CaptainBushido, you seem to have posted to the wrong thread. There are several threads now where your (somewhat mystifying) arguments on the UN wll find a more appropriate–if not necessarily more hospitable–venue. This thread is a bit unwieldy but it’s mainly to do with whether antiwar posters think it’s important if the Iraqis thank the US for invading them. (My reply is way up above, if you’re interested.)
[sub]Did I get that Tex-ism right?[/sub]
Okay, Mandelstam, I’ll admit when I’m wrong. It’s not just this topic I’m skimming, but the whole board, apparently. This was the first war discussion thread I saw, so I flung my two cents at it with stunning velocity, only minutes later seeing another thread where my content would have been more in place. Sorry 'bout that. On another note, I must concur with xenophon in that “y’all” is the correct form of that particular psuedo-contraction. However, I must say that while I use “y’all” daily, I have never called anyone (or ever heard in anyone called) “pohd-nah” or however the hell you spelled it. As far as stereotypes go, I’ll be the first to admit that most of them about Texas are true, but that whole “pah-dnah” thing is pure Hollywood.
Heck, with any luck, the Iraqis will feel a lasting and overwhelming love for the Americans, for liberating them from a cruel dictator.
Just like the French do.
“Just like the French do.”
Hey, let’s not forget the Americans’ amnesia on the Marquis de Lafayette 
Mandelstam posted
Good grief Mandelstam, you’ve probably spent over 300 words addressing what was originally, and still remains, a VERY straight forward 4 word statement. And what’s more, in your last paragraph ask me to “stay on topic.”
I really don’t want to turn this non-issue issue into a 15 course meal but what leads you to think that your example of “anti-war columnists and journalists,” anti-war organizers, and e-mailers are typical of the majority of protesters on the street, working nine to five jobs or working in the homes? Anecdotal information?
And you said that you’ve never “come across” any of these people who were “unaware of Saddam Hussein’s extreme brutality” — uumm, ok, so what? Is this yet another mischaracterization of what I actually said or did you just decide to through that out there?
I’m leaving to go run with one of my anti-war friends in a few minutes (hard to believe I know – so remain as “skeptical” as you want). I’ll offer up your comments.
Let me see, I expressly stated it the first post, the second post I mentioned that it wasn’t addressed and put the whole thing in BOLD. Here it is again – The antiwar crowd doesn’t seem to take notice of the Saddam psychology in combination with the Saddam history of attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and possibility acquiring nuclear weapons. When one, ‘the extreme brutality and mass murder of Saddam and the sort of mind that houses such a person’ — is combined with the other, ‘the express desire to obtain a nuclear weapon’ — that man just might use it if he sees it to his advantage. Considering Saddam has made many wild political and military miscalculations over the last 20 years, when you throw in the above mention qualities well — we CAN’T allow him the means to eventually acquire these weapons. The technology and the actual weapons are out in the world, never to go away. Saddam – or others like him who don’t presently have them – will eventually get these weapons. We have to decide NOW how we deal with these sort of people. Trying to talk them down is always preferred as far as it goes. Saddam wasn’t willing. Any other suggestions?
You don’t have to forgive the logic, the position or the attitude – but please forgive the typos. I do really have to ‘run.’ — And in regard to “crashing anti-war pot lucks” – what sort of meat?
“Any other suggestions?”
Yep. Read any of the links to the Times and Guardian articles I’ve posted over the last two weeks. Supplement that reading with this excellent article and this one. After reading these, let me know if you still think that there’s a problem with the “antiwar crowd”'s understanding of the matter at hand, rather than a genuine difference of opinion over what ought to be done.
“And in regard to “crashing anti-war pot lucks” – what sort of meat?”
Why tofu, of course ;).
Enjoy your run 
Garry Wills pointed out a long time ago, in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, that liberalism in foreign policy is practiced by both the right and the left, in the sense that both advocate changing governments simply because that government is oppressive, and they advocate intervening when they think that intervention is justified on humanitarian grounds.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This war and everything that has come before it is a perfect illustration of that.
Let us undertake a chronology here:
1 - Russia invades Afghanistan. The U.S., seeing a chance to bloody Russia’s nose, sends arms and CIA operatives to assist the muhajedeen to fight the invaders. The U.S. had no overriding national interest in the outcome of this fight.
2 - Osama bin Laden goes to Afghanistan to fight in this cause.
With twenty-twenty hindsight, it is now possible to see that two of our mortal enemies, one now past and one then in our future, were fighting each other. So retrospectively, it would have been nice to follow Napoleon’s advice about never interfering when two of your enemies are engaged in destroying each other. But at the time, we could have stood aside on the simple grounds that our interests weren’t affected.
3 - Iraq invades Kuwait. Should we have cared, really? No. Our only interest in the Middle East is that the oil flow. Who sells that oil should be of no interest at all to us.
4 - American troops are now stationed in Saudi Arabia, both for this war and to protect it afterwards. This gives Osama bin Laden a grievance against us and so off he goes. The rest is history.
If we had stayed out of #1, it’s possible that Osama would have been killed back then by a Russia that would have stuck around long enough to kill him.
If we had stayed out of #3, it’s possible that Osama might have directed his anger elsewhere.
Staying out of both might still have given us a terrorist to deal with, since Osama might have just come up with some other excuse to attack us. Still, there’s no reason to deliberately provoke him or anyone else by constantly sticking our nose in where we have no business.
Now we come to #5, a war with Iraq whose justification is a pre-emptive strike to prevent Saddam’s arsenal from falling into terrorist hands. Are future terrorists being created by this? To ask the question is to answer it.
Remember, on 9/11 they couldn’t even scramble a fighter jet fast enough to get to NYC to shoot down the second airliner, because the closest air base was too far away. If our Defense Department were truly a Defense Department, that would never have happened. Instead, it’s busy running around the world on dubious grounds when it should be fully engaged in defending the U.S.
It’s premature to think that they will thank us. But even I’m surprised at how quickly the ‘evidence’ of their thanks collapsed.
**
**
I . . . I . . . I don’t know what to say. The power and force of your argument leaves me in shock and awe. Obviously, there is nothing more to be said on the topic. I can’t imagine why would any reasonable person would bother to argue with you.
Saddams party, the Ba’ath party came to power in a series of bloody coups.
Saddam worked his way up the ranks via violence, eventually becoming Head of state.
Saddam has remained in power by using violence, torture & murder
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/etc/synopsis.html
So Saddams party came to pover via violence, Saddam came to power in that party due to violence, and Saddam stays in power due to violence. So explain why using violence (much more humane violence mind you) to remove him is evil? I don’t want to live in a world where dictators can use violence to come to power and use violence to stay in power, but when someone uses violence to remove them from power people start shouting anti war slogans. Thats like saying the kid who kicks your nuts and bites your ear so he can become king of the hill is ok but pushing him off is a crime.
There are alot of wars going on on the planet right now. Not just this one. I’m guessing people don’t oppose those wars because their country isn’t directly involved, but most of these wars are more inhumane than the US/UK war on Iraq.