding, I have to wonder if they want our type of freedom.
Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Mars
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 01:49 PM

Why, in peacetime, I am Pluto, of course. Just another big friendly dog. A harmless little fuzzball. A tiny little planet buffetted about by the winds of the Universe.

Make no mistake - I do not, and never have, supported buttkicking simply for the sake of buttkicking. I only support buttkicking when it is the last option left.

I think 12 years is quite long enough to negotiate.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 12:55 PM

I am against this war, but I am not against America. One of the sad parts of all of this is the way that America has responded to those who disagree with her. The dumping of French wines, Freedom Fries and all that nonsense has served only to make the US look childish in the eyes of the world. I wish America well , but not in this misguided venture. She has alienated her allies and her neighbours and has threatened them with reprisals as if no one else was entitled to democracy and independence.
   America is not so benign as a big dunb dog. Right now she is mean spiried and misguided. That is sad because, like it or not, America is a great nation of good people, but sometimes they just get it wrong. This is one of those times.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 03:14 AM

Guest Jon:

"The evidence we have been shown includes the Brittish Government's usage of documents produced by a student. How can that be considered credible evidence when presented as government dossier?"

Some information on the above, as from what you have written above clearly shows that you have not bothered to look at what was produced.

1. The paper was a post-graduate thesis - so if you are going to refer to it, please refer to it correctly, there is a marked difference between a student and a post-graduate student working for a doctorate.

2. The thesis was written after "Desert Storm" it was written based on a wealth of captured Iraqi documents. The work was subject to critical acedemic review. Taking those two factors into consideration - the thesis is highly credible.

3. The topic of the thesis related to Iraqi internal security organisations and their mode of operation in time of war and peace. The author of the paper, when interviewed stated that what he wrote is accurate and remains relevant. His only comments with regard to how his paper was used centred on the fact that he had not been credited with the work, and that the British had slightly exaggerated the number of Iraqi security organisations.

So if you wish to refer to this in future, Post-Graduate Student (So the author would have beeen around 24-25 years old when he wrote it). What the subject of the thesis was. What source material was used. The authors own comments as to the accuracy and current relevance of his paper.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 04:10 PM

An interesting side note: When fledgling America revolted against England, she didn't stand and fight as wars had traditionally been fought, using instead guerrilla tactics, ambush and fade away. Ironic that in Viet Nam and in Iraq we want our opponents to hold still and be shot...

Not to mention demanding that the country disarm, because we are coming to get you.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM

I think we'll win it, at least from the official definition of "winning." There aren't enough places to hide a large force in the desert, and with enough troops and armor any city can be taken. The casualties on both sides could start to match Vietnam, though, if the Iraqis continue to use guerilla tactics even after Saddam loses central control.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Richard L
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 03:21 PM

If I had said publicly "I'm not sure we CAN win this war", two weeks ago, I suspect nobody would have agreed with me. But saying it now, considering what has gone on over the last two days, doesn't seem out of place at all. I think I agree with you katlaughing. This is turning into a quagmire where we'll consistently be facing suicide assasins, and snipers. God help us.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Skeptic
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 07:33 AM

Larry,

Nicely put. Always a good idea, in general, to follow the money. In US foreign policy it can often be the best idea. Whether a matter or intent or coincidence, our foreign policy seems to follow the dictum that what's good for General Motors (Or Chiquita or Enron) is good for the USA. And the effort is elegantly, democratically, bipartisan too boot. War may not be healthly for children and other living things but it has proved, in our history, remarkably profitable. As we move deeper into a funded deficit posture, I suspect our options will be greatly reduced by busines interests.

The 70% figure is a little higher than I've seen (55-60% range) but we clearly use resources out of proportion to our numbers. And use our foreign policy to support same. It is not a sustainable plan and as it seems to involve support for regimes that are directly opposed to our supposed values of civil liberties and self determination, it certainly portrays us in a less than favorable light.

