Damn fool war

[aubries]

Cecil's words. I feel vindicated.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

[Achernar]

Wow, it's not often that I disagree with Cecil, even over matters of politics.

That's it.

[TheMemeWarrior]

damn, that was gutsy.

[thelark]

I registered for this site just to comment on his words.

It is disgusting that a respected man who is apparently of high intelligence would make such comments at this point. Is it really that hard for the liberal elite to admit that they are wrong? How can you deny the cheering, celebrating, elation of the Iraqi people? How is it wrong to rid a people of an oppressive regime - a regime that has used chemical weapons on its own people?

It is estimated that Saddam Hussein spent $2.2 billion building palaces. How much food and medicine could that have bought the Iraqi people?

Perhaps France, Germany, Russia and China do not want us in Iraq. Have you ever stopped to think why? The question has a simple answer - money. I will not bog this thread down with the hard facts of the aforementioned nation's investments in Iraq (both through private banking and trade deals via the UN Oil for Food Program).

Nobody likes war. We will take this for a fact. However peace and safety does not come through the absence of war. The sad truth is that the world we live in has peace through strength. Was it wrong to liberate Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan? If we had the foresight to rid Germany of Hitler in 1939, would that be wrong? Is it so terrible that through the strength of the US armed forces we were able to topple communism? Our country has a history of bringing freedom to oppressed peoples and this is just another example of that.

Your comment is something that would have been atypical in the weeks leading up to the war and perhaps even in the first week or two of the war. However, with the Iraqi regime falling, the Iraqi people celebrating, several possible sites with WMD found, I can not comprehend how you can still make such a comment. I would certainly appreciate a response and would love to keep this an open debate.

Shame on you Mr. Adams! Shame on you!



“Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.” — Secretary of State Colin Powell, responding to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who asked at a London conference if U.S. plans for Iraq are an example of empire-building by President Bush.

[P. Rex]

I too was moved to register for this site based on the "damn fool war" comment in Cecil's latest comment.

I've been a Cecil Adam's fan for years--reading his columns in the newspaper, buying the books, and more recently, reading his web page almost every day. I had always trusted him to provided us with the straight dope, untainted by political bias. I suppose I'll still read his column in the future. I just won't trust it as much.

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by thelark
Perhaps France, Germany, Russia and China do not want us in Iraq. Have you ever stopped to think why? The question has a simple answer - money. I will not bog this thread down with the hard facts of the aforementioned nation's investments in Iraq (both through private banking and trade deals via the UN Oil for Food Program).

Have you ever stopped to think why George W. Bush began this war. In 2000 no one (except maybe Donald Rumsfeld) was thinking of going to war with Iraq. Saddam hasnt done anything since then except to let weapon inspectors into the country. Sure he's a despot who brutalized his people but half the planet lives under brutal despots. It has never been the US forign policy to intervene in dictatorships purely for the sake of liberating brutalized citizens (exhibit A photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam). That the excuse thats been put forowrd by the administration the last couple weeks once it was clear that no serious WMD would turn up. If Saddam had any serious WMD he was decent enough not to employ them against the troops. Does that seem like somehting Saddam would do?

Originally posted by thelark

Your comment is something that would have been atypical in the weeks leading up to the war and perhaps even in the first week or two of the war. However, with the Iraqi regime falling, the Iraqi people celebrating, several possible sites with WMD found, I can not comprehend how you can still make such a comment. I would certainly appreciate a response and would love to keep this an open debate.

I to have never posted before but was heartened by Mr. Adams comment especially at this time when many are afraid to speak out. Most of the anti-war crowd expected the scene in the last few days and most including myself wanted it to happen as soon as possible once the war had started. The reprecussions however will not end here. The United States has acted in a reckless manner that will infuriate the region and lead to greater conflict.

[NFlanders]

When did Cecil write this column? Is he hiding in a bunker without CNN? There has been much speculation that in recent appearances, look-alike Staff members have been substituted for the man himself. Perhaps if he makes mention of recent events in new columns, I will acknowledge that Cecil is still alive (but possibly seriously injured).

