UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately by Haken

I know how you feel Haken. Simply freaked out. I got a call about two hours ago from my best friend who is in the Navy. She is only now 18, and she can't swim-- so of course she had to go into the navy. She said she was at some airport, with her bullet proof vest on, waiting in line to get shipped over to Kuwait. The war just doesn't seem real until you get a call like that.

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 8:59 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

Don't worry too much yet. The war isn't going full swing until they call over the doctors. My brother is a captain doctor in the Air Force. He hasn't gone over yet.

----------------------------------
Who's winning?
I don't know, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
----------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 9:29 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

it's daunting, isn't it, to think about going to war. i don't know that i ever thought i would see it in my lifetime. don't ask me why. one thing humans know how to do well is fight. i pray every chance i get for everyone over there and for those who could get called up. my friend's husband is in the reserves, but hasn't been called up yet.

sidebar: my dad can't swim a lick either, but he joined the Navy when he was 17. why? "W'll anyone could get into the army." he and his brother both had to swim one length of a swimming pool in order to get in. my uncle jumped as far as he could (about half the length) and sort of furiously wiggled the rest of the way. they were both engineers, dad on deisel engines and my uncle in the CBs. neither of them ever learned to swim.

still walkin and talkin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 10:59 AM

HJERMSTED

There was a movement afoot a week or two ago to convince the Pope to travel to Baghdad and remain there as a human shield until such time as GW and Blair turned down the testosterone poisoning.

Man that would have been cool. As much as I disagree with the Pope's archaic worldview, such an action would have spoken volumes about this war madness swirling around us. Alas, I believe he was far too frail for such a journey.

Peace,
mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 11:03 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

he is awfully frail. maybe one of his representatives? it just seems to all be careening out of control. something's got to be done about that lunatic and it seems like the U.S. gets to be the big and bad. interesting that the youngest country in the world is now caretaker of everyone else. somebody's gotta, i guess.

still walkin and talkin... and prayin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 1:04 PM

considering europe ignored the growing signs of previous world wars (as did we, US), I find this kind of proactive attitude heartening. we are not really 'careening out of control', as we were in the second world war. this is more like serving a high risk warrant; you gotta make damn sure you're ready for anything from the bad guys.

remember, it is likely more people will die on US highways this year than will be casualties in this war.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 1:52 PM

I agree with Wulf.

And though war, in general, is bad, I fail to see how anyone could want Saddam Hussein to stay in power.

I fail to see how anyone could be against the liberation of oppressed peoples.

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:

I fail to see how anyone could be against the liberation of oppressed peoples.

The problem is that this war is NOT about freeing the people there - or has anybody taken notice 15 years ago when Saddam killed thousands of Kurds? No - around this time Saddam was still considered an Ally, even by the US. Mr. Rumsfeld himself traveled down and shook his hand as a friend!!!

This war is about oil - make no mistake. And the people in Europe are afraid that it is the beginning of a third world war. After all, there are no good plans for the Iraq after Saddam. Yes, democracy would be great, but it might end up in just a new crisis - moslems against democracists, Iraqis against Kurds (and don't forget the Turks who have their own big Kurd problem!).

Just look towards Afghanistan. US has promised so much, but just left the mess to the European governments. Right now, the US is not keeping promises to give money to schools, hospitals etc there. It does not even help to keep the peace, this is done by European armies again. And what peace? Only in Kabul and even that is not considered safe. How do you want to secure a much bigger country?

I think one of two things will happen: Either this war will be a 'success' in a sense that only Iraqis die, and no or only few US Americans. If that happens, Bush will rush into the next country on his list, no matter what. Or it will be a second Vietnam - with a little Israel/Palestina touch...

Merl
*very frustrated and frightened*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 2:16 PM

I fail to see, also, what's wrong with a war for oil.

Oil is energy. Energy is creation. And creation is the heart of humanity.

It might not be pretty or p.c., but this could and probably will come out a win for all involved. The U.S. and the rest of the western hemisphere gets oil, Iraqis and Kurds get free, and little by little, dictatorships are destabilized.

Liberation takes time and responsibility and committment. Afghanistan isn't going to prosper like Missouri after a year. Get crucial. Instantaneous change never lasts and often does more harm than good. A society that eases itself into a democratic or better yet, republican form of government has the best chance of lasting and prospering.

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 2:26 PM

SUCCATASH

The problem, Sarah, is that it's not our oil. Just because we want it, and the U.S. is big and tough, doesn't mean we have the right to take it.

I wish Fox had the power to cancel Bush.

Has YOUR mom seen Firefly, lately?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 2:35 PM

Here's my opinion,
I don't think that this war is for oil. A lot of people say that, and it might be one thought in the back of the governments minds, but we are going to war for other reasons. The oil issue is one that anti-war people bring up a lot. They use it because it sounds like a selfish reason to kill people. I agree. But we are going to war to stop an over controlling dictator from oppressing his people, we are going to remove biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and we are going in hopes of stopping future terrorist actions that have mostly been born of Iraq or at least from Saddam Hussein. The UN came up with something of a list of demands for Iraq. This was years and months ago. Iraq only did a few things on their list, just enough so the UN would give them more time, and still more time to complete, and they have used this extra time to build up more weapons, and more recruits. The longer we could of waited, the longer Iraq would have to do more harm.

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 3:10 PM

Check out the news right now people, Bush is talking about all of this live.

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
The problem, Sarah, is that it's not our oil. Just because we want it, and the U.S. is big and tough, doesn't mean we have the right to take it.

I dig you. Thing is, we're not going to take it. We're going to go over there, whoop Saddam, set up a nice transition government and start buying the oil.

"Hey, y'all want to be free-like. Go where you want, talk to who you want, stuff like that?"

"Yeah!"

"Want us to give you money for that oil?"

"Yeah!"