I've always thought (a bit tongue in cheek) that the solution to the ME might well be WalMarts, McDonalds, cheap credit and MTV; while realizing that such might spell the erosion of our standard of living. Such thing seem to be cyclical, however, and like it or not, the time may have come, as we move from an production based economy to a financial based one, to follow the 'example' of Spain, Holland and England. Maybe we'll be the exception.

troll,

In my year or so absence from the Board, I'm sad to note that your use of the non sequitur to attempt to make a point hasn't improved. Conversely, if your Boortz comment was meant as some sort of attempt at humor, it fell a lot flat, as I contend that the "UN Resolution" based argument, whether for or against the War, is as lacking in substance as the resolutions themselves. To say nothing of the ethical quicksand involved in cynical selection of just which resolution are to be pursued.

On the other hand you remain my favorite, if only, brother and as always I stand ready to assist in improving the quality and relevance of your responses.


Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 02:29 AM

I am against this war, or any war except in self-defense.

Bombing for peace is like fucking for chastity.

The safest person in Iraq is Saddam Hussein; the people most at risk in Iraq are the innocent. Killing them to "save" them from Saddam is ... see previous paragraph.

Most of all, I am against this war because it was begun by a maniac, a president who is an alcoholic, a draft-evader who knows nothing of war or combat, a shifty-eyed smirking ferret of a little man who is provincial, bad-tempered, not very bright, and ambitious to a fault.

Other than that, he's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Sam L
Date: 30 Mar 03 - 12:54 AM

I just don't know, and am surprised how many people do know, and that they know different things. I fear it's a great mistake. I hoped it would have got to the leadership by now, but instead I'm seeing injured children and distraught families. And soldiers on both sides doing what they have to do. It's a great lot to make up for, by the ends. And I really can't help harboring great doubts about our president as a deeply cultured and morally responsible man, and I mean no offence to anyone who feels otherwise, it's just what I think.

Whether Hussein posed an immediate threat to the US or not, it would be good to honor other less self-interested motives to oppose him. Sustained policy and resolve might've done that, I've read, and many informed people felt that containment was the best course. I'm thinking they were probably right. But I don't know everything I'd need to know. President Bush has been a poor communicator of the case, I'm pretty sure of that.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 11:02 PM

Mars (what name do you use in peacetime?), you say: 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.

I suspect that we naysayers would be more gracious than ANY of you YESsayers- even if our worst fears are proven true. I cannot even picture you buttkicking guys being able to say: "We sheep were misled. It was so much easier just to believe..."


"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...)" You got that right, that is nasty, Raedwulf. And calling naysayers 'sheep' is inaccurate- sheep follow the leader.

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

It appears that the count is now 49 countries, Doug- I'm very impressed, indeed. Just what do you suppose we have promised them in return?)

They say:

most recent list of what the State Department terms the "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq" names 49 countries, including the United States, which have publicly committed to support the war in some fashion.

This backing can range from overt military involvement (the United States, Britain and Australia) to supposedly covert troop deployments (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine) to overflight rights (Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey) to political and moral support (many small South Pacific island states).

Even from its birth on March 18, the roster has been plagued by problems, including Washington's claim to have the support of some 15 nations that wished to remain anonymous.

The existence of this secret bloc of countries - dubbed by some "the shadow coalition" or "the coalition of the unwilling to be named" - is now neither confirmed nor denied by US officials when they boast of global support for the current conflict exceeding that of the 1991 Gulf War.

Keep in mind, however, when looking at this list of brave countries with bristling firepower, that in the Gulf War, many countries helped pay for the bloody thing...

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:33 PM

And by the by, Raedwolf... sorry for the flip responce on the governments telling the truth biz. but the fact is that no one in the real world believes that governments tell the truth. Time and time again, exectutive branch governments of all nations and political parties get caught in the big lie, it is just a fact of life. The term "real politic" come from this sad fact, and is a term used by pol sci folks on both sides of the right left devide, and by those of us on neither side of that divide, fact is there is the reason governments act and the reason they tell you. Please tell me that you are just young enough not to have seen this yet. 45,000 Americans died in Viet Nam on the basis of a lie... and it is about to happen again unless the young learn fast and the somnambulant wake up.
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: InOBU
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:26 PM