Joking aside, I think we can all agree that Cecil does an admirable job of separating politics and factual matters. Even this column proves that, while he thinks history will judge Bush harshly (I disagree), he still provides an impartial (IMHO) account of what happened. Don't confuse Cecil's opinions with his facts.

[scotandrsn]

Remember, the Viet Nam war seemed like a good idea to most Americans at one time, too.

[Achernar]

Originally posted by thelark
It is disgusting that a respected man who is apparently of high intelligence would make such comments at this point. Is it really that hard for the liberal elite to admit that they are wrong?

I'm just curious, do you have some reason to believe that Cecil is liberal? I haven't noticed anything that would indicate that, but I could easily have missed something.

[emdrisco]

Yay Cecil! I admire you for telling it like it is. I'm going to go buy one of your books in support.

No matter what you think about this war, you'll see how ill-advised it was when we start reaping the whirlwind. It's not over by a long shot, and anyone who thinks you can impose democracy from without should take a careful look at most of Africa and see how well it's working there.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

I was happy to see Cecil's usual (mostly) balanced presentation of the facts in answer to an honest question. Then I reached the last paragraph of the article.

I'm very disappointed. "Fighting ignorance" is done best from an impartial standpoint - usually Cecil keeps personal opinion out of his column. I find this appropriate since opinions are subjective and have no place in a presentation of the facts. Cecil fell far short of his usual impartiality, and therefore fell far short of his usual quality in this column.

I've lost a measure of my respect for the Dope and for Cecil himself. I'm honestly sorry I clicked on the link that led me to that column this morning.

[Trion]

Originally posted by Achernar
I'm just curious, do you have some reason to believe that Cecil is liberal? I haven't noticed anything that would indicate that, but I could easily have missed something.

I'm curious too. I've always had the impression that Cecil was kinda conservative. (Just an impression mind you.)

[TheMemeWarrior]

It always seemed to me that cecil had more of a conservative/libertarian bent. I often disagreed with what he said but I would never have asked him to pretend to be impartial. Anyone with basic reading skills hould be able to tell where the facts (in this column they were fairly kind to Mr. Bush) end and where the opinion begins.

[toadspittle]

Is it really that hard for the liberal elite to admit that they are wrong?

I have to admit, I never thought I'd see anyone would peg Unca' Cecil as part of the "liberal elite".

Your comment is something that would have been atypical in the weeks leading up to the war and perhaps even in the first week or two of the war. However, with the Iraqi regime falling, the Iraqi people celebrating, several possible sites with WMD found, I can not comprehend how you can still make such a comment.

To be fair, the column was probably written and submitted to the syndicate 6 weeks ago. Long before we saw any Iraqis celebrating their liberation.

[Achernar]

Originally posted by Kilt-wearin' man
I'm very disappointed. "Fighting ignorance" is done best from an impartial standpoint - usually Cecil keeps personal opinion out of his column.

Say what? That's not my impression at all. Especially with questions related to politics, he throws in his own opinion as well. But as others have said, the reason he's so good at what he does is that he makes it clear what's fact and what's opinion.

[Marsupial]

I think Cecil's innate intelligence may have led many people to believe that he may be a conservative. It's inevitable that when you know history and look into the truth of any issue, you're going to end up with a conservative viewpoint. However, this statement has, unfortunately, shown Cecil's true colors. I'm a bit confused, though, Cece -- don't you read your own columns? How can anyone supposedly dedicated to truth and fighting ignorance be a liberal??? It's baffling.

[braintree]

Hooray for Cecil.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
We built Saddam up and sold him WMD materials, including Anthrax.
The evidence used to show that Saddam was buying fissionable materials was forged.
The only terrorism Saddam has financed outside of Iraq is Palestinian suicide bomibing and that directed at Iraqi dissidents.
Saddam and Osama bin Laden hate each other.
Saddam was every bit as awful to his people as he was when he was our ally. We could have attacked him any time in the last 20 years and would have been every bit as justified (although it would have looked funny when we were sending him money and weapons).
The Saudis, who financed, organized and largely excuted 9/11 are still officially our allies.
The Pakistanis who organized and financed the Taliban and who have nucleaer weapons are officially our allies.
The war does virtually nothing to make us safer from terrorism and distracts us from just about everything the Bush administration is up to including the abbrogation of our civil rights and the institution of catastrophic debt.

