# We're gonna be at war for a long, long time. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190 "2003-03-18T02:46:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/21 "2003-03-18T17:19:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Binarydrone \* > \*\*… My impression is that they are slowly pulling out of Theocracy on their own, and actually have a vibrant and emerging youth culture. It seems to me that if we play our cards right, that they are a potential solid ally in the area. … \*\* Perhaps it is not the best form to quote myself, but [here is and interesting series of articles on Iran, for those interested.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/changing_face/default.stm) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/22 "2003-03-18T17:23:41Z")
Enough with the Kosovo and Bosnia false analogies, which are just another manifestation of the right wing’s regular attempts to portray others as being as hypocritical as themselves. There was no possible questioning of motives or, for the most part, factual support in the Balkan campaigns; no plausible reason to see it as anything but stopping a campaign of genocide. The issue, other than Russia’s support of its centuries-old friend Serbia and therefore automatic SC veto, was simply about raisng enough moral courage and creating enough organization to do the job. In no way can those campaigns be called unjust today. Motives and especially factual support for Bush’s Iraq war, though, cannot avoid being questioned. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/23 "2003-03-18T17:30:14Z")
I’d be selling my stock in the World Peace Index. I think Iran will be a covert operation and NK will be a nightmare, hopefully China’s. ---
**Author:** ![FIREMAN44](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@FIREMAN44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FIREMAN44)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/24 "2003-03-18T19:25:00Z")
Elvis, before we finish with Kosovo, I found an article by James Bovard, a fine right-wing writer I’m sure, that sums up the “Clinton Doctrine”. [www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp](http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp) Interesting read. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/25 "2003-03-18T21:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Assuming that we are willing to throw the idea of the sovereignty of other nations out the window (which we seem willing to do, by the way), there are injustices far more deserving of our attention After September 11th the ‘sovereignty’ of a state such as Iraq is less important than it’s terrorists leanings and terrorist support combined with their strong anti-Americanism. Saddam Hussein was not in any way, shape or form ‘chosen’ by anyone so I have no qualms about his removal. In fact, it makes it even more morally justifiable. 9/11 wasn’t just the **first** act of terrorism in the US, it was an all out provocation of war. If other countries can’t accept this, well, ultimately it changes nothing. And in a way we **have to** show that we can do this without the UN because the UN couldn’t do anything to prevent 9/11 from happening in the first place (or again). In fact, the UN gives the terrorists an advantage against the US. The world system of diplomacy & peace prevention has broken down, so the US military is going to fix it. Both because **our** citizens are the ones most endangered by terrorism, and because the US military is the only thing capable of fixing it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/26 "2003-03-18T21:52:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > After September 11th the ‘sovereignty’ of a state such as Iraq is less important than it’s terrorists leanings and terrorist support combined with their strong anti-Americanism. Saddam Hussein was not in any way, shape or form ‘chosen’ by anyone so I have no qualms about his removal. In fact, it makes it even more morally justifiable. > \*\* Iraq is NOT the major player in the world of international terrorism. Iran is #1 according to the US state department. Pakistan trained, fostered and funded the **Taliban** ,\*\* Al Quaida\*\* and **Osama bin Laden**. The most recent major AQ bust took place at the home of a political bigwig in a neighborhood that is home to Pakistani government officials and generals. There is a large contingent of AQ sympathizers in Pakistan’s military and ISI. Pakistan’s nuclear technologies are being shared with N.Korea, (according to the US). There isn’t confidence in Pakistan’s control of their existing nuclear weapons. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > 9/11 wasn’t just the **first** act of terrorism in the US, it was an all out provocation of war. If other countries can’t accept this, well, ultimately it changes nothing. > \*\* **Iraq is not connected to 9-11!** There is no such person as Saddama bin Laden NOR Osama Hussein. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > And in a way we **have to** show that we can do this without the UN because the UN couldn’t do anything to prevent 9/11 from happening in the first place (or again). In fact, the UN gives the terrorists an advantage against the US. > \*\* Obviously, we couldn’t do anything to prevent 9-11 either. What on earth do you mean about the UN giving terrorists and advantage over the US of A? Furthermore this point is irrelevant because: **Iraq is not connected to 9-11!** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > The world system of diplomacy & peace prevention has broken down, so the US military is going to fix it. > \*\* Did you read this sentence after you wrote it? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > Both because **our** citizens are the ones most endangered by terrorism, and because the US military is the only thing capable of fixing it. \*\* Most victims of terrorism are **NOT** citizens/ nationals of the US of A, (nor can Americans be more dead than people of other nationalities). Furthermore this point is irrelevant because: **Iraq is not connected to 9-11!** ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/27 "2003-03-18T22:10:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > \*\*Nonetheless, intervention in the Balkans was a legitimate move that did not meet with the disapproval of NATO, the UN, and pretty much most of the planet, as the current push for a war against Iraq does. \*\* The vote in NATO was 16-3 with the three being France, Germany and Belgium. Resolution 1441 passed in the UN and the recent vote would have passed if it weren’t for France threatening to veto. Turn on your TV and notice how many countries are now joining in on our side. France has even said they will send support if biological or chemical warfare is used by Saddam (you know those things Chirac didn’t think Saddam had). [ul]🆒 [sup] **POP pop POP POP pop** [/sup][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/28 "2003-03-18T22:24:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Pakistan trained, fostered and funded the Taliban, Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden. Yes, but Pakistan knew better than to try an oppose us. Hussein isn’t so smart. > [@](#): > > Obviously, we couldn’t do anything to prevent 9-11 either. > What on earth do you mean about the UN giving terrorists and advantage over the US of A? We would have been the only ones to prevent 9/11, but thru intelligence and military action, not diplomacy. Allowing countries such as France and Russia to veto military action over continuing diplomacy gives the terrorists a huge advantage (or it would if Bush didn’t have the intelligence & guts to ignore them). > [@](#): > > Did you read this sentence after you wrote it? I most certainly did. What do you think happened twice in the 20th century? > [@](#): > > Most victims of terrorism are NOT citizens/ nationals of the US of A, (nor can Americans be more dead than people of other nationalities When they are butchered 3000 at a time I tend to disagree. And the US govt first and foremost must protect US citizens, at times even at the expense of so-called ‘world peace’. This is one of those times. > [@](#): > > Iraq is not connected to 9-11! Saying that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected is just pathetically ignorant. Even if no Iraqi resources were used, after 9/11 Iraq is a real threat. And the elimination of Iraq goes a long way to un-emboldening other potential terrorists states such as Iran, Pakistan, NK etc. And the opposite is even more true. Backing down would guarantee that these countries adopt terrorism as the best method to deal with the US. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/29 "2003-03-18T23:05:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > Both because our citizens are the ones most endangered by terrorism, > \*\* cite please > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > Yes, but Pakistan knew better than to try an oppose us. > \*\* As evinced by the events of 9-11 I suppose? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > We would have been the only ones to prevent 9/11, but thru intelligence and military action, not diplomacy. > \*\* But we didn’t because… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > Allowing countries such as France and Russia to veto military action over continuing diplomacy gives the terrorists a huge advantage (or it would if Bush didn’t have the intelligence & guts to ignore them). > \*\* Which terrorists are you talking about? And Why does Bush ignoring them keep them from getting an advantage from a UNSC veto? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > Saying that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected is just pathetically ignorant. Even if no Iraqi resources were used, after 9/11 Iraq is a real threat. > \*\* What are the steps in this logic? Are you able to articulate them? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hail Ants \* > \*\* > And the elimination of Iraq goes a long way to un-emboldening other potential terrorists states such as Iran, Pakistan, NK etc. And the opposite is even more true. Backing down would guarantee that these countries adopt terrorism as the best method to deal with the US. > \*\* Iran, and Pakistan are not “potential terrorist states” **THEY _ARE_ TERRORIST STATES!!!** Unlike Iraq, **Pakistan _actually did_ help OBL pull off 9-11!** Iran is **THE NUMBER ONE MOST ACTIVE STATE SPONSOR OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM** according to the US state department. ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/30 "2003-03-19T00:12:55Z")
