Do you think that’s because the media is mischaracterizing the conflict, or because he believed what the papers told him when he planned this war?
The only way the war can turn out well is if we all wake up and discover that it was all a dream.
I feel we had no right to attack Iraq in the first place without a UN mandate.
I posted this link in GD, but it’s appropriate here as well. It seems that other people are a bit worried by this thought. Germany’s President Rau Criticizes Bush’s Religious Fervor
I still haven’t forgiven him for the illegal bombing of Cambodia and the Iran-Contra scandal.
And don’t even get me started on the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand and the burning of the Library at Alexandria.
He’s a monster I tell you, a monster.
Uh, no. My son is in daycare right now.
My husband, on the other hand, is currently somewhere in the Mid-East, where his unit makes daily flights over Iraq. I had an anxiety attack this morning when I heard that a couple US aircraft were shot down. It shouldn’t take a genius to figure out why.
That said, yes, I am against the war. I think that something needed to be done, but this ain’t the way to go about it. I’m not a policy expert, nor am I a military strategist, so I’ll leave the arguing up to them.
However, there is a distinction between being against the war and supporting the troops. Being against one does not mean you have to be against the other. As long as you think about your position, then great. What we’re against (and forgive me if I say this wrong) is knee-jerk positions and lack of thought.
Robin
Because the military aspect of this conflict has been going on less then 2 weeks, and we know very little. especially what will happen next or when it will end. Some people realize this and get annoyed everytime some reporter drone asks that stupid question and expects to hear “it will end on June 18th at 4:37 am”
That was basically my point Robin. Fine if you are against the war, give logical reasons supported by facts rather than just attacking the administration or using speculation, psychic or otherwise to discern their motives.
Is it also too much to ask that if you oppose an action you give a reasonable and coherent alternative action to the situation.
Two points:
-
We were presented with two possible courses of action, either war or no war. War, no matter how many “smart bombs” are used kills American soldiers and foreign soldiers and civilians. In addition, many believe that it increases the chances of more 9/11s. The onus on the administration that is pushing the war to demonstrate that it is necessary. Those opposing the action need only ask for justification.
-
In order to offer a solution, a problem must actually be put forward to solve. No one has explained why we are there. First it is WMD, but whoops, we can’t find any. Next it is regime change, but whoops, there is a little thing called international law that makes that inconvenient. Oh wait, that’s right, there is a tie between Al-Queda and Iraq. THere is no fucking evidence whatsoever and Saddam and Osama are mortal enemies, but really, we mean it and you should just trust our plagiarized “intelligence”. Oh, but then it is to save the poor Iraqi people because all of a sudden neo-cons give a shit about anyone other than themselves. Each of these items has a potential solution, and war is the proper answer to exactly none of them.
Oh, I have two cousins serving in the war, does that allow me to say anything, or am I screwed because my son is only 2?
Disclaimer: The opinons expressed in this post are the opinion of the poster and do not represent retarded, limp-wristed, weiner-wranglers in any way.
I’ve already apologized for my tirade. It was not meant as an indictment of gays, but was a stab at the artsy-fartsy, self absorbed types that spew forth the latest fashionable statements of the left wing elite.
Question: do people think the Pope is a meglomaniac because he thinks he has been called by God?
I certainly think that both Bush and the Pope are guilty of the same thing: they don’t believe, or maybe don’t understand, the liberal science game of truth. They are both fundamentalists in the sense that they think truth is determined by central authority (which, at times, appears to be themselves), after which criticism is just an annoyance, not requiring a serious response.
I’m not sure, however, that’s a form of meglomania. It’s just a very different attitude towards knowledge than I’m used to, and that the culture of this board respects.
Obviously it is simplified, but that simplification was done by the people pushing the war, not the other side. And you have simplified it further. “No war” does not presuppose lack of action, it simply says some other action is needed. You have already stated that you are not open to “negotiation” as a possible solution, which I would take you mean any and all diplomacy, as that is what diplomay is. If you take diplomacy out of the equation, then you are pretty much left with the choice of war or not war. Don’t fucking blame me for winnowing down the options.
I am well aware that it is conjecture about increased/decreased chances of terrorism, that is why I phrased it the way I did. For your second point, it was the UN that negotiated the cease fire and it is their responsibility to determine compliance. Blix expressed that while Iraq was not in full compliance, that they were making a good faith effort recently and expressed confidence that inspection would work. And last, please tell me what the holy fuck those against the war have asked for outside of an explanation and justification backed by facts and evidence? Who are you considering as “against the action”. You assume the anti-war movement to be homogenouos in its makeup and goals, which it is most emphatically not. What you will find that all share in common is a desire for justification and actual debate.