Shame on me for noticing this stuff. Shame on me for pointing it out. And shame on me for not being mindlessly swept up by the current euphoria. Clearly I am unfit to call myself an American unlike some of the previous posters whom it would seem, are more than qualified.

[MLS]

I don't care whether he's liberal or conservative, but I agree with Kilt-man that I wish Cecil would keep his personal opinion out of the part that is dealing with "fighting ignorance."

This is a fascinating issue, since it deals with two other issues that are being raised repeatedly these days.

One: The relative impartiality and balance of news coverage, including the appropriate separation of fact and opinion, and the potential for slanting coverage. On one hand, letting us know he disapproves of the war helps us put any other statements, inclusions or omissions into context. On the other hand, it may leave some of us with suspicion and doubt we didn't previously have as to the reliability or impartiality of Mr. Adams.

Two: What are the consequences? Those who disagree could stop reading, posting, etc. and stop buying any books. Then somebody could complain about how we were attempting to restrict his right to freedom of speech. How it isn't "fair." Those who stopped reading and posting could then complain (somewhere else, of course) about how the SDMB had been taken over by a bunch of whacko pinko peacenik hippies.

[toadspittle]

Sigh. I guess the tempest over this article means I'll never get a response to my question about Levi's jeans ...

[thelark]

[quote]Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
Have you ever stopped to think why George W. Bush began this war. In 2000 no one (except maybe Donald Rumsfeld) was thinking of going to war with Iraq. Saddam hasnt done anything since then except to let weapon inspectors into the country. Sure he's a despot who brutalized his people but half the planet lives under brutal despots. It has never been the US forign policy to intervene in dictatorships purely for the sake of liberating brutalized citizens (exhibit A photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam). That the excuse thats been put forowrd by the administration the last couple weeks once it was clear that no serious WMD would turn up. If Saddam had any serious WMD he was decent enough not to employ them against the troops. Does that seem like somehting Saddam would do?

Saddam hasn't done anything? Please allow me to quote UN resolution 1441, to begin:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
[/i]

So flouting UN resolutions in the face of international law is "doing nothing". Doing nothing to prove that he did not have weapons, doing nothing to follow what he agreed to, doing nothing to show the world that he is not an extremely dangerous man. How many times does the word "deplore" appear in the selection above?

I have yet to see any argument or back up in this thread of why we should not be at war.

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
I to have never posted before but was heartened by Mr. Adams comment especially at this time when many are afraid to speak out. Most of the anti-war crowd expected the scene in the last few days and most including myself wanted it to happen as soon as possible once the war had started. The reprecussions however will not end here. The United States has acted in a reckless manner that will infuriate the region and lead to greater conflict.

Who are you to say that the actions of the United States will infuriate the region? Please give facts to support as such.

[braintree]

"It's inevitable that when you know history and look into the truth of any issue, you're going to end up with a conservative viewpoint."

Funny. When I was a young pup that what they used to say about liberalism. Too bad Marisupial admits that he would have been in favor of Jim Crow and doing nothing about lynching as that was the conservative opinion at the time.

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by thelark
[b]Saddam hasn't done anything? Please allow me to quote UN resolution 1441, to begin:]

I never said Saddam hasnt done ever done despicible things. My argument was that when Mr. Bush came into office Saddam was isolated and the situation was stabilized and that SINCE then he has made no major moves towards to challenge UN regilations. This crisis was transparently created by the Bush administration. I at first thought they might have some secret intelligence about WMD but none has come to light and if Saddam did have anything he would surely have used it to protect himself.

Originally posted by thelark
Who are you to say that the actions of the United States will infuriate the region? Please give facts to support as such.

Well as a citizen of the planet Mr. Bush is destabilizing I consider myself an interested parties. All over the middle east Muslim clerics who denounced osama bin laden and the 9/11 attacks have been calling for jihads against the United states. Including the most influnetial clerics in Egypt and Syria.