"Well, yeehaw! The bombing starts in 15 minutes."

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 4:46 PM

SLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by merlindrea:

Just look towards Afghanistan. US has promised so much, but just left the mess to the European governments. Right now, the US is not keeping promises to give money to schools, hospitals etc there. It does not even help to keep the peace, this is done by European armies again. And what peace? Only in Kabul and even that is not considered safe. How do you want to secure a much bigger country?

Sorry -- never posted here before but I couldn't not respond to this.

This has hardly been left to the European governments. Our troops are still there. And no, it's NOT just the European armies that make peace. We're still in South Korea, Bosnia, the Middle East and Afganistan. We've hardly just thrown money at the problem to make it go away. And we need to have some patience. It's been about a year and a half since we've been there. The country was in civil unrest for the at least last two decades, if not more -- hardly going to clear up overnight.

Yes, I'm morally opposed to war. To say it's bad is an understatement. No one wants to go to war. I certainly don't want to see hundreds or thousands of people hurt or killed. But this is a crazy man and he has a lot of power. When he finally gets his arsenal up to what he wants it to be, he's going to attack -- maybe not the US, but somewhere. And I guarantee, he won't be issuing a 48 hour warning.

And we don't just leave the peace keeping to our allies. We're still in South Korea. We're still in Bosnia. We're still in the Middle East. And we'll be in Afganistan for a long time to come. We're not in these countries because we want to be, we've been asked to be there. Popular opinion of the people comes and goes in these places, but I guarantee we would not be in these places if the governments didn't fully comprehend what our absense would mean.

I'm not try to sway opinion of get anyone mad. This is just my opinion. Trust me, I'm upset about this too. But how long do we sit back and watch? It's already been 12 years. We can no longer just hope this will go away. We waited too long to get involved in WWI and WWII. It's sad to think that someone might have intervened earlier and prevented millions of deaths.

Last thing -- as far as Saddam once being our ally. Yes, that's true, but so was Stalin once.

--SLynn

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 6:43 PM

"The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 7:28 PM

NICOLA

I don't think Americans comprehend the world situation as it stands. The world was behind the United States after 911. The headlines in France declared 'We are all Americans Today'.

Eighteen months later, the US is pretty much alone politically. Britain and Spain are both officially on board, but face enormous divisions at home. Why? Why has the States gone from such a powerful political position to such a weak one?

I guess I can think of a couple of reasons.

The Bush administration withdrew support for the Kytoto Protocol without even offering the pretense of an alternative. Managing in the process to offend every other signatory of that document, and they don't even recognise the damage that this caused.

The Bush administration withdrew from the anti-ballistic missle treaty and mortally offended the Russians, not to mention everyone else who was involved.

The Bush administration refuses to even negotiate with regards to the International Criminal Court thereby insulting every single other country that recognises the need for such a body. Apparently Americans do not need to be held accountable when they screw up.

I bet there are other examples, these are just the first that leapt to mind.

The Bush Administration has done an abysmal job of making the case for war with Iraq. The information linking Al Qaida and Iraq is not substantiated - even the CIA doesn't believe it. (Just remember - not one of the 911 hijackers was Iraqi.)

The proof that Iraq was acquiring nuclear weapons was faked. Who by? Good question.

Before everyone jumps on me for being critical of this war, I want to express my support for it. Saddam Hussein is a scary, narcissistic megalomaniac. He needs to go.

I just wish that an administration that was more intelligent, competent, farsighted and better versed in world politics was making the decisions. An administration that was not quite so eager to alienate other countries, and then think that by waving money at respective governments they can buy, or blackmail their compliance.

Lots and lots of intelligent well-informed people feel that this 'little' conflict is the precurser to WWIII. Just remember, WWI was started by the assasination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in the Balkins - not the centre of the universe.

In the last few months before the election, George W. Bush didn't even know the name of the Prime Minister of Canada (at that time, Prime Minister for 10 years, mind you!!!, and Canada was then and still is the largest trading partner the US has). He called him 'Jean Poutine'. Poutine - french fries that are popular in Quebec. (Don't even start with me about Freedom Fries - that is just embarrassing...)

I want to post a link to a New York Times OP/Ed column by Thomas Friedman that you might like to take a gander at. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/opinion/16FRIE.html

Unfortunately, I think war with Iraq is inevitable - I also think that the aftermath is equally inevitable. I would not be surprised if the US hasn't just played directly into Osama Bin Ladin's hands. America, isolated against the world; the butt of every terrorist attack going. And this time, the French won't be declaring "We are all Americans Today".

Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars." — J. Michael Straczynski

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 9:06 PM

LERXST

Quote:
Originally posted by SLynn:

Last thing -- as far as Saddam once being our ally. Yes, that's true, but so was Stalin once.

--SLynn

Yeah, when Saddam was our ally, one of his Mirage F-1's "accidentally" nailed the USS Stark with two Exocet missiles and killed 52 of our sailors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 17, 2003 9:17 PM

Nicola, you are talkin like a victim.

No real scientist believes or supports global warming. Much has been said, written, studied, and lied about it, but mostly, it don't exist. Don't take my word, but don't take their word either-check it out yourself.

Russia NEVER honored the darn abm treaty, abusing and secretly breaking it within months of signing. Futhermore, STARWARS hadn't been dreamed of outside the pages of pulp scifi mags at the time, so no provisions could apply to modern systems. Lastly, do you have ANY idea why the original abm agreement came to be? Did you miss the Cold War? The nuclear standoffs? Have you noticed that one of the signitories NO LONGER EXISTS?

And that's Alliance talk, trying to let foreign courts try our soldiers. They won't let us, the US, try their soldiers, will they? Don't doubt, we have the moral and legal high ground there.

Victims try to avoid being victimized by allowing bullies to do what they want, hoping not to attract attention. You've been bullied into believing crap, tricked into accepting propaganda as truth.

