No, I mean in the same sense as every President, under the Constitution, has been elected over the last 216 years.
Is this a match to see who gets to put the most f-word in a post? D’oh!
What do you anti-war people think keeps our country safe everyday? Let me give you a hint…it’s not the Politically Correct Diplomacy Bullshit that you think is going to solve this current problem. Here most of you take for granted what got you your freedom in the first place. Let me give you another hint…it wasn’t anything Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, or Danny Glover can take credit for. What you people forget is that evil cares little about your Security Councils and NATO agreements. Only to the extent it can use it. This isn’t a game people. Wake up! We tried your diplomacy for 8 years with President Clinton, and what did it get us? What more has to happen before you people decide that some times, it does take force. The difference I see right now between those for and those against the war has to do with resolve. Sometimes you have to communicate in a language your audience will understand.
'Harry
P.S. It’s funny how you so-called “peace lovers” express so much anger and hate towards others.
spinzone, in the case of military aggression by another country, our country is kept safe by the knowledge that other countries have nothing to fear from us unless they attack us first, at which point they will face massive retaliation. In the case of terrorism, I think our country is kept safe by having foreign policy which consistently promotes a code of justice and impartial international law and which minimizes harm to innocent people, to minimize the number of people who hate us so much that they will die to hurt us.
Bush’s proposed war is antithetical to both of these ideas, even if you try to simplify it by labeling Saddam as absolute evil personified. This war will devastate Iraq’s civilians, trash our international reputation, and strengthen terrorism against the U.S. by orders of magnitude. We have more tools at our disposal than “do nothing” and “demand immediate war exactly on our terms no matter what the cost”.
P.S. It’s funny how you so-called “war lovers” only seem capable of regurgitating emotionally-charged propaganda. It probably comes from having so much resolve.
This is isolationism, pure and simple. Sixty-five years ago, isolationism was mostly right-wing. Today it has become more left-wing.
Giraffe, your statement is true as far as it goes, but what about our allies, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Suppose Saddam acquires a nuclear arsenal and then sends his troops to take over Kuwait, as he did in 1991. Will we intervene, knowing that there’s a risk that Saddam will attack the US with his nukes? That’s a decision I do not want to face.
december, there is a different between not being unnecessarily aggressive and being isolationist. One troubling consequence of this war is that it is the first time we will have invaded a country without any immediate threat, but only a suspected future threat. Sets a very significant and dangerous precident.
Regarding your second question, several points:
-
Most other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, do not want this war. Since they are the ones who are most likely in immediate danger from Saddam’s weapons, this should tell you something. Some countries in the region will support us, because losing our support, especially economic support, is even worse than the likely consequences of the war, but any government friendly to the U.S. is going to face a very angry populace after we invade, and could potentially be overthrown.
-
Saddam does not have nuclear weapons. Weapons grade nuclear material is very difficult to obtain. Just because we have evidence of his desire to have some doesn’t have anything to do with his ability to get some. There’s not a nation on this planet that wouldn’t feel more secure with a nuclear arsenal – deterance is very powerful. But desire for nukes is not evidence for having nukes.
-
Even if Saddam had a functioning nuclear device, it is another complete technological leap to develop a functioning ICBM. Long-range missles are incredibly complex, and have to be tested. You can’t hide an ICBM program, and the odds of developing a working one on the first try are slim.
-
Any country that launches an ICBM at the U.S. will become a smoking hole in the ground about an hour later. This is an important point that should not be ignored. The Soviet Union was far more dangerous in their ability and desire to strike us than Iraq, and it was this fact that kept the peace for decades.
Again I ask, what do we gain by rushing to war in this fashion? There is no immediate threat.
I guess it depends on how you define “invaded” or “first” or “is”.[ul][li]Clinton bombed the former Yogoslavia despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We invaded Panama despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We invaded Grenada despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We had military people fighting the Contras in Nicaragua despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We fought the Spanish-American war despite no immediate threat to the US.[/ul][/li][quote]
- Most other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, do not want this war.