[thelark]

Originally posted by Trion
I'm curious too. I've always had the impression that Cecil was kinda conservative. (Just an impression mind you.)

I should have phrased that differently. "Liberal elite" was meant to be used as a general phrase, not necessarily referring to C.A. I do not know enough about his opinions to be able to deem that; however, it was the impression I received from the column.

[Banger]

Originally posted by Cecil Adams
If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

Cite?

[Marsupial]

He, he. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Nothing gets past you guys!

(Funny, it seems to me most of the lynching back then was done primarily by Dixiecrats such as Senator Byrd (D-KKK).)

At any rate, in my previous post, I was talking about the present, not the past. The only way to arrive at some of the innane conclusions I've seen in this thread is to simply ignore the truth. Thelark has done a great job of posting the truth as it relates to Saddam's misdeeds. Saying that Bush "started" this war is simply naive and ignorant of the facts.

[Achernar]

Originally posted by thelark
I should have phrased that differently. "Liberal elite" was meant to be used as a general phrase, not necessarily referring to C.A.

I'm curious then, how should you have phrased it?

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by Marsupial
Saying that Bush "started" this war is simply naive and ignorant of the facts.

Of course he started the war. Not only did he strike first with the invasion but he engineered the current crisis. This is what makes Bush's actions so terrifying I expect the US to act to protect its interests (read oil) when they are threated as in the first gulf war. Now the situation is the US going out picking fights. When the worlds only superpower becomes a distablilizing force in geopolitics its bad news for everybody

[hajario]

Originally posted by scotandrsn
Remember, the Viet Nam war seemed like a good idea to most Americans at one time, too.

Please explain to me how this war is in any way like VietNam.

Haj

[thelark]

Originally posted by Achernar
I'm curious then, how should you have phrased it?

"When will the anti-war crowd finally admit that they have been proven wrong? Were it not for the liberal elite media (i.e. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, etc.) constantly bashing the war and biasing their news coverage to reflect their editorial standpoints the truth would show much more clearly that, in fact, the vast majority of American support the war on Iraq."

Does that help clarify?

[Cluricaun]

Please don't forget that wether Cecil himself is sided one way or another, the good 'ol Chicago Reader is just about as liberal as can be.

[braintree]

"Saying that Bush 'started' this war is simply naive and ignorant of the facts."

Oh? Am I wrong or didn't Saddam allow inspectors back into his country. Am I wrong or didn't we invade Iraq? Am I wrong or hasn't most of the world made it clear that it was against this war? Am I wrong or was Iraq, despite all evidence to the contrary, really behind 9/11?

Whether it was justified or not is one thing. But saying we didn't start it is ridiculous. We absolutley did start it. If it wasn't for Bush and Blair pushing, pushing and pushing and then invading there would presently be no war.

The problem here is not other people's ignorance of the facts but your denial of them.

[John W. Kennedy]

It's inevitable that when you know history and look into the truth of any issue, you're going to end up with a conservative viewpoint.

Yeah! What was wrong with segregation? And when are we gonna get that there Godless evil-lution outta the schools?

[Trion]

Originally posted by thelark
I should have phrased that differently. "Liberal elite" was meant to be used as a general phrase, not necessarily referring to C.A. I do not know enough about his opinions to be able to deem that; however, it was the impression I received from the column.

Are you saying that you got the impression that Cecil was liberal based on one column?

I just want to take this oportunity to point out that not all liberal or all conservatives have all the same views on all the issues. It is entirely possibe for someone who is generally conservative to be against this war in much the same way that it's possible for someone to be generally liberal and for it.

I'm not picking on you specifically thelark. But I think this is a point worth making.

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by thelark
"When will the anti-war crowd finally admit that they have been proven wrong? Were it not for the liberal elite media (i.e. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, etc.) constantly bashing the war and biasing their news coverage to reflect their editorial standpoints the truth would show much more clearly that, in fact, the vast majority of American support the war on Iraq."