I ain't no victim.

All evil needs to prosper is for good to do nothing.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:36 AM

Nicola, thanks. You said it much better than I could!

For me, it is really scary to watch the American news. This brainwashing whats going on - if somebody repeats a rumor often enough, it becomes truth. Like, that the terrorist danger will diminish when Saddam falls. On the contrary. Nicola is right, what is happening right now is exactly what Bin Laden wants - separating the world into enemies.

Or this righteous argument that we have to attack them because they are a danger to the world. With this argument, you would have to attack half the world - Iran, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea and more. Where does it end? And anyway, Iran is much closer to nuclear weapons than Iraq and also more likely to have terrorist linkages, so?

I feel as uncomfortable as everybody and I accept the argument, that if America had stepped in earlier with WW2, it might have saved many many lifes. But as Nicola said - I just don't see that this government has a plan for what comes after (besides jumping on the next enemy). Thats the big difference to WW2.

Merl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:53 AM

What would you have us do? There are a lot of people who are against the war, but I have yet to hear a better course of action.
(P.s. no going back and changing the past, that's cheating).

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:45 AM

That is a very good question. There is no easy answer to it. But I think that war creates more problems than it solves - just look at the Afghanistan war 20 years ago which started that whole mess... (and where US actually educated and supported Bin Laden - one of those short-sighted decisions I am afraid of now)

Also, everybody is talking about Saddam and how to stop him. But is anybody talking about the 22 million Iraqis? How many of them will have to die in this high-tech war? And how many of them would rather live under Saddam than die by an american soldier?

But back to your question: Instead of putting in sick amounts of money into the military, this money could be used to increase the life standard in those countries. As an example: Greece and Turkey are what you could call 'natural' enemies. They have a long past of very cruel wars, Greece was occupied by Turkey for over 500 years. They hate each other. A couple of years ago, they had a crisis again, with warships already being sent to the middle sea etc. But they didn't start it. Why? Because their main income is tourism. If they start a war, they can forget the money coming in. So the economic interest was greater than their hate.

Bottomline: If people are fed and see a future for their kids, its not that easy to make them into terrorists...

Merl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:50 AM

Ok, off with the gloves-this ain't gonna go on by no kind of civilized rules.

Bin Laden didn't have to take our help and money, but he did. He didn't like us, but joined with us anyway. Then he turned on us.

That's OUR fault? He was a religious fella, from a good Saudi family, and was fighting the same guys we were. "Need help there, bud?" "I think you are evil, but sure, gimme some cash, guns, intelligence. Don't worry, you can trust me." He stabbed us in the back, very literally, and you think that's our fault?

And what the hell is with you and your wimpy fellow crybabies, like Nic, anyway? Why aren't you crying about the poor folks, your neighbors and friends, dying on our highways right now?? Why aren't you standing guard on our borders to protect us the socio-economic erosion of drugs, and illegal immigrants? I could go on, but SURELY you get my drift.

Fewer Americans will die in Iraq than will die this year on our highways. Throw in murders related to crime and substance abuse, and I'm betting you might see twice as many Americans killed by Americans as soldiers killed by Iraqis this year.

As for the poor Iraqi people...pfffffft. Many are starving, all are oppressed, they live in social and political conditions that would drive me (and I hope you) to violence or leaving. The ONLY reason they stand for it is that's how they were raised.

And, are you bashing our soldiers? You gonna be out there with Jane Fonda, calling them baby killers? Those men and women are your neighbors and friends--do you really think they'll be wandering the streets of Bagdad, slaughtering civilians, burning, looting, rioting? Do you care how stupid that sounds?

Get out Saddam! That's the message. No Saddam, no war, that's the message. Instead, he is preparing to use poison gasses, biological weapons, in the borders of his own country. Is that ok with you? He is preparing to attack neighboring countries, countries not involved, like Israel. Is that ok with you?

Oh my, well, if we just left him alone, he wouldn't feel so threatened, and he could be peaceful and happy and help his neighbors...

Like Kuwait, like Iran, like Israel.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
All evil needs to prosper is for good to do nothing

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:02 AM

Well, I figured I'd join in the fray. I will not judge other people's opinions but I agree with Nicola and Merlindrea. We as a nation should not be respected for our weaponry but rather for our wisdom and diplomacy. This war will be costly in terms of human lives, political alliances, economics. Support out troops! Bring them back before they die. Here are some interesting articles from liberal and conservative points of view. They address some of the issues raised in this forum. Everything below this line was culled from other sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Here is a list of the countries bombed by the US since the end of WWII.
>
> China 1945-46
> Korea 1950-53
> China 1950-53
> Guatemala 1954
> Indonesia 1958
> Cuba 1959-60
> Guatemala 1960
> Congo 1964
> Peru 1965
> Laos 1964-73
> Vietnam 1961-73
> Cambodia 1969-70
> Guatemala 1967-69
> Granada 1983
> Libya 1986
> El Salvador '80s
> Nicaragua '80s
> Panama 1989
> Iraq 1991-99
> Sudan 1998
> Afghanistan 1998
> Yugoslavia 1999
>
> Question: in how many of these countries did the bombing help to get a democracy respectful of human rights?
>
>
> Select an answer:
>
>
> (a) 0
> (b) zero
> (c) none
> (d) not even one
> (e) an integer between -1 and +1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congressman Speaks Out on Looming Iraq War
U.S. Representative John J. Duncan (R-TN)

March 6, 2003

"Conservatives Against a War with Iraq"

Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.

A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come
out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following:

Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension - urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another - has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."

Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."

It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.

It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.

It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.

It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions.

Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions, yet we have not threatened war against them.

It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S., yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq.

In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now it will cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships, and equipment to the Middle East.

It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now.

Talk about huge foreign aid - Turkey is demanding $26 to $32 billion according to most reports. Israel wants $12 to $15 billion additional aid. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts.

Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war effort wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war cost calculations.

All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than 3/10 of one percent of ours.

The White House said Hussein has less than 40% of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20%.

His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargos.

He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us, and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history.

Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our War Resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.

The Washington Post, two days ago, had a column by Al Kamen which said: "The
war in Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. firepower to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath, when Washington plans to install an administrator, or viceroy, who would direct postwar reconstruction of the place."

Fortune magazine said: "Iraq - We win. What then?" "A military victory could
turn into a strategic defeat. . . . A prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation . . . could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. . . . All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy."

Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks.

One conservative Republican member of the other Body (Sen. Hagel) said last week that the "rush to war in Iraq could backfire" and asked: "We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?"

The Atlantic Monthly magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st state. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here instead of 7,000 miles away.

It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism.

We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own nation, maybe irreversibly unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign.

Finally, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war.

Another member of the other Body, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition said recently:

"This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of the revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future - is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense."

The columnist William Raspberry, again not a conservative but one who sometimes takes conservative positions, wrote this week these words: "Why so fast. Because Hussein will stall the same way he's been stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. Tell me its because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, and I say great. Isn't that
better than a U.S.-launched war guaranteed to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism?"

Throughout these remarks, I have said not one word critical of the President
or any of his advisors or anyone on the other side of this issue.

I especially have not and will not criticize the fine men and women in our Nation's armed forces. They are simply following orders and attempting to serve this country in an honorable way.

Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against this war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Posted on Thu, Mar. 13, 2003

Bring out a dunce cap
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate

After every military engagement, the Pentagon conducts a review to discover what it did right, what it did wrong, what worked and what didn't. It is an admirable tradition and one that needs to be copied by journalism.

According to a poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS, 42 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was personally responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center, something that has never even been claimed by the Bush administration.

According to a poll conducted by ABC, 55 percent believe that Saddam gives direct support to al Qaeda, a claim that has been made by the administration but for which no evidence has ever been presented. President Bush has lately modified the claim to "al Qaeda-type" organizations.

This is how well journalism has done its job in the months leading up to this war. A disgraceful performance.

Ambrose Bierce, the 19th-century cynic, once observed that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. Going to war with the people in such a state, not of ignorance but of misinformation, is truly terrifying.

Among other things, these monster misimpressions have poisoned the public's debate, which is not now and has not been for many months whether to "do something" or "do nothing" about Saddam. The debate is over whether containment will work better than invasion, given the enormous cost (both monetarily and diplomatically) of invasion and then occupation.

Let me leap to say that containment, which is working to some extent, would not be working at all if Bush had not been keeping relentless pressure on the Iraqi regime. But it is impossible to avoid the sickening conclusion that the Bush administration decided to invade months ago and has never been willing to consider containment. It is this unmistakable attitude that has poisoned U.S. relations with countries around the world.

Hans Blix reports that Iraq is "pro-actively" cooperating with the U.N. inspectors and that the inspections can be fully completed "not in years, nor weeks, but months."

After all this time, we are still left with the two questions: Why Iraq? And why now? One of the continuously changing rationales for war has been that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, or was within a few years of having nuclear weapons. That is simply untrue.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council that letters purportedly showing that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were fabricated.

"There is no evidence of resumed nuclear activities," said ElBaradei. The much-discussed high-strength aluminum tubes supposedly bought by Iraq for use as centrifuges also have been accounted for. The IAEA reports having found extensive records on the tubes, which were for 81mm conventional rockets.

Another under-reported story was a Feb. 26 speech by President Bush the Elder at Tufts University, in which he said of France and Germany: "We have differences with European countries, and they have differences with us. I worked on those relationships, and I feel confident when all this calms down, when Iraq lives within the international law, you will see the United States back together as allies and friends with both Germany and France."

He cited his own experience with the late King Hussein of Jordan, who had sided against him in the Persian Gulf War: "The minute the war ended … I was determined that we would get the relationship between Jordan and the United States back on track." Then, in the ineffable Poppy Bush manner, he stopped to heap praise on King Hussein:

"I think there's a message in that for those who today say: How can we ever put things together? How can we ever get talking when you have such acrimony and such bad feeling?' You've got to reach out to the other person. You've got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity."

He also reiterated his contention that if the United States had exceeded the U.N. mandate in 1990, the United States never would have been able to get Middle Eastern peace negotiations started at the Madrid conference. "The coalition would have instantly shattered, and the political capital that we had gained, as result of our principled restraint, to jump-start the peace process would have been lost."

A final note on matters journalistic: At his news conference last week, George W. Bush broke a 43-year tradition by failing to call on Helen Thomas, now of the Hearst Syndicate, who has been asking questions at presidential news conferences since 1960. Thomas is openly critical of this administration, and particularly of this war.

Afraid to take a question from an 82-year-old woman? Bush has no class. Equally disgusting was the White house press corps' failure to respond to the insult. What makes that bunch of smug chumps think it won't be done to any one of them?

Bring back Poppy, syntax and all!

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:02 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:01 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

I would have us support the brave men and women in uniform who are over there right now, living through the longest 48 hours of their lives.

I would have us pray that casualties are as minimal as possible, both for the innocent and for those carrying out the orders of our President.

I would pray for the impossible--that somehow that cold dead husk in the place where Saddam's heart is supposed to be suddenly experiences a tiny spark of warmth that inspires him to leave Bagdad.

I would pray that when history looks back on what's about to happen, there will be more lessons learned. Looking back on what I wrote, Wulf's response, and the events of last night, I take back the "careening out of control" bit written yesterday.