[/quote]
I don’t know if that’s so. Most of these countries are supporting the US.
This is a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. You seem to be admitting that most of these countries support us in the war agaisnt Iraq, but arguing that their support doesn’t count.
How do you know just how close Saddam is to acquiring nukes? Nobody knows this.
Saddam has more than a desire. He has been working actively to get nuclear weapons for decades. If not for the Israeli attack of 20 years ago, he would have had them long ago. In 1991, we discovered that he was farther along to acquiring nukes than we had thought.
Saddam has missiles with a range of 140 miles right now. Nukes could be launched at a coastal US city from a ship. Even without missiles, a nuclear weapon could be smuggled into the US and detonated.
Saddam has already demonstrated a pattern of reckless behavior. E.g., he tried to assassinate George Bush Sr., even though success would likely have led to the US destroying his government and killing him.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**I guess it depends on how you define “invaded” or “first” or “is”.[ul][li]Clinton bombed the former Yogoslavia despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We invaded Panama despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We invaded Grenada despite no immediate threat to the US.[]We had military people fighting the Contras in Nicaragua despite no immediate threat to the US.We fought the Spanish-American war despite no immediate threat to the US.[/ul]**[/li][/quote]
Fair enough – my statement should have had a “this century” somewhere in the middle. I also agree with you about Panama, but because the scale was so much smaller, it didn’t have the same international fallout that this will have. I don’t think Grenada or Yugoslavia are really relevant, and I’m really curious how you think Reagan’s illegal war in Nicaragua legitimizes anything.
Regardless, how do these examples change my conclusions? Are you arguing that invading countries based only on possible future threats is good foreign policy?
**
You’re playing semantic games. Most, if not all, countries in the region have stated that they do not want a war. However, some of them will voice support for the U.S. if we do go to war because they depend on our aid. This doesn’t mean they think war is a good idea, it means that speaking out against it would hurt them more than not speaking out.
Note that none of them are providing a single dollar or soldier, which to me means a lot more than their willingness to say they support us.
**
Working actively is not the same as working successfully. To make a nuclear bomb, he would either have to somehow make a hidden nuclear reactor, which I don’t think is even possible, or get one of the nuclear powers to give him weapons grade material. Not likely. If he were to start building a nuclear reactor, it would be blown up again, either by us or the Israelis.
As for the rest of your “Saddam is crazy, he’ll do anything” comments, that’s not a sound basis for rushing to war. There’s no evidence that he has nuclear material, or that he’s planning an attack of any kind against the U.S.
We can’t eliminate every possible danger in the world. We can only work to minimize them. This war will not minimize our danger, but in fact increase it.
Yes, in certain cases. I think it was good policy in Grenada, although that was minor. I’m quite sure it would have been good policy with Germany during the 1930’s. And, I think it’s good policy with Iraq today.
BTW, one can view Iraq not as a preventive war by the US, but as a continuation of a war begun 12 years ago by Iraq. The reason we’re contemplating an attack is that Iraq has failed to fulfill its treaty obligations.
However, to be honest, I would support war to prevent Saddam from acquiring nukes even without this legal justification. The potential consequences of this particular individual have a nuclear arsenal are just too dangerous to permit IMHO.
Can you support these claims? This article from Friday’s New York Times doesn’t agree. Please read it all.
The point is, a Mutually Assured Destruction policy is less likely to work with Saddam than it was with the USSR. BTW nobody wanted to deal with a nuclear USSR. MAD was the best we could come up with. There were times when the entire world was close to destruction, e.g., the cuban Missile Crisis. It would be tempting fate to go through a similar process with Saddam Hussein.
See, the trouble is, ** december**, it’s difficult to take any opinion of yours seriously because absolutely everything you say is within the context of what’s good, or rather, what is best, for Israel. That, to my knowledge and experience, is all you consider. I have yet to see one opinion on any indirect subject that conflicts with what is in Israel’s best interests.
Now that’s fine. But what’s best for Israel is, patently, not always best for the US, or the UN, or the damn world. Or, for that matter, the Palestinians, or Islam, or the Middle East. Not that any of that unduly worries you.