What the hell does that mean? Cake? Is that an answer to the argument offered? You are asking for a fucking solution. I am fucking telling you that it is impossible to give a solution to the problem when the people choosing to go to war keep moving the goddamn target. If you want fucking “solutions” from “anyone espousing anti-war/GWB sentiments yet on this board” then put forth a fucking problem to solve! Pick any of the numerous reasons given for the war, and I will give plenty of links where people have posited possible solutions.
What CTK said, but I’m going to add this.
So far, Bush’s obsession with Saddam’s alleged WMD is exactly like a parent who swears that his kid is on drugs. So, he searches his kid’s room, finds nothing, then confronts the kid anyway, over something that doesn’t exist. A fight ensues, and family life is disrupted.
Now, it’s entirely possible that Saddam has very well-hidden WMD. But since the US and the UN have found no evidence of WMD this entire time, I’m inclined to think that the WMD don’t exist.
And if it’s not there, no amount of wishing, hoping and praying will make them materialize. It doesn’t work that way.
Robin
Where did that come from, Apos?
In my post, I was referring to the German President, who happened to agree with a particular thing that the Pope said, which was “Whoever decides that all peaceful means available under international law are exhausted assumes a grave responsibility before God, his own conscience and history”.
And anyway, it’s not exactly appropriate to equate the leader of a particular religion with the POTUS when claiming religious inspiration.
—Where did that come from, Apos?—
This might come as a shock, but … everything isn’t always about YOU, Desmo. 
—And anyway, it’s not exactly appropriate to equate the leader of a particular religion with the POTUS when claiming religious inspiration.—
Why not? I don’t see how either one is necessarily any more likely to be the legitimate source of a calling from God, so why should it be any different even if they are imagining it?
Aw, heck, hijack the thread to Pluto, Apos.
I’m not sure whether you’re saying that any mention of God is a calling from God is suspicious no matter where or from whom it comes. I’d agree with that, especially if some secular objective was evident.
Crap.
…any mention of a calling from God…
Ya know, I’m getting real tired of that phrase “liberal elite.”
Number one, it’s not accurate, and it makes me think that those who use the term are slamming egg-heads. I guess I’ll never understand why there is such an anti-intellectual theme running through this country’s culture.
Number two, the phrase “liberal elites” belongs in civilized debates about as much as “reactionary rednecks” belongs in civilized debates when used to characterizing conservatives.
Ditto on “artsy-fartsy” and “self-absorbed” when describing liberals.
Stop the name-calling, in other words, O.K.?
My short answer because I don’t have time to address each point.
Saddam at the very least had WMD. He’s used them before, on his own people and on the Iranians. He’s had years to stockpile and hide these, possibly somewhere they’d never be found while no UN inspectors were there. So negotiation didn’t work for twelve years. What makes anyone think it would work now? Even if you could negotiate some sort of settlement how do you know he would give up everything he has? He’s a known liar and murderer. What would it take for you to say he must be removed from power? Let’s face it, he isn’t going to just step down from world pressure. That is already obvious from his actions. Do we wait until he gasses some people, whether his own or in another county? Do we wait until he sells some of this stuff to some terrorists and they use it against us? How many lives are you willing to sacrifice before you say enough is enough? To say he hasn’t hurt us or poses no threat to us or the world is going against every indication that SD has shown previously.
So how would you suggest we go about finding out what happened to all those WMD SD had? What he’s been doing over there for all these years that no one was watching, and how do you ensure that he’d never be able to supply terrorist with either WMD directly or with the knowledge and/or capability to do so themselves?
Geez, Spiff, I already apolologized, OK?
Secondly, I don’t have a problem with “reactionary redneck” in refering to some of the conservatives. I live in “good ole boy” country, even though I am not one.
But while we’re at it I’m really tired of GWB stole the election, or some other derivative of that theme.
skankweirdall,
Honestly, if you do not “have time to address each point” then there really is no point in you posting, is there? If you do even the smallest amount of research on the past discussions on this board, you will find all of the standard arguments regarding the current war, inspections, and yes, even the 2000 election. I see that you just registered in March of this year, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you perhaps jumped the gun in attacking each individual that is against the war on this board before even bothering to find out what people have said before. I would suggest you do so, as there are people on both sides of the political spectrum and some in the middle that have interesting things to say and good points to make, and “back it up” just as you are asking for. I would suggest getting out of “the pit” and into Great Debates to find what you claim you are looking for. For my part, this is the end of this regrettable hijack with my apologies to the poster of the OP for my part in it.