BS: AGAINSTor FOR the WAR

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:55 PM

What Teribus said.

DougR

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: 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: Forum Lurker
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 11:05 AM

What misophist said.

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: 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: 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: Beccy
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:02 AM

I am grudgingly for it.

Beccy

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:23 AM

against.john

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