Everything that could be done has been. Somebody's got to take care of Saddam Hussein. If that Somebody has to be the U.S., then so be it.

still walkin and talkin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:08 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

wow, Randy...that's...quite a tome.

still walkin and talkin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:00 AM

Channain, I think you were right in your original message. Things ARE careening out of control. I too re-read Wulf's response. Unfortunately, the issues of causality and subsequent ramifications are not quite so simple. Yes, Saddam is bad. But war is not the only option. As the articles I attached above mention, containment is another option that is less costly on all fronts. The urgency we feel on this issue is an artificial one imposed on us by the government. A year ago, it was not a hot issue. The decisions people are making are based on information from the government whom has already proved to be an unreliable source on multiple occasions. Evidence that never turned up. Terrorist threats that were rescinded because they were based on incorrect information. Remember that true democracy requires some skepticism of government propaganda and the ability to think on your own. To blindly follow is to be like "cattle for the slaugher" (Bushwhacked). Many political experts around the world agree that waiting a few months and allowing the inspections to continue would have cost the U.S. nothing. And what of North Korea? While the U.S. has yet to prove Iraq has any WMDs, North Korea is blantantly displaying them. Why are they not a higher priority? You have to ask yourself these questions. As far as the terrorist issue, by alienating the world and acting as the global police without any overseeing body, it will only make terrorists more determined to fight this superpower imposing its rules and regulations on the world. Which comes first? The chicken or the egg? Are we attacking a symptom or creating the disease? On the high moral road, we say we want to free the Iraqi people from oppression. That's all good and well and we all want that. But isn't it ironic that in order to give the Iraqi people a voice, we won't listen to any other country's voice? Well, only those that agree with us. Anyone notice this siimilarity to "the Alliance?" This is an extremely complex and delicate issue and should be handled as such. But MOAB bombs are hardly delicate. Imagine the innocent Iraqis who will be burned from the inside out.

There are a couple of things I don't understand about Wulf's message. He talks about "socio-economic erosion" and murders in the U.S. to justify war. That seems sorta backward. Yes, those are huge problems here. And it seems a perfect argument to an anti-war stance. Instead of spending billions (isn't it estimated at $6 billion?) in Iraq, why not spend that money here where we need it to fight the "socio-economic erosion" and "American [being] killed by Americans". And don't for a second think that once we kill Saddam that Iraq won't turn into a huge money pit. That is taking food out of the mouths of our own hungry children, education from our own struggling schools.

Another thing that Wulf seems to assume is that if you do not support the war, you do not support the troops. While a neat and easy conclusion, it is quite simplistic as they are NOT mutually exclusive. Though I may not support this war (I would certainly reconsider if it were UN sanctioned), you cannot say I do not support the troops. I don't believe Merlindrea said that either. I support them 100%. They are doing a difficult and admirable service for all Americans. But I would rather they were brought home safe and sound without a one of them dying especially in a war that has yet to be proven as unavoidable. How can that be taken as NOT supporting the troops? Seeing families wrenched apart makes this war seem even less compelling.

So that's my take.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:00 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:23 AM

Randy, thanks so much! I didn't want to reply to Wulf right away, because I wanted to cool down first

I just wanted to say that I admire America and its history of democracy. Gosh, I am German and where would I be today if America hadn't stepped in? I love to live here and I found wonderful friends here. The city I am living in has an Airforce academy and several bases, a lot of military personnel. My best friend's husband here is in the military. And I can go shopping on Sunday's!

But that does not mean that I have to like and agree with everything what's going on, does it? There is a german phrase, which I really like:

"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."

Rough translation:
"Freedom is always the freedom of the person disagreeing with you, too."

So, Wulf, I accept you have a different opinion, but I would appreciate a less aggressive tone

Merl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:25 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
Channain, I think you were right in your original message. Things ARE careening out of control. I too re-read Wulf's response. Unfortunately, the issues of causality and subsequent ramifications are not quite so simple.

actually Babylon 5 has been coming to mind a lot lately. I do keep thinking there's some seruptitious political issue here that we're missing. oil is just way too obvious.

here's a question. could last night's ultimatum have been issued with the hope or even some vague information that someone inside Saddam's circle would take care of him? the Iraqi's have to be ten times as concerned as we are about what impact a war will have on their people. will someone take the initiative, declare it the greater good and sacrifice themselves to deal with him? am I being naive for even thinking such a thing?

side bar: my step-nephew is in the Navy. we used to be close, but haven't spoken in awhile so I'm not sure where he's posted.

"Still walkin and talkin." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:37 AM

i DO aim to misbehave

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:

Ok, off with the gloves-this ain't gonna go on by no kind of civilized rules.

yikes. anyone else's ears ringing?

"Still walkin and talkin." ~ Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:41 AM

Merl, I agree. Wulf's tone was a bit inappropriate for this discussion board. Though I admire his passion in his convictions, as this board states, "please be civil when responding to others." As for me, I'm always open to hearing the opposing argument because it makes me think and question my own position. After all, none of us knows everything and we can only learn when we are stimulated.

I too, believe strongly in Democracy. And perhaps that is why this issue bothers me so. I feel Democracy is being threatened. The people are being misled, misrepresented and their voices silenced. It all began with the Supreme Court determining who would become president. Is this democracy? Here in California, a couple of senators stated publicly that although their constituents oppose the war, they still voted for war. Is this democracy? Helen Thomas, because she is openly critical of the administration, is summarily snubbed and silenced. Is this democracy? The government manipulates the terror warning level to instill fear and paranoia. Is this democracy?

As ethically incorrect as it is, I have to agree with Channain on someone taking out Saddam. How nice and neat and justified. But there is still the sticky question of installing a functional infrastructure. And I don't think oil is the underlying impetus of this. I think it is merely a reward that will be used to finance the war. There are many more issues at hand that could be driving the push for war, some political, some economic and some probably purely megalomaniacal.

Deutschland ist richtig! Kein Krieg! Ich denke manchmal dass diese Welt verrueckt ist. (excuse my bad German).

