That’s fine Phlosphr, I’d still have said it even if I was looking you in the eye. I’d even admit to not being the most informed person in America with regard to the Iraq situation, but what I have read and heard doesn’t instill much confidence.
So far the administration hasn’t said anything that makes me think an attack on Iraq is justified currently, and plenty to suggest they’re just fishing for justification. Was it yesterday that Rumsfeld said that the reason why UN inspectors haven’t found anything could be proof that Iraq is being uncooperative? Okay, sure it could be, but it could also mean there’s nothing to find. Right? Hmmm? Or have they already ruled that out?
No, I do not call that an attack nor would anyone else who speaks English. Iraq attacked Kuwait, not the United States. It was the United States who then attacked Iraq and Iraq was defending itself from a US attack. Iraq did not attack the US any more than you could be said to be attacking a man when he attacked you and you are defending yourself. To say Iraq attacked the US is ridiculous. Their wish would have been that the USA would have not intervened and they would not have to defend themselves.
I forget who said it.
The circumstances are now very different. Iraq has not invaded any other country.
Well I vascillate on my opinion on this one. I hardly think that the is anything wrong with anti-war protests REGARDLESS of how justified the war may be. A healthy dialogue is always important. However I am not sure if I am for or against a war in Iraq, though I lean toward the ‘against’ side.
However I have a couple problems with what you have said. a) Yeah this is correct. b) the evidence is not so much his possession of WMD, but more his lack of compliance.
As far as North Korea goes, I think that consistency is foreign policy is one of the worst mistakes one can make. They are different countries, different politics and different situations. North Korea would storm across the DMZ and raze Seoul. Not to mention we believe that they might actually ALREADY have nuclear weapons. This makes the stakes with North Korea higher, and makes it much more logical that we go the diplomatic route, especially considering our diplomatic route in this case is more of a concession to South Korea, Japan and China than it is to North Korea. In otherwords I think consistency is a REALLY bad idea. Which seems to be North Korea’s strategy in developing nukes.
I’d need a cite on this.
I don’t think that this will happen, because I don’t think that support for Saddam is strong enough to cause a resistance to the level of the VietCong. Not to mention the lack of jungle fighting. Iraq’s military is in hopeless disrepair. And without the guerilla fanatics in Vietnam there won’t be the same level of resistance. IMO.
This article outlines what the author believes to be the US strategy in Iraq, I have seen this sort of idea bandied about, and I think it’s very logical. It also outlines very well, why I think that we shouldn’t go to war with Iraq.
More or less, I think that the destabilization of the world’s oil production caused by this, while benefitting the United States, will not benefit the world as a whole. I think that we NEED Russia to have more economic strength and can be a force for stability in the region. I think that a price war between OPEC states will be detrimental because it will cause more instability and increase the amount of disillusioned within these nations, and more specifically, their governments will be more sympathetic to the fundamentalists, and less toward us. In otherwords we should be promoting stability in the region even if it lessens the amount of direct control we can excercise over world oil markets.
I think that’s not completely correct. We had the military might to win in Vietnam. We simply didn’t use it.
While I have no interest in placing blame, I think it’s an accurate observation that in this, the first televised war, public perception played a large part, and led to political interference in military matters.
Had the public been more supportive, things might have gone differently. I don’t blame the protesters for this (other than Hanoi Jane,) but rather our leaders. If our leaders are going to prosecute an unpopular war they still owe it to the soldiers fighting and the country itself to fight that war to win, rather than let the unpopularity lead to half measures.
And what would you call the scud attacks on Israel? They were never in the coalition, never helped and did not even retaliate. How would shooting scuds at Israel be construed as defending itself?
No, America was not attacked, but America’s interests was threatened. Saddam was not content with kuwait. Their military was poised to keep right on going to Saudi Arabia had not the US intervened. Why do you think the Sauds agreed to “infidels” on Holy land? It was in the interest of America and the rest of the world that Saddam not be allowed to control 75% of the worlds oil. Given what he did to Kuwaiti oil feilds when he retreated, its a good thing Iraq was stopped before expanding out of Kuwait.
When discussing the possibility of a war with Iraq why not stick to Hussein and Iraq? What does a hypothetical suicide bomber add to the argument? You postulate a contrived scenario of imminent peril which I don’t see in the Hussein case.
Hussein has violated the UN requirements agreed to after the Gulf War. The UN is taking action to correct that. Those actions apparently don’t satisfy you. I haven’t yet seen any evidence that the threat is so immedieate as to require a rush to war without allowing any public discussion as to that need and active protests if leadership is thought to be unresponsive.
If the public is, as you imply, not fully informed the correction is to inform us. Telling us to sit down, shut up and “trust us” isn’t the way this nation is supposed to work. After all, by the principles to which everyone gives at least lip service, GW, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, et al are supposed to be serving us.
That’s all fine and well. The point is that America was not attacked and there is simply no risk that Iraq will attack America “again”. So, why don’t we wait until they attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia before attacking them? Chances are that Saddam has learnt the lesson the first time around and would not attack anybody knowing the US would come to their aid.
As I have said, I am not entirely pro or con. If the international community and the UN decide attacking is the only way to resolve this issue, then fine. But it is not good for the US to attack unilaterally.
Oh, and I am sure you have plenty of evidence showing Iraq intended to invade Saudi Arabia.
