anyone else feel like I do about the war?

I decided to post this here just because it seems almost impossible to discuss the war without getting into a debate. If it belongs somewhere else please excuse me.
Does anyone else not know if we should go to war, or not care if we do?

I really don’t feel I know all of the facts. I also do not think it is possable to know all of the facts because one, or both, side(s) is/are not telling the truth.

I really don’t feel I will end up fighting if we go to war.

I can agree with issues on both sides of the fence.

Therefore, I do not care what happens.

I also don’t vote, and I was born in 1976 (just incase age has anything to do with it).

Just wondering who else is like me…

Uncertainty is justifiable. Indifference to suffering is not.

Whether war will cause more suffering than it prevents is uncertain.

You don’t care what happens, and you don’t vote? Why would you want anyone to agree with that?

I’m guessing horhay mispoke by saying he “doesn’t care” but rather means he doesn’t have strong feelings either way. Somewhat understandable as this is a very morally ambiguous situation.

My own thoughts are that Saddam Hussein has clearly violoated the terms of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War, and therefore we are justified in attacking him. However, I don’t think it is in the best long term interests of the US to do so.

I can imagine that the Iraqi people will be better off even under the worst US led administration there than they are now under Saddam. But I don’t think that is worth having US soldiers killed as well as Iraqi civilians plus the increased risk of terrorism in the US which, I believe, will result from a US led invasion. I know the NK situation is different, but I think it is more like for terrorists to get weapons from NK than from Iraq.

But I also don’t think Bush is some evil guy just waiting to wage war to make his oil buddies rich. There is so much anti-US rhetoric in the anti-war movement that I cannot put myself in their camp.

Perfectly understandable, my good man. You are straddling the fence and cant decide which side to go to so now you want to form a fence straddling group. Everyone wants to belong.

I am not one. We should go to war. Get this over with before it gets worse. It will only get worse the longer we wait. 12 years is enuf to put up with this nonsense.

You are not alone. There hasnt been much facts that has been released. No one other than Bush and Saddam knows all the facts and Saddam chooses to ignore some of the facts like the fact that we can totally kick his ass with or without UN support.

There is no draft. Youre 27. They wouldnt draft you even if there were a draft. Too old. So if you dont volunteer, you wont fight.

You will be affected by this war. There will be a war. If not now then definitely later. Aside from instability in the region, gas prices will fluctuate, economy will stagnate due to uncertainty, terror strikes will get bolder and nastier, and France will never shut up about this if they get their way.

It depends on age, civic responsibility and citizenship.

there were miilions of people just like you. Its not a bad place to be when you dont know all the facts. Dont let the fence crease your butt, because one day you will have to pick a side and defend it.

I’m on the fence with ya. I’m leaning towards war, just cause it’s pretty clear that Saddam is a pretty evil guy. But then I get this “now or never” ultimatum from Dubya, and I think: Well, gee…I guess I’ll have to say never then. Mainly because I do see some merit in arms inspections. I watched Powell’s address a couple weeks back, hoping I could be convinced that we should go in yesterday. I saw nothing that kicked me off this fence. So here I sit. With a crease in my ass. Waiting.

I’m glad I have some company.

I agree with the OP to the extent that I know that I don’t have all the information to make a choice on whether the US should “go to war” or not. (I put “go to war” in quotes because any war would seem to me to be a continuation of an ongoing situation, so we wouldn’t be “going” so much as “continuing.”)

My ideal version of the U.S. federal government is one that does very little except for protect us from baddies of all stripe, whether domestic or foreign, so I’m willing to sit back and give the government room to carry out that mandate.

I’m not really sitting on the fence. I’m against the war simply because I haven’t heard a compelling reason for it. I would feel better about the war if we had more international support.

Acutally, Id be creating a big ol creasemark on my butt myself were it not for the inane reasons some anti-war proponents use to support their stand for peace.

The biggest one would be “I cant stand war no matter what…”

these people need to be anti-terrorist human shields…

Then theres the all time favorite, “Saddam isnt a bad guy once you get to know and understand him…”

puh-lease!

What about, “Iraq hasnt attacked America…”

So are we waiting for a few thousand to die first? Any of these anti-war protestors wanna be first in line for that?

I heavent heard this since last week, “Its all about the Oil!”

Yeah, pardner. My regular is 2 bucks a gallon. Lord knows what the Italians and other Europeans are paying. When this gets to 5 bucks a pop, we’ll see if this rhetoric has any legs to stand on.

Down to basics, “Bush is an idiot.”

who is the bigger idiot, the leader of the most powerful country in the world or the leader challenging the most powerful country in the world. Biggest idiot should start listening to the UN.

This fascintates me. Are yo aware that there are over 40 countries who have voiced their support for this war?

Yup X~Slayer “the biggest idiot should start listening to the UN” - and that IMHO would be Dubya and various US administrations for the last oh lets say 40 years.

The list of UN resolutions the US has treated with contempt are simply too numerous and well know to list in detail here - do a search on Chomsky and drill down - he is pretty good at details cites.

I’m against the war so NO I cannot share the OP’s fence sitting position. There is a legal reason - it’s simply illegal under UN rules that the US subscribe to without a specific mandate - the idea of a legal pre-emptive strike is simply an UL.