“Allowing countries such as France and Russia to veto military action over continuing diplomacy gives the terrorists a huge advantage (or it would if Bush didn’t have the intelligence & guts to ignore them).” I challenge the assessment of “intelligence and guts” in this case, as Bush sends the message that the government of the USA doesn’t care about public opinion and the opinion of their allies. After 9-11 pretty much the whole world rallied behind the USA, but with this pushing for war, disregarding other nation’s opinions and hindering - bordering on sabotaging - the work of the weapons inspectors, bush did his best to vaporize that support. It’s neither intelligence nor guts, it’s the sign of a bad statesman, if anything. “I most certainly did. What do you think happened twice in the 20th century?” People - and especially George W. Bush - should realize that this isn’t 1939. The world has grown up and starting a war for economical gains or as a political tool isn’t going to work in the 21st century. Well, perhaps it does work out for Bush, but by all means, it shouldn’t. “Saying that Iraq and 9/11 are not connected is just pathetically ignorant.” Constructing a connection is manipulative and wrong, though. Sure, Saddam needs to be removed from power, we agree there. Twisting facts to justify a war against the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/31 "2003-03-19T00:16:20Z")
**Optihut** , Welcome to the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/32 "2003-03-19T00:17:18Z")
Hmmm, odd: For some reason I cannot edit my post. Therefore I have to clarify the end a bit with a follow up post: “Twisting facts to justify a war against the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on.” That should read: “Twisting facts to justify a war _with Iraq_ against the _will_ of the united nations and against a strong public opposition world wide on the other hand isn’t something we can agree on.” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/33 "2003-03-19T00:52:45Z")
No one but Mods and Admins can edit posts here. Check out the **About This Message Board** forum. ---
**Author:** ![FIREMAN44](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@FIREMAN44](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FIREMAN44)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/34 "2003-03-19T02:12:28Z")
Optihut, Bush does care about the opinion of America’s allies, just not the ones with hidden and not so hidden agendas. As far as public opinion, at least in the USA, it backs his play. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/35 "2003-03-19T02:42:38Z")
> [@](#): > > After 9-11 pretty much the whole world rallied behind the USA Most countries did little more than give lip-service to seem sympathytic towards America. But when we stated that we were not going to just hope it doesn’t happen again, but bring to bear the full power of the US military to make sure it doesn’t, with or without the UN’s ok, they all screamed bloody murder. And they did so for the most part because they know we don’t need their help and because they know they couldn’t stop us if they tried. And this fear that America is going to create some global empire is not even worth acknowledging. We ruled the planet after WWII and we not only wound up with **less** territory than before but we **gave** billions to our former enemies to rebuild themselves. Russia captured and bled dry half of Europe, and even Britain only reluctantly finally gave up India. We turned Japan, (West) Germany and South Korea from war torn wastelands into economic superpowers with democratic govts. And yet the world still thinks we’re the bad guys? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/36 "2003-03-19T02:53:00Z")
Ungrateful bastards. I say we teach 'em a lesson about who the _real_ good guys are. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/37 "2003-03-19T03:07:06Z")
Yes, we should, by removing Saddam from power and by helping Iraq form a stable, democratic government. ---