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:41 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Randy:

Deutschland ist richtig! Kein Krieg! Ich denke manchmal dass diese Welt verrueckt ist. (excuse my bad German).

Randy, your German is perfect! And yes, I wish, too, that a secret organization just goes into Iraq, kills Saddam and his ugly sons and thats it - and then somebody makes a nice action movie out of it with clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys...

Merl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:57 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

Quote:
Originally posted by Channain:
I do keep thinking there's some seruptitious political issue here that we're missing. oil is just way too obvious.

If I remember correctly, one of the things Bush Jr. wanted to accomplished when he first took office was to get rid of Saddam and finish the job Bush Sr. started. So it's obviously not just about the oil. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a vendetta, but I'm sure many in the Middle East will probably see it that way. And I sometimes wonder if 9/11 would have happened if Bush wasn't the president. Something to think about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:20 PM

Lets all remember we're all friends here-- United in our love for Firefly. Are we remembering? I don't see you remembering... Okay good.

Alright, I've still yet to hear a different, logical course of action for those who are opposed to the war.

Quote:

Originally posted by MERLINDREA:
But back to your question: Instead of putting in sick amounts of money into the military, this money could be used to increase the life standard in those countries. As an example: Greece and Turkey are what you could call 'natural' enemies. They have a long past of very cruel wars, Greece was occupied by Turkey for over 500 years. They hate each other. A couple of years ago, they had a crisis again, with warships already being sent to the middle sea etc. But they didn't start it. Why? Because their main income is tourism. If they start a war, they can forget the money coming in. So the economic interest was greater than their hate.

Bottomline: If people are fed and see a future for their kids, its not that easy to make them into terrorists...

No but it’s harder to make them into ambitionless malnourished terrorists. Ba da bing! Okay that was stupid, moving on.

I see the Greece and turkey tourism bit, but you can’t buy everyone. We don’t have enough money to offer Iraq and say, “Uh…please give this money to your people Saddam. Um… we want to be friends again. Yeah, I’m sure you’re not going to take this money and make more high tech expensive weapons or buy yourself a new fancy car because you are a kind dictator, a loving dictator, you care for your people, don’t worry about it. Take it, please we want you to have it. One condition, remember last time we gave you money, and guns and training? Yeah, please don‘t do like last time and use it against us? Can you do that? Great. Kiss, kiss, ta, ta.”

Yeah, that will go over real well. Let’s keep Saddam in power now that we know he hates everything about the US, and give him money.

Another point. If we give enormous amounts of money to every country that threatens us, what does that tell the rest of the world. “Send terrorist to kill our civilians and win a prize!” ??? Cause I don’t like that game.

Oh, another point. Regarding your bottomline- not many of the people in Iraq are going to see a future for their children if Saddam is allowed to remain in control. Maybe I’m wrong-
“Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace. Between three and four million Iraqis, about 15 percent of the population, have fled their homeland rather than live under Saddam Hussein's regime.”
Only three or four million people have fled? Oh, that can’t all be because of the oppressive dictator we know and love as Saddam? They must just not like the weather. Here’s another snip bit about his favorite types of torture. Yes, he has favorites, as if he has so many he can pick-
“They included eye-gouging, piercing of hands with an electric drill, suspension from a ceiling, electric shock, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, beating of the soles of feet, mock executions, extinguishing cigarettes on the body and acid baths.”
Acid baths??? Hun, even if we did give them money, and even if he did give it to his people for food- excuse me while I laugh- I think that the acid baths are still making it sound like a pretty crappy deal for the people who live there.

Web page for whole story on acid baths, etc…
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/02/sproject.irq.dossier/

Iraq and neighboring regions are rich with the money they make off of oil, and at the same time their civilians are living in poverty. I don’t think that any more money we give them will help. We need to remove Saddam from power, while --and we are doing this now-- we give civilians food and medicine. After Saddam is booted out, we’ve promised to stay and help rebuild. I know it will take time, but it is better than, “I’m sorry people of Iraq. You were born into a land rich with oil. You should all be prospering and enjoying the warm weather but you got stuck with an over oppressive dictator who enjoys administering acid baths and eye-gouges. There are those of us who would like to come over a kick out the acid bath man, those of us who would like to ignore you, and those of us who would like to give him money to pay for the acid that fills your tub. At the moment we are all fighting amongst ourselves, so sit tight, I’m sure something will happen, and when it does, be well assured my country wont be united in our efforts. Good day.” That’s sad, and its crappy that this even goes on in our world. We’ve only got one people! Maybe this is what pushed us from “earth that was” in about 500 years.

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:02 PM

Ok, guys, let's tango one last time.

Merl, Nic, and Randy...that's ok, you have the right to have and speak your opinions...but DON'T think for a minute I'm gonna accept your rhetoric as fact, or massive posts as credible. Didn't Saddam infodump the inspectors just that way?

Merl, why in the heck would you think the war is about oil? We have tons of oil here, and more friends with tons of oil. It doesn't help your credibility to parrot silly theories. And you'd like to fire our defense department, disband the military, and give the money to the needy over there? I'm sure Saddam would agree to spend the money on his needy subjects. You'd trust him, right?

Nic, I'm kinda fuzzy on the faked evidence thing? You wanna put a little more fact where your rhetoric is? Didn't Colin Powell cite the links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien as fact? In front of the UN? Didn't the CIA report it in the first place, just couldn't confirm it seven ways from Sunday?

Randy, let me put this in small words for you . . . no reasonable person doubts SH has WMD capability, no reasonable person doubts SH is seeking further WMD capability. And believe this or not, North Korea, Iran, and other tyrants around the globe are watching us closely on this. Can you guess why? No? Never mind.