You seem to be under the impression the aint-war crowd is against this war because we ahvent heard on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times that the majority of amercains support the war (like they do in every war at the beginning). I dont know about the rest of the anti-war crowd but I oppose this war because it is going to destabilize the region and end up killing many more Americans, Iraqis, and whoever's targeted next week by cowboy-diplomacy. I think if your making decisons of whats right and wrong regarding matters as serious as war based on an opinion poll, then you should not be the one going around shaming others.

[thelark]

[quote]Originally posted by braintree
"Saying that Bush 'started' this war is simply naive and ignorant of the facts."

Oh? Am I wrong or didn't Saddam allow inspectors back into his country. Am I wrong or didn't we invade Iraq? Am I wrong or hasn't most of the world made it clear that it was against this war? Am I wrong or was Iraq, despite all evidence to the contrary, really behind 9/11?

Saddam allowed inspectors back into his country but not unconditionally. He did not allow them to freely inspect sites (e.g. palaces), he did not allow them to have un-monitored interviews with scientists in neutral areas. Iraq is approximately the size of California, hiding weapons from inspectors is not hard; especially since it is believed that Saddam has mobile weapond labs.

Most of the world has not made it clear that they are against the war. There is a vocal anti-war presence, but, you should remember, there is also a strong coalition that backs the war. "Most of the world" is an overstatement.

Can I ask you what it really comes down to as being more important - the people or Iraq wanting to be liberated, or the French against it because of their financial dealings? If you ask me, the cheering crowds of Iraqis greeting our soldiers, tearing down remnants of the oppressive regime, praising GWB far outweighs the opinions of "most of the world".

Nobody claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. I do not know where you are pulling that from. The line of thought is that Saddam Hussein supports terrorists and terrorist activities. He has WMD and there is cause for concern that these weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.

Originally posted by braintree
Whether it was justified or not is one thing. But saying we didn't start it is ridiculous. We absolutley did start it. If it wasn't for Bush and Blair pushing, pushing and pushing and then invading there would presently be no war.

The problem here is not other people's ignorance of the facts but your denial of them.

[braintree]

Two things in defense of Cecil:

1) He has regularly made fun of feminists and other grim guardians of left-wing orthodoxy which speaks well of his impartiality (see, especially, his disection of the-Superbowl-causes-rape theory).
2) Being against the war is not necessarilly a left-wing or liberal position. Case in point is the Cato Institute's objections to the war. Below is a link from which you can download an adobe document detailing why they think it's a stupid idea.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-464es.html

[thelark]

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
You seem to be under the impression the aint-war crowd is against this war because we ahvent heard on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times that the majority of amercains support the war (like they do in every war at the beginning). I dont know about the rest of the anti-war crowd but I oppose this war because it is going to destabilize the region and end up killing many more Americans, Iraqis, and whoever's targeted next week by cowboy-diplomacy. I think if your making decisons of whats right and wrong regarding matters as serious as war based on an opinion poll, then you should not be the one going around shaming others.

My impression is not that the anti-war crowd is basing their opinion on such. They had their minds made up before the war began.

Please explain how this will destabilize the region? By bringing a democratic government (or whatever the Iraqi people choose) to the region you do not think this will help? Why do you assume that there will be a next "target". You are making a lot of assumptions without facts. Please support your comments.

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by thelark
Saddam allowed inspectors back into his country but not unconditionally. He did not allow them to freely inspect sites (e.g. palaces), he did not allow them to have un-monitored interviews with scientists in neutral areas. Iraq is approximately the size of California, hiding weapons from inspectors is not hard; especially since it is believed that Saddam has mobile weapond labs.

The point is he let them back in and has done nothing to provoke the united states in years.

Originally posted by thelark

Most of the world has not made it clear that they are against the war. There is a vocal anti-war presence, but, you should remember, there is also a strong coalition that backs the war. "Most of the world" is an overstatement.

its always difficult to guage world opinion by polling countires, If only there was a recognozed body where all these nations could meet and discuss such issues. If only such a place existed Mr. Bush could have brought up his plans there and we'd really know where the world stood on this war.

Originally posted by thelark
[b]
Can I ask you what it really comes down to as being more important - the people or Iraq wanting to be liberated, or the French against it because of their financial dealings? B]

well thats a false dichotmoy if ever i heard one. maybe you could address the real arguments against the war.