**Author:** ![TVeblen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4bbf92/32.png) [@TVeblen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVeblen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/38 "2003-03-19T03:50:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > \*\*Yes, we should, by removing Saddam from power and by helping Iraq form a stable, democratic government. \*\* And that’s exactly why I doubt this war will be fast or even remotely easy. Only in Hollywood does the brave, lone gunslinger ride into town, whump the varmits and then ride off, leaving grateful townfolk firmly in control. As far as I understand it, this is a region with very deep-seated divisons among its peoples. “Help create a democratic government”, of whom, precisely, that will be, if not embraced, at least respected by all parties? We aren’t restoring even a dubious government back to power. Part of the deal is creating a whole new, workable government (to our tastes) out of deeply antithetical, mutually antagonistic forces. And keep in mind the volatile mix surrounding Iraq’s borders. Just by invading, we’re throwing a deeply _foreign_ and resented element into the mix. The odds against our simply “kickin’ butt and layin’ down the law” and then just leaving are astronomical. It’s one thing to start a war, when war merely implies winning a military objective. But it’s considerably more problematic to end an actual “war” and _then_ undertake a lengthy, uncertain, dangerous occupation. War will morph seamlessly into a “peacekeeping mission”, but one which most other nations want no part of, thank you very much, especially since they deemed it folly to remake the MENA by force in the first place. This won’t be _Gulf War: The Sequel_. Veb ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/39 "2003-03-19T04:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > The vote in NATO was 16-3 with the three being France, Germany and Belgium. Resolution 1441 passed in the UN and the recent vote would have passed if it weren’t for France threatening to veto. Absolute rubbish. You think France was the only dissenter of this crazed and self-serving initiative? France’s contrarian actions may not be condoned in the world of international diplomacy any more than Bush’s numerous blunders, but don’t try to put the entire blame on them–so far that has been the prime tactic of dishonest politicians/debaters. The world in general clearly disagreed with the course of action that the US, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK, pushed upon it regarding Iraq. > [@](#): > > Turn on your TV and notice how many countries are now joining in on our side. France has even said they will send support if biological or chemical warfare is used by Saddam (you know those things Chirac didn’t think Saddam had). Obviously I don’t need to tell _you_ to turn on the TV, but I can definitely suggest switching to a slightly more intelligent channel. What do you think the allies and friend of the US ought to do? Stand by and let the US do this on their own, watch an ally’s forces suffer WMD attacks in this age of crumbling international unity? It is precisely because certain countries (including, strange to say, France) understand more about diplomacy and international relations than Bush will ever comprehend that they are offerring support _now that war may not be avoided_. I remind you of Blair’s impassioned speeches recently. Interesting tactic he used–he assisted Bush in rendering the coming war unavoidable, and then, once the brink was reached, his main argument was that “there could be no turning aside now” **either** by refusing to aid the US **or** by standing down from the military offensive. Blair’s arguments, as almost always, were sound. The problem isn’t his reasoning for the need of war at this advanced moment, the problem is that he and Bush pushed this unnecessary war upon an unprepared world in the first place–and they **still** have not convinced anyone that the war is absolutely necessary now. All they’ve done is make the war unavoidable. Despite the foolish swagger in the US’s step in recent times, the world understands that inclusion and multilateralism solve problems, whereas exclusion and unilateralism simply create them. Very, very few nations want to see the US isolated, because they have enough **foresight** to understand that in the long term US isolation will only result in problems. Only someone egregiously ignorant of international affairs would see the emerging international support for an unavoidable war as a vindication of Bush’s idiotic tack the last months. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2003, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190/40 "2003-03-19T05:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minega \* > \*\*or better yet, listen to Jay leno > > I’m getting annoyed with these allies of ours. Like in Europe they’re calling the United States "The bully of the world\*\* I wouldn’t sweat the opinions of Europeans. The hsitory of Europe in the Twentieth Century, particularly World Wars I and II, gives one every reason to believe that the Europeans are a bunch of fuckups, royal and otherwise. Problem is, Dubya is a fuckup, too. You can almost smell the ignorance and stupidity coming out of the white house nowadays. Glad I didnt’ vote for him, I’d be ashamed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-gonna-be-at-war-for-a-long-long-time/162190.md?page=3)