Oh, and, let me drag up a quote:
But is anybody talking about the 22 million Iraqis? How many of them will have to die in this high-tech war? And how many of them would rather live under Saddam than die by an american soldier?
Are you saying here that you expect our, the US, soldiers to target civilians? Sounds like it. Are you saying we, the US, don't care about the Iraqi people? Sounds like it.

You guys are crying about the poor, innocent Iraqi civilians that MIGHT die, when thousands die at Saddam's hand, when thousands of us die needlessly, RIGHT HERE. What makes the POSSIBLE death of Iraqi civilians more worthy of your notice? Hmm?

Now, I can think of some fine reasons not to go to war, some personal, some national, but that's not the point. Saddam Hussein is a bad man, but that's not a good reason to go to war.

Saddam wants to build an empire, like Hitler. Saddam has contacts with Bin Laden. Saddam has developed terrible weapons, and is not averse to using them. Saddam is himself a terrorist, willing to attack innocents to further his mad desires. Do we dare wait further? Wait until Saddam works out a way to strike back at us, the US, with smallpox, or anthrax, or ricine, or nukes? Wait until what, guys? We've waited ten years. He is still in power, still bankrupting his country to build back his military, still intent on building an empire. Waiting will not disarm him, waiting will not disuade him, waiting will not save the Iraqi people from him. Waiting will only strengthen him, will only further endanger his neighbors, his continent, and us.

And hey, maybe a little example for the other nuts out there might not be a bad thing. 8)

Ok guys, I promise not to be so crochety in the future. *puts his gloves back on*

there ain't no such thing as a free lunch

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:20 PM

HARDWARE

Okay, let's address the salient points raised by others;

1) It's about the oil.

a. Okay, take a look around you. Where ever you are, whatever you can see, whatever you are wearing, touching, is in your pockets or purse, all of it was moved by a transportation system absolutely dependent on oil. Check your hypocrisy meter before you begin criticizing war for oil. All wars have at their heart an economic justification.

b. America is a very wealthy nation. If we wanted oil, and only oil, we could just BUY it from Iraq.

2) Unjustified war.

a. The UN has not rescinded the original resolution authorizing force of arms against Iraq. Hussein has lied, cheated, and manipulated the UN for 12 years. I think we have exhausted diplomatic efforts.

b. Neville Chamberlain went to extraordinary lengths to appease Hitler with diplomatic measures. He promised "Peace in our time" right after stabbing the Czechoslovakians in the back with the pen that signed the treaty allowing Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Three years later a war that would kill 40 million people began. If you can't see the similarities I don't know what to say. That should be justification enough.

3) I think Bush is an idiot.

a. Maybe, it's a free country and you are entitled to your opinion. If you're an American, please feel free to express your freedom of speech in an appropriate manner. The fact remains, he is the leader acknowledged by all branches of the government as the person we put in office. Right or wrong, agree or disagree.

b. Get out next November and vote Gorram it! %50 turnout last election was far better than most years, but it still means the voting boxes were only half full. We can do better. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haken:
And I sometimes wonder if 9/11 would have happened if Bush wasn't the president. Something to think about.

Of course not, if Gore would have become President the Democrats would have paid off the terrorist with another 7 million dollers. Billery Clinton paid terrorists, so they wouldn't attack the U.S., with tax payers money during his stint as President. Where did that money go, to fund more terrorist activities, go figure.

Regardless on your position on the war the most important thing is to support the Soldiers going there. We don't want a repeat of the 60's protests. Soldiers are held by contract to do their jobs, it's not their fault they're going over to fight for liberty. You know if they refuse it's called "Dereliction of Duty" they get tried and convicted and they go to MILITARY jail, most of the time a to Levenworth. Military jails aren't fun.

Second everyone in the U.S. has the right to freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, what I find funny is when peaceful protests turn violent. I thouht they were protesting for peace? Weird huh?

Again, Russia is only opposed to this because they lent a certain number of weapons to Saddam last time, (those weapons we were confiscating and blowing up during Desert Storm were Soviet made weapons.) and probably even this time too, they have yet to be paid in full. If Saddam is removed the new Iraq doesn't have to acknowledge this debt. Another thing to note is not to trust Putin, the man ran the friggin' KGB before its demise.

Still complainin', Have you people even read a US governemt book? the President has very very little control over the economy, everything he does has to be approved through Congress. He is aloud to conduct peacekeeping operations for 120 days. But all-in-all the President is just for foreign affairs. The true people you should be mad at is Congressmen and the Senetors. And Alan Greenspan who directly influences the economy from the PRIVATELY funded Federal Reserve, it's not even a part of our Government. Ya know who owns it? the World Bank and what did the World Bank do to USSR at the end of the Cold War, hum? It called in all of the Soviet's debts, economically crushing them and thus the fall of the Iron Curtain. Got a little off topic there. Do you know how many oil providers were based in the US a short few years ago? More than eight, now- there are closer to four, why? Merger's, company mergers. What is happening with the gasoline prices is what is called price gouging, and it is illegal. The shipments of petrolium from all over the world inculding the middle east has not been atered enough to justify the high prices.

I'm with you Wolfhawk!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:26 PM

I agree with Kaythryn that throwing money there won't work. However, I disagree that war is the only option. As I mentioned above, many "experts" feel that containment is an alternative. By this, yes, force is used as a threat, but diplomacy is used to monitor. Perhaps like weapons inspections, there could be a monitoring of the government's actions. I don't have the answer but to immediately jump to war is just an easy way out.

And yes, this is an immediate jump. Surely everyone noticed that since the Bush administration bypassed the security council, their motto is not longer disarmament but is now "regime change". That has been their agenda all along but they tried to manipulate the security council under the guise of disarmament. It was all a political game (ain't it all?). Does this not bother anyone?