I regard anti-war protestors the way i regard anti-nuke power protestors of the 60s and 70s. They had a purpose which is to keep the powers-that-be honest. But we cannot give the protestor so much credance and power that it hampers the ability for the powers-that-be to do their jobs effectively. Case in point, we havent built a nuclear reactor in decades and its time for us to dismantle some of our older ones … in the middle of a power shortage. Shortsightedness courtesy of flower power.
I trust the bush administration to do the right thing, whether it be war or diplomatic resolution. However, Bush should be held accountable for his decisions and he had better have a damn good reason explained to the public should he decide on going to war alone. and he had better win.
I am under the assumption that I do not have all the facts. Bush does and I trust he knows what he’s doing. Those that dont trust him can continue to keep him honest but dont have to get in his way. Explaining how Bush got information from the enemy while that same enemy is listening isnt a good way to conduct a war. Questioning the commander and chief at a time of war isnt a good way either.
No, I am not espousing censorship and probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘protections’ since that implies Constitutional ones. Merely wondering why bother espousing the view that all of this UN business is just a pretext and “Iraq is no threat to the US”, when there is plenty of evidence that says SH is a threat to a lot of people, maybe not one that can reach NY or Chicago w/missiles but still a threat. If you want to insist certain things are lies here, :::shrugs:::, but there’s not much debate in that either. It implies that our leader is just as evil as SH is, nothing else would explain the actions - then of course you’re going to protest the actions.
If we don’t produce evidence, does that prove it’s another “lie?”
Blown and Injected, your idea of when freedom of speech becomes inappropriate is chilling. Why don’t you value the First Ammendment? It seems very unAmerican not to. I thought you supported our country! Apparently you do NOT support the Bill of Rights. Do you just see the United States as borders on a map and a rah-rah attitude? Or is it the principles and the people who hold to those principles?
Beagle said:
Do you think that the government has accomplished what it set out to do to Osama bin Laden?
Ah, would you care to justify your assertion that the fact that we haven’t built nuclear power plants recently has anything to do with protesters. I believe it has to do with something called “economics”. Now, you can argue that in a nation with less subsidy for fossil fuels (e.g., as exists in France), there would be better economic incentives to build nuclear power plants. But, I don’t believe fossil fuel subsidies came out of “flower power.”
I kind of love it when conservatives attribute such power to liberal protest movements (at the same time as other conservatives in this thread are saying protest is futile)…Whatever!
Oh, I see, on September 12th, 2001 we as Americans were supposed to just say, “Well, let’s give up this silly democracy thing for the sake of national unity. Just let us know when this ill-defined war is over so we can get back to having a democracy again.”
By the way, it would help me trust Bush and company a little more if he lied with a little less regularity. For example, I may not know if he is lying about what intelligence he has on Iraq but I know for a fact that he is lying and deceiving on his tax cut plans, so why should I believe that he is not going to lie on things where it is even harder for us to know whether or not he is lying or not?
I’m not comparing Dubya to Clinton, and I am not saying Clinton didn’t have his problems. But I am amused to see you employ once again the knee-jerk mark of antagonistic ignorance. You may not have realized, but all you are doing is regaling us with quite risible nonsense.
What’s “hopeless” here is the attitude you bring to a forum for debate. You are clearly not here to debate or demonstrate your assertions, but simply to make rather foolish proclamations that run counter to reality, which you try to support with mockery once posters such as Tom shred them apart. If you hope to persuade legions of readers to your little political fantasy world using such an approach, you have a painful uphill struggle ahead of you. If you just want to convince everyone that you do not know what you are talking about, you have accomplished your objective a number of times over. In fact, you accomplished that objective way back with your OP. Now stop posting rubbish.
I ask you to think twice about calling me a liar, Brutus. Especially in light of the last thread you and I were involved in.
And what did I say if not exactly that? Here are my words: “The struggle against terrorists will take years and is bound to be a painful, complex, and secretive affair that will yield “only” safety.”
In fact I will refer you to the rest of that post you thought was a “nasty lie”. Note also the often public progress made by many countries around the world in the war on terrorism; with other nations producing visible results, the US is by no means alone in this struggle–in fact, I would say the US is no longer on the front line of the war against terror. What’s happened with Dubya is that he has laboured hard to shift the focus of American concern from legitimate targets in the war on terrorism (as I said earlier, al Qaeda, etc.) to illegitimate targets (Iraq, who hasn’t been a serious threat to any nation in over a decade and who actually opposes al Qaeda and similar fundamentalist efforts).
Do you have a valid explanation why Bush would employ so many questionable tactics (including, as others have mentioned, lying) to defocus the war on terror until it’s blurry enough that a nation not involved in terrorism becomes “the enemy”? That’s not shadow warfare, it’s covenient warfare.
If all people thought like you, we’d still be saluting the British flag, women would be unable to vote, and blacks would be drinking from seperate water fountains.
Like it or not, protest is what made this country the place it is today.
I’m beginning to agree. Your circular “logic” and determined disgust for the freedom to protest makes it so.
Just shows that you are not capable of thinking about anything other than your own feelings. I would be one of the first to take up arms. - shows what you know about me - but this is not about you and me - get over it!
It took more than protests to free this country from the British, it took war. War was a last resort to the wrongs. Do you believe Saddam is not wrong to fail to comply with the UN resolutions?
Don’t you get it!?! There is a time and place for everything!
You should have been protesting the UN resolutions before this started. Now the people we sent to the ME need our united support