Originally posted by thelark

Nobody claimed Saddam was behind 9/11.

except half the american public think's that according to recent polls, which you earlier used as justification for the war.

[thelark]

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
The point is he let them back in and has done nothing to provoke the united states in years.

Of course he let them in! Everything is hidden, he had complete control over them and his scientists and knew that, as a result, nothing would be found!

He provoked the US by not abiding to UN resolutions or the terms of the cease-fire agreement of the original Gulf War.

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
well thats a false dichotmoy if ever i heard one. maybe you could address the real arguments against the war.

The liberation of the Iraqi people is one of the main reasons for this war. How you could find fault or a problem with that is beyond my comprehension. As Americans, our freedoms are often taken for granted and, as we live our entire lives in freedom, we lose perspective of the suffering of others as a result of regimes such as Saddam Hussein's.

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
except half the american public think's that according to recent polls, which you earlier used as justification for the war.

Please provide the source for that.

[Mearl Dox]

Wow, look at all the newbies coming out of the woodwork. Hiya, folks on both sides!

I salute Cecil for proudly (and somewhat rudely) giving his view on things. If Cecil just recited facts, I'd never have enjoyed his column. I don't always agree with the man, but I respect him. And I won't stop respecting him because he stated his opinion. Heck, being ornery and blunt is his whole shtick!

[TheMemeWarrior]

you asked for it you got it
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/fea...oll/index.html

now if you would only be so kind as to show the incident where Saddam provoked the United states since George W. Bush took office that started this war?

[RitterSport]

Hello administrator? Shouldn't this be in Great Debates? Nobody is questioning the response to the question about GW Bush's continued draft dodging.

[braintree]

Dear Lark:

Clearly you are from La-La Land.

“Saddam allowed inspectors back into his country but not unconditionally. He did not allow them to freely inspect sites (e.g. palaces), he did not allow them to have un-monitored interviews with scientists in neutral areas. Iraq is approximately the size of California, hiding weapons from inspectors is not hard; especially since it is believed that Saddam has mobile weapond labs.”

The point is that Saddam made concessions. He tried to appease us. The fact that he didn’t do it as extensively as we wanted does not make it a provocation. HE BACKED DOWN. Not as much as we demanded but HE BACKED DOWN. In other words, he gave into some of our demands and then we attacked him anyway. We attacked him He did not attack us. We attacked him. Therefore, we started the war. Not him. In order for him to have started a war he would have had to attacked us. That’s how it works. If you attack somebody else or present an immediate — and remember, it has to be an IMMEDIATE — threat then it can be said that you started a war. No amount of hair-splitting is going to alter that. Most of your argument is irrelevant.


Most of the world has not made it clear that they are against the war. There is a vocal anti-war presence, but, you should remember, there is also a strong coalition that backs the war. "Most of the world" is an overstatement.

“’Most of the world” is an overstatement,” eh? That would mean that a majority of people support the war. I don’t suppose you feel in any way bound to prove that, do you? Most polls show that an overwhelming number of Europeans are against it, including Eastern Europeans.

And, by the way, your claim that there is a strong coalition is laughable especially when you compare it to what we had in 1991 and what we were shooting for in the USN. There’s us, the UK and 2,000 Australians. Spain, Bulgaria and all those other puny non-actual participants, are no reasonable person’s idea of a “strong” coalition. It’s precisely this ridiculous kind of talk that makes people think we’re talking like jerks.

“Can I ask you what it really comes down to as being more important - the people or Iraq wanting to be liberated, or the French against it because of their financial dealings? If you ask me, the cheering crowds of Iraqis greeting our soldiers, tearing down remnants of the oppressive regime, praising GWB far outweighs the opinions of ‘most of the world’.”

Relevancy? Look Junior, of course, I’m happy for the Iraqi people. But that has nothing to do with the fact that 1) We started this war, 2) most of the administration’s justifications are BS and 3) this war will do nothing to make us safer.

“Nobody claimed Saddam was behind 9/11. I do not know where you are pulling that from.”