Thus Grenada was “good policy” because it lends support to Iraq being “good policy” and attacking Iraq is “good” for … yep, we know who … maybe we should form all international policy on the basis of what is good for Israel ? … if it isn’t already too late …
I wonder if we were trying to “Free Tibet” right now if war protesters would say we shouldn’t be starting something with China then go to the local coffee house wearing thier “Free Kuwait” T-Shirts.
The thing is, it only would have been good policy with Germany during the 1930’s if the entire world had the ability to see into the future. Otherwise, it would have looked like an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation which had not done anything wrong.
**
One can, if one is completely insane. Wars are well-defined events. World War II was not just a continuation of World War I. The Gulf War ended when Saddam surrendered. By this logic, any time in the next 100 years that Japan does something we don’t like, we can just invade and say it’s a continuation of WWII.
**
Fine. We obviously disagree on this point.
However, even if one assumes that war is necessary to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons in the future, how do you explain the reckless rush to war? Why can’t we go slower, even if we still end up going to war, if it means that we gain international support and appear respectful of the rights of other nations. Why is it necessary to abandon diplomacy with both our enemies and allies in order to have war as soon as possible? With both UN inspectors and U.S. surveillance, attempts by Saddam to make or move weapons would only validate our position and give us valuable information on where the weapons are, so they can be destroyed.
For that matter, how do you propose to find his weapons during or after the war? (The ones he doesn’t use against our troops, that is.) If we can’t find them with inspections, how will we find them when the country is in chaos? Won’t it be easier for them to fall into the hands of terrorists at that point?
You’re right, Hampshire. War protestors are all stupid. Not supporting any and all war plans is stupid. There is no war that should not be supported.
Dipshit.
I disagree with the phrase “rush to war.” The UN has been trying to deal with Iraq since 1990. Here’s a list and links to 18 UN resolutions
The UN is now debating a 19[sup]th[/sup] resolution.
december: *I disagree with the phrase “rush to war.” The UN has been trying to deal with Iraq since 1990. Here’s a list and links to 18 UN resolutions. The UN is now debating a 19th resolution. *
Well, if non-compliance with UN resolutions is the criterion for legitimizing a unilateral US attack, Israel should be much higher on our list of targets than Iraq. I don’t think that would be a good idea either. IMHO, just because the UN hasn’t yet succeeded in enforcing international law against a violating country is not in itself an adequate reason for the US to invade it without UN approval. Especially when, as in the case of Iraq, the country poses much less of a danger now than it did back in 1990.
I agree. There are several other cogent reasons to go to war against Iraq. Most of them were well laid out by Colin Powell at the UN. We have debated them on other threads.
Here, I was merely disputing the phrase, “Rush to war.”
The anti-war protesters are like the human shields that went to Iraq. They hate america. They think we are the problem. And they think we should die via terrorism rather then defend ourselfs because we are the bad guys.
I think they should stop protesting the would be war and give the human sheilds time to do the job. Ever notice they are in favor of the human shields dieing to reinforce thier argument that war is wrong. Pacifists at any cost make me sick.
I’m sure you mean that in the same sense that other idiots proclaim that our soldiers are murderers ? If you want death and destruction so badly, go assault your rectum with a pointy stick !
Hey, where’d this scarecrow come from?
Fine – you’ve described what was probably the smallest faction present at the peace marches. What about the other (oh, let’s be generous) 95% who were there? From what I saw, even excluding those with other agendae (the Freedom for Palestine crowd, the CND, the Socialists), most of the people there seemed be saying “Not This War at This Time in This Way for These Motives”, not “No War Ever Under Any Circumstances”. A UN resolution and a more multilateral approach (the issues involved therewith having already been thrashed over here and elsewhere on the SDMB) would reduce a lot of that resistance.
See, there’s this biiiiiiiiiig patch of middle ground between “Let’s Bend Over and Let the Terrorists Assfuck Us” and “Bomb 'Em All Into Radioactive Glass”. Maybe you should visit it sometime.