BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR

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 - 07:35 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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,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 - 06:17 AM

Fair enough Jon

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: 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