Exactly where have you been? President Bush has repeatedly stated, “we must attack Iraq to prevent future 9/11s.” Thanks to this mendacity, 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks.

As far as Saddam handing over WMDs to terrorists, why would a meglamaniacal creep like Saddam hand over all the power implicit in his WMDs over to a bunch of guys he has no control over and who can only get him into trouble? If we’re going to attack Saddam over something we know he had no connection with then he knows we’ll definitely attack him on mere suspicion. Your unproven scenario is exaclty that.

[Bukk]

Just wondering. At what point did conservatives start to actually care about freedom, democracy, or human rights, except as words used cynically in electioneering, or as obfuscation for the misdeeds of scoundrels?

You know, just curious.

(Speaking of bringing freedom and democracy to a "liberated" country, bang up job in Afghanistan there. I bet lots of countries are dying to be liberated after seeing that. Who will be the next ones to die, I wonder -- Syria maybe, or Iran?)

[thelark]

Originally posted by TheMemeWarrior
you asked for it you got it
http://archive.salon.com/opinion/fea...oll/index.html

now if you would only be so kind as to show the incident where Saddam provoked the United states since George W. Bush took office that started this war?

The survey being quoted in your article did not ask the question "Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?", but rather: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?"

The results of the survey do show that the majority of Americans surveyed are uninformed or do not pay close enough attention to news coverage. It has NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. For you to therefore say that half the American public thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks is baseless. The survey did not mention the name "Saddam Hussein" to those surveyed.

If I, as an individual American, were to commit an atrocity, does that mean that GWB and the rest of the American public is behind it? No!

In regard to you asking me to show the incidend where Saddam provoked the US, I merely point to my previous posts; primarily, not abiding to the terms of the cease fire agreement of the original Gulf War, acquiring weapons of mass destruction and flaunting numerous UN resolutions. This is not to mention the oppression of his own people - something which will always provoke the US as a freedom-loving nation.

[TheMemeWarrior]

Originally posted by thelark
The survey being quoted in your article did not ask the question "Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?", but rather: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?"

True, but there are surveys which have said that i dont have the link for any of them at my command. It's logical to assume that if Iraqi's were piloting those planes on 9/11 everyone would assume Saddam was invlolved. I figured that would do since it proved my point just as well, a majority opinon means nothing.[quote]Originally posted by thelark
[b]

Originally posted by thelark

In regard to you asking me to show the incidend where Saddam provoked the US, I merely point to my previous posts; primarily, not abiding to the terms of the cease fire agreement of the original Gulf War, acquiring weapons of mass destruction and flaunting numerous UN resolutions. This is not to mention the oppression of his own people - something which will always provoke the US as a freedom-loving nation.

once again you avoid the argument. No one has said Saddam has never provoked America but he has not done so in this millenium. In the year 2000 the situation was stable, now were at war, either Saddam or GW has done something to change that. Please provide evidence that Saddam has provoked the united states in the last few years, not in 1998 not in 1991.

[braintree]

"The survey being quoted in your article did not ask the question 'Did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11?', but rather: 'To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?'"

OK Junior, but since Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship and since we were being told that "we must attack Iraq to prevent future September 11ths" because Saddam is supposedly behind terrorism doncha think you're splitting hairs, hm?

..."This is not to mention the oppression of his own people - something which will always provoke the US as a freedom-loving nation."

Sanctimonious, isn't he?

[Oy!]

About this celebration all over Iraq. I don't understand why no one has mentioned that these people have been trained (read terrorized) into cheering whoever is in power for well over 20 years.

The Iraqis may be happy to see Sadam gone and US troops in, then again they may not. The fact is, cheering crowds in a country where cheering the leader has been pretty darned close to mandatory (Remember, Hussein was re-elected with 100% of the vote? ) tell us essentially nothing about how the people feel one way or another. I imagine they're pretty much like us - different people have different opinions.

[thelark]

Originally posted by braintree
Dear Lark:

Clearly you are from La-La Land.

