Tell me you didn’t really say that. Please.
Mmmmm, there’s some sig material.
I wasn’t there and so I cannot give direct anecdotal evidence of what happend in each case. Sadly, like so much in the current situation, I don’t think the facts really matter as much as the perception. My comment was meant more as a plea to the left to make certain that they remember the difference between a policy they may loathe and the poor bastards sent to fight for those policies who deserve our gratitude no matter what. Even if it is unfair, due to the perception of the left’s disrespect for the armed services, the left must make a concious effort to show extra respect to the members of the armed forces as they fight against the policies they abhor.
The Pope is doing what he thinks is right. And you’re all class for saying that.
Honestly, december. Do you really mean some of the stuff you say or do you just try to offend?
**This statement is so inane that I feel ashamed even responding to this nonsensical drivel. So my rejoinder will be as insipid and irrelevant as the OP’s.
Our nation is being led to war by a guy who made the following observations:**
“We are fully committed to working with both sides to bring the level of terror down to an acceptable level for both.” —George W. Bush, after a meeting with congressional leaders, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2001
“The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants.” —George W. Bush, Jan. 14, 2001
I couldn’t imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —George W. Bush, at a White House Menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001
Gee, don’t you feel better already?
We murdered 3 million Vietnamese to liberate them from Communism, so why not kill millions of Iraqis to liberate them from Saddam Hussein? (and from their oil, water, and land, which they won’t need in paradise)
OK, I gotta ask.
So what? So he hasn’t complied fully. Has he ever attacked US? Do we really need to spen 70 Billion dollars on this? Really?
Oh, and mystic2311? You are not gonna win anyone over with that crap.
Looked at legalistically, Saddam did attack our allies, Kuwait and Israel. The US and the UN made war on Saddam in their defence. That war is still going on, because Saddam has not complied with the treaty terms.
Looked at from a POV of realpolitik, that’s the ambiguity of a preventative war. We are not attacking Saddam to punish him for attacking us. We are doing so to prevent him from attacking us and our allies later when he is militarily much stronger. These calculations are less clear than if we had been directly attacked. Yet, the concept is all too real, as WWII showed.
There are a number of countries who detest the United States, and the number increases each day with increasing rapidity. Must we preemptively attack each and every country which might, someday, be able to launch a small scale terrorist-like attack on us or our allies (a rapidly shrinking list)? What makes Iraq, perhaps the weakest of all of these potential enemies so damned special. Seriously.
We are like a adult going to the local elementary school to beat up some fourth graders because some of them might grow up to be strong enough to hurt us some day. Where is the honor in that? Where is the threat? Sure, one of those kids might have a dad who has a .44 and they might come after us. But until you can prove both the existence of the weapon and the imminent intent to use it, beating up the kid is just plain wrong.
The only justification for a pre-emptive attack would be strong evidence of an imminant attack on our national interests. Having those who push the war tell us that the lack of evidence is evidence itself of how sneaky the enemy is is an insult to the American public and the world.
Nuclear weapons development makes Iraq so damned special. If Saddam ever attacks with nukes or provides them to terrorists, it won’t be a “small scale” attack. Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain just how close Saddam is to acquring nuclear weapons.
I don’t know what to do about other countries that are acquiring nuclear weapons. The possibilities for disaster are limitless. However, IMHO the lack of a general solution shouldn’t stop us from dealing with an obvious threat, which we do have the ability to neutralize.
Great post, elucidator; very well put!
For as long as I can remember, we (the US) have been supporting various and assorted vile despots. Now, suddenly, we pick one particular vile despot and decide that he’s so evil and rotten that nothing will do but we go to war right away to depose him? I cannot believe that this is the real reason.
What is the threat that is so obvious about Iraq? Not to use what has become a cliche, but the obvious threats right now are North Korea and Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers, and both have shown no compunction about arming terrorist groups. The ISI continues to play around with the Taliban and Al-Queda, and N Korea needs no introduction as a danger to us.
So to continue my somewhat ridiculous analogy, we have two big kids in the 4th grade who we know have .44s and one of them has even threatened us directly with one, and yet we are going after the scrawny kid in the corner we beat up last week, just cause we know we can win, and just because that scrawny kid wishes he had a gun so he could be equal to the big kids. Again, where is the honor, where is the threat, and where is the proof?
QUOTE]*Originally posted by december *
The Pope supports a regime that murders the Jews. What else is new?
[/QUOTE]
Well, this hateful idiocy does mark a new low for the arguments of the pro-war faction. Where you thinking of this as just another throwaway remark that you could use to rile your opponents, and then move on to more convincing “legalistic” bullshit whilst they’re still stunned by your remarks? I’m not catholic, and I don’t even like the pope much, but to dismiss him as a murderer is about the most dishonest, self-serving garbage I’ve ever seen on this board.
I don’t think that the information provided so far by GW, Rumsfeld, Powell et al proves a necessity for preemtive war. In that case has it been decided that I support Hussein as claimed in the OP? Or is the OP just another example of december’s recurrent editorial tics?
Yes to both, although with the caveat that it has been decided by december.
It appears that many pro-war advocates will continue to repeat the same lame arguments over and over in hopes that repeating it often enough will make it true (or at least convince others of its validity). An example of this phenomena has been demonstrated in december’s followup posts in this thread.
It is interesting to me that december harps on nuclear weapons? Why would that be?
Would Saddam like to develop nuclear weapons? No doubt about it. Under the current situation (described as “do nothing” by the war advocates), does Saddam have the capability to develop nuclear weapons?
Can you develop nuclear weapons in an RV?
Saddam has been working on nuclear weapons for close to twenty five years (consider Osirak). The fact that he doesn’t have the capability today is evidence that something is working.
Two other points of interest. In the OP, december writes, “If the anti-war people succeed in preventing an American attack …” To me, that is an odd statement. I would swear I heard Bush suggest that he has the power to launch a pre-emptive strike, and that he won’t be reading the polls. To which I conclude, if the anti-war people succeed in preventing an American attack, Dubya is just another politician looking for votes, and doesn’t have the courage to follow through on his convictions. Or he lied. Take your choice. At least the anti-war demonstrators have the courage of their convictions.
And finally, the hawks suggest that Saddam’s violation of the agreement ending the hostilities of Gulf War I authorizes the planned US preemptive strike. IIRC, the agreement that ended GWI was between Iraq and the UN, and only the UN can authorize force to enforce it.
Hawks, if you continue to insist this preemptive attack is to prevent Saddam’s future use of WoMD, please refute this assertion: A preemptive attack on Iraq will increase the chances that WoMD will be used.
Note that the word “support” could have two meanings: what you think or what you do. If you think the war is a mistake, you are not doing anything to support Saddam. If you act to prevent the US from going to war against Saddam, then your actions are supporting Saddam IMHO, even though that wasn’t your intention.
How about this then. You are wrong even though it’s not your intention 
So as long as you just talk and don’t join the military you won’t be responsible for any of the killing?
>Hawks, if you continue to insist this preemptive attack is to >prevent Saddam’s future use of WoMD, please refute this >assertion: A preemptive attack on Iraq will increase the chances >that WoMD will be used.
That’s irrelavant. Ok, maybe not irrelavant, but comparing insert Saddam’s arsenal list here and insert Saddam’s potential arsenal if we let him mess around with it here, and there’s just the slightest bit of difference.