Raedwolf... in spite of the spelling, I have a Juris Doctorate from the 3rd highest rated law school in the US, NYU, and as to the peace brigade not offering solutions, well, you aren't listening. As a matter of fact, I am working with a project offering a solution, an Asian and 3rd world common market. Now, in very brief, your truth full bastion of peace here, takes 70% of the world's resourses and tends to back bastards like Sadam Husain and Zia in Bangladesh, or what ever other dictator you want to fill in the blank, in the third world, in order to keep the third world unstable so we can extract those resourses. Now, when one gets out of control we kill him, and set up another dictator to keep the pot boiling but not boiling over. So, there we are, credentials, solution and the problem to boot. Now as to call folks bloody idiots. Joing the army Friend, your government depends on loyal folks with blinders on.
Cheers and good luck
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:23 PM

Raedwulf, I belive many on the side of peace did in fact protest about the support the US gave to Iraq when Saddam was thought to be less of an evil than Iran.

Even since the Gulf war, the failure to disarm and the quoting of 12 years seems to me to be a bit of a red herring. We do not know what, if anything, Saddam has. The evidence we have been shown includes the Brittish Government's usage of documents produced by a student. How can that be considered credible evidence when presented as government dossier? The evidence from the UN inspectors showed nothing of any real significance and that they were making progress. Why was that progess not allowed to continue?

Furthermore, the UN pressure, perhaps needed to move Iraq to disarming (if there was a need) was only rekindled after the events of 9/11. This particular attempt has not been a 12 year attempt but a relatively recent one. Why did it suddenly become so urgent? Surely to lunch an attack or do anything evil with WMD was more difficult with inspectors swarming the country.

Unlike others, I don't believe oil is the real game but that Bush set his plans out in his "Axis Of Evil Speach". I think he really does want to play "world policeman". I just hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:20 PM

Bob - Not condescending at all. I never have any objection to a legitimate question (assuming it hasn't previously been answered... ;) ).

What I know (& this has nowt to do with Bush) is that Bush Sr got cold feet last time & screwed it up. Saddam has ignored sanctions & pontificating for the last 12 years. Weapons inspections work no better than sanctions, because Saddam takes no notice & gives it all the run around.

That's a *deliberately* simplistic view of the situation, but it all boils down to the (possibly equally simplistic) view that war is a necessary evil, as opposed to Saddam, who is a completely unnecessary evil...

All of the arguments against war I have seen so far have been based on the "I don't want it/It's morally wrong" p-o-v. "I don't" is an even worse argument than "morally" (which is going some). Weapons inspections have failed for 7 years (bearing in mind that Saddam slung the inspectors out in '98, so there were no inspections at all for 5 years...). I'd be interested to hear what justifiable alternatives you think there are, over & above the above oft repeated lamentable failures...

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 07:53 PM

Raedwulf:

First of all, m friend, Are you aware of the Oslo Agreements, The Saudi Plan or the Mitchell Plan? It would be helpfull to know what you know or maybe don't know before taking this any further. There are plenty of alternatives but if you are no further along that the Bush administration's PR campaigne then we certainly are going to have to some remedial work.

I will apologize if this sounds condescending. It is not meant to be. Not knowing you, I just don't have a feel for how well acqauinted you are with alternatives. So again, accept my apologies for asking but it would be helpful to know what you know...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 07:35 PM

Lastly, if only more of the anti-'s could argue their case as Skeptic does, I'd be far more willing to support their point of view.

Whereas we have Rustic...

I oppose this illegal war.

Illegal by whose interpretation?

I oppose the pain and suffering it will bring.

As opposed to the pain & suffering that's been going on in Iraq for the past 12-30 years? You left it a bit late to protest...

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.

Y'know, these two sentences just don't look good together...

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.

QED. Looks to me like you're the stereotypical "I can't see outside my borders" Yank. All of this says "You should be lookin' aftah me furst, screw everyone else..." As long as America's econmony is OK , you don't seem to concerned... Or America's economy ought to be OK first, before it starts worrying about any Johnny Foreigner...

It may not be what you meant, RR, but it's what it looks like! Do you want to reconsider???

Subject: RE: BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR
From: Raedwulf
Date: 29 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM

Larry - I am forced to conclude that you are a bloody idiot who would rather believe your government was lying, then believe it if they told you grass is green...

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!!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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