The point is that Saddam made concessions. He tried to appease us. The fact that he didn’t do it as extensively as we wanted does not make it a provocation. HE BACKED DOWN. Not as much as we demanded but HE BACKED DOWN. In other words, he gave into some of our demands and then we attacked him anyway. We attacked him He did not attack us. We attacked him. Therefore, we started the war. Not him. In order for him to have started a war he would have had to attacked us. That’s how it works. If you attack somebody else or present an immediate — and remember, it has to be an IMMEDIATE — threat then it can be said that you started a war. No amount of hair-splitting is going to alter that. Most of your argument is irrelevant.

He made concessions?? He backed down? NO! There is a cease-fire agreement, there are UN resolution that he agreed to. He did not back down, he did not submit to these agreements. He made the rest of the world concede to him!

Originally posted by braintree
“’Most of the world” is an overstatement,” eh? That would mean that a majority of people support the war. I don’t suppose you feel in any way bound to prove that, do you? Most polls show that an overwhelming number of Europeans are against it, including Eastern Europeans.

Europeans are pacifist after the decimation of their homeland by 2 World Wars. Why does Europe matter anyway? Iraq is a threat to the US, to Israel and to the rest of the Gulf region. Europe is primarily against the war due to financial reasons.

Originally posted by braintree
And, by the way, your claim that there is a strong coalition is laughable especially when you compare it to what we had in 1991 and what we were shooting for in the USN. There’s us, the UK and 2,000 Australians. Spain, Bulgaria and all those other puny non-actual participants, are no reasonable person’s idea of a “strong” coalition. It’s precisely this ridiculous kind of talk that makes people think we’re talking like jerks.

Yes, the visible coalition is smaller than it was in the original Gulf War, however there is support and that is a fact. Who, what, where, when is irrelevant.

Originally posted by braintree
Relevancy? Look Junior, of course, I’m happy for the Iraqi people. But that has nothing to do with the fact that 1) We started this war, 2) most of the administration’s justifications are BS and 3) this war will do nothing to make us safer. [/b]

1) Please see above (re: cease fire, etc.)
2) Explain, please.
3) This war will certainly make us safer. There is no doubt that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has no qualms of using such weapons and there is reason to believe that he would use the against the US. Maybe he does not have the technical ability to do so at this juncture in time; however he is on his way. Even if he did not use them on the US or could not acquire ICBMs with the capability to deliver such weapons here the rest of the Gulf nations (e.g. Kuwait, Israel) would be forced to submit to his whims.

Originally posted by braintree
Exactly where have you been? President Bush has repeatedly stated, “we must attack Iraq to prevent future 9/11s.” Thanks to this mendacity, 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks.

Yes, to prevent a future 9/11. That is not saying "Saddam Hussein caused 9/11", rather that Saddam Hussein and his regime harbor terrorists and promote terrorism. Please provide the source that 41% of Americans think Saddam was behind the attacks - the last person to argue that said over 50%, I'm glad to see that the percentage is dropping even as we debate.

Originally posted by braintree
As far as Saddam handing over WMDs to terrorists, why would a meglamaniacal creep like Saddam hand over all the power implicit in his WMDs over to a bunch of guys he has no control over and who can only get him into trouble? If we’re going to attack Saddam over something we know he had no connection with then he knows we’ll definitely attack him on mere suspicion. Your unproven scenario is exaclty that. [/b]

He would hand them over because he would want to inflict harm upon either the US or Israel. He would end up a martyr in the eyes of fanatics and would hence have achieved a certain immortality - certainly something to be desired by a "meglamaniacal creep".

It's fun to be in La-La Land.

[MisterJohnny]

Originally posted by AvhHines
About this celebration all over Iraq. I don't understand why no one has mentioned that these people have been trained (read terrorized) into cheering whoever is in power for well over 20 years.

The Iraqis may be happy to see Sadam gone and US troops in, then again they may not. The fact is, cheering crowds in a country where cheering the leader has been pretty darned close to mandatory (Remember, Hussein was re-elected with 100% of the vote? ) tell us essentially nothing about how the people feel one way or another. I imagine they're pretty much like us - different people have different opinions.

Have you read any of the statements by former "Human Shields" ? They admit that the Iraqis are happy to see americans, and that was before the fall. Try this link:
http://www.dadi.org/naivfool.htm