Next on a personal moral basis I believe it is wrong. I am no peace-monger - for instance I supported the UK action over the Falklands - but do not see any threat from Iraq to the world generally or even the region if he is kept in his box by inspection regimes etc. There is even less case for trying to link Iraq with O-bin-L or international terrorism on the evidence I have seen.

And it is a disgrace for the US/UK to threaten to go to war
unilaterally if the UN do not give them the go ahead - talk about a gun to the head. I could go on but mustn’t leave myself accused of ranting…

posted by newcrasher

actually, no. Which countries? I don’t mean that as an asshole. I’m really curious.

I’ll also specify a bit. I would feel better with full U.N. support. At least then Bush wouldn’t seem like as much of a war mongering cowboy.

I’m in the opposite position: Both sides are wrong.

Er,…if I give Bush 2 or 3 points would you settle for a tie?

Therein lies the problem. For 12 years since the end of the Gulf War he has not been kept in his box by inspections. The UN has failed to follow up on it’s commitment to see Iraq disarmed and now we have to make a judgement call.

Do we trust that Saddam doesn’t have any weapons simply because the inspectors haven’t found them, or is the fact that Iraq can’t adequately document the alleged destruction of their weapons enough justification to take action?

I would certainly hate to take the former course and find out he’s developed a WoMD secretly and then have to deal with his blackmail. We currently have that situation going on in North Korea and I’d rather not see it arise in Iraq as well .

I personally do not believe any amount of inspections by the U.N. can contain him completely and that nothing short of physical force will eliminate the threat he poses.

notquitekarpov:

“Yup X~Slayer “the biggest idiot should start listening to the UN” - and that IMHO would be Dubya and various US administrations for the last oh lets say 40 years.”

“I’m against the war so NO I cannot share the OP’s fence sitting position. There is a legal reason - it’s simply illegal under UN rules that the US subscribe to without a specific mandate - the idea of a legal pre-emptive strike is simply an UL.”
I’ll guess at the last acronymn, just for the fun of it, and say that it must stand for an Unruffled Lethality. The United Nations is in no position to make laws. We may seek the approval of other nations for political reasons, but there is no ‘law’ that would make unilateral action ‘illegal.’ Unless, of course, one would like the U.S. to be ruled by the ‘laws’ handed down by the United Nations. It makes for compelling rhetoric, but saying that something is, “simply illegal under UN rules,” has all the force of saying that wearing a short skirt is simply illegal under Parochial School rules. This is hardly a legal argument, then, but a biased and emotional one.

“Next on a personal moral basis I believe it is wrong. I am no peace-monger - for instance I supported the UK action over the Falklands - but do not see any threat from Iraq to the world generally or even the region if he is kept in his box by inspection regimes etc. There is even less case for trying to link Iraq with O-bin-L or international terrorism on the evidence I have seen.”

Which might be seen to argue that the U.K. action in the Malvinas was justified in the interest of the world, in general, where Iraq is less of a threat than Argentina was at the time. Certainly Argentina has always been a threat to world peace, we all clearly understand, and those little islands down there at the southern tip of South America were vital interests to the civilized world. Any thinking person would have supported steaming half a navy across half the world to reclaim the Malvinas as a hands down more compelling action than going to war with a nation that has already attacked nearly all of their neighbors. It goes without saying that there is no compelling evidence against Iraq, what with the Argentinian threat all around us.

“And it is a disgrace for the US/UK to threaten to go to war
unilaterally if the UN do not give them the go ahead - talk about a gun to the head. I could go on but mustn’t leave myself accused of ranting…”

Indeed. It was, if I recall, the United Nations that gave the U.K. the legal sanction and full approval of all nations to go down and teach Argentina a lesson they’ll never forget . . .
Gairloch
Try, try . . . No. Think, think.

“Anyone that opposes us, we’ll crush. As a matter of fact anybody that doesn’t support us we’ll crush…” (Attrib Tex Colson, Nixon campaign aide) – (Or, paraphrased, Attrib. to Saddam. You decide.)

notquitekarpov:

“Yup X~Slayer “the biggest idiot should start listening to the UN” - and that IMHO would be Dubya and various US administrations for the last oh lets say 40 years.”


Excuse a dumb question. I am a novitiate to these boards. What does the acronym IMHO in the above comment refer to? Is it some code peculiar to these boards or is it something made up by the person making the comment?

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

Thanks. Trust me there will be more to come.

I would like to see the list. Please.

A few have offered “support” after some tremendous arm twisting by the USA. Others have governments which have offered support in spite of a huge opposition from their own peoples. Spain is an example of a country where the prime minister is offering unconditional support and even members of his cabinet are beginning to split saying this is going to cost the government the next general election. The Spanish people are overwhemingly against the war. Turkey still has many doubts and is asking for huge amounts of money. They are not enthusiastic supporters as much as bought mercenaries. This time around there is simply not the support there was the first time around.

If you show us the list we can discuss the countries one by one and see which countries are wholly with the USA on this. I can’t think of a single one. Even in the UK there is a huge popular opposition.