Again, there is the "terrorist argument". Keep in mind that Iraq has never directly threatened us. And their links to Al Qaeda have never been proven and the government has admitted as much. So there is not much behind that argument. Here's the key...Don't you wonder WHY terrorists are attacking the U.S.? I don't understand how people can NOT ask themselves these questions. By proceeding with so much hubris and bravado, we are ensuring further and more destructive acts of terror. They are doing to us what we are doing to them. It is naive to think that ousting Saddam will end terrorism. He is a tiny cog in a giant machine. We need to think on a higher level, not just react.

And, lest you forget, the U.S. tortures its prisoners to extract information. Who's monitoring us?

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:26 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:

2) Unjustified war.

a. The UN has not rescinded the original resolution authorizing force of arms against Iraq. Hussein has lied, cheated, and manipulated the UN for 12 years. I think we have exhausted diplomatic efforts.

b. Neville Chamberlain went to extraordinary lengths to appease Hitler with diplomatic measures. He promised "Peace in our time" right after stabbing the Czechoslovakians in the back with the pen that signed the treaty allowing Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Three years later a war that would kill 40 million people began. If you can't see the similarities I don't know what to say. That should be justification enough.

Alright I just had to respond to this one. You're right, the people who say "give peace a chance" must be brain dead, hey where were you the past twelve years? Don't get me wrong I don't want to go to war, either.

And I like the Hitler comparasion. Saddam has studdied Hitler did you know that? He did it while in prision for a failed assasaination attempt. Hell the guy was butchering the Kurds in northern Iraq before we stepped in during Desert Storm.

Quote:

If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain.

You don't like legistation? You don't vote, it doesn't change. It's time to stop letting the House of Represenatives make you decisions for you, it's time to get those kick-back taking Congressmen and Senetors out and the American Dream back in. Nothing changes if you sit on your hands people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:46 PM

Okay, so you guys want to know why I believe this war is about oil?

Okay, first of all: yes, Saddam tortures and kills his own people. BUT HE DID SO FOR YEARS AND YEARS! Why does the US Government suddenly discover its tender feelings for the Iraqis? And what about the people in North Korea? And many african countries with dictators? What about Iran? etc. etc. As somebody pointed out already, other countries are much more threatening to the world.

Second: there is no prove - and thats the reason why Bush did not manage to convince the UN - that Iraq is linked to 9/11.

Third: Iraq is one of the countries with the biggest oil sources. I'm not sure if I have the numbers right, but I believe Iraq controls 25% of the complete OPEC resources. Now, what would do that to the OPEC if America could destroy their monopol??? As somebody else pointed out, oil is in everything, so who controls oil, has the power.

The first golf war was about oil - or do you think the US Government then would have cared one bit that Iraq tried to take over Kuwait? And to say: we have tons of oil and our friends have tons of oil is just bs, sorry. Why do you think Bush wanted to open new Oil sources in Alaska? Because with the rate this country is burning its resources, it will not be long before we are in trouble!

Just remember what happened in Jugoslawia - killing and torturing of thousands of people, mass rape etc. Did the US rush in there like it did in the Golf war? No - why? Hmmm, let me think - no strategic interest for the US! No oil, nothing, just human people suffering. Did that war even make the news here?

Again, I would love to believe that the US government is going in to help the Iraqis. But all the human-rights arguments just lead me to the question: why now? why Iraq? And why does a country who does not agree to an international court believe it can play world government???

One other comment. Wulf, I believe, had asked, if I believe US soldiers would purposefully kill women and children. No, I don't think so. But in a war innocents are killed - everybody who thinks different is very naive (to say it polite). So if I accept war, I accept the death of innocent people. If I am a soldier, I accept that there is a possibility I will kill innocent people, especially with such a high-tech war where you don't even see your enemy up close.

Merl

PS: And why do I have the distinct feeling that the pro-war people here are the more rude and aggressive fraction? Must be all those testosterones...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:14 PM

Ach mein Gott! Dios mio! My God! This room is getting a bit hot. Can someone open a window and cool things down?

Believe it or not, though I do not want this war, I am not brain-dead, as Talrius so eloquently stated. And contrary to Wulf's beliefs, I am a reasonable person. I just happen to disagree. I have a different viewpoint, fueled by different information. Which information is correct is anyone's guess. That is why this issue is so divisive...precisely because we don't really know what to believe.

"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:14 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:19 PM

HJERMSTED

It's most certainly about oil, this US aggression we are about to witness (well, the rest of the world will get to witness it... American corporate media will show us colorful maps, cool graphics and cleansed imagery designed by ad agencies).

Who do you think will own and run those oil fields when Iraq is "liberated"? The Iraqis? The UN?... No and no.

The new owners of Iraq's oil supply will be the same multinational oil conglomerates who owned the fields before Sadaam Hussein came to power. In fact, the planning for this is already established and has been for awhile. You see, when Hussein took over as leader of Iraq, he nationalized the oil fields. Rather than doing it Castro style and just stealing the fields, Hussein cut each of the oil companies a hefty check for all the oil-drilling apparatus they installed. This must have seemed fair to him. But he kept the black gold and directed all future profits to his nation (and mostly himself).

These same oil companies have been clamouring for an invasion of Iraq for a long time now. Dick Cheney was a big cheese at one of these companies, Halliburton, during the Clinton years I do believe.

The Bush family is an oil family. Without oil no one would ever have heard of George Bush jr. or sr. (sounds like paradise on Earth to me!). Though they moonlight as a political family, the Bush family is still a heavily invested oil family to this day. They will only become richer and more powerful once the ownership of the Iraqi oil is returned to the multi-national oil companies.

So don't tell me this war we are about to watch on American TV (censored and sanitized) is about freedom, fighting terror or any of that rubbish. That stuff is just a dream we are being asked to believe is true.

We had a coup here in the U.S. in 2000. Now we are reaping the rewards of that coup. At the expense of the economy. At the expense of healthcare. At the expense of education. To paraphrase David Cross, "George W. Bush does not give a sh*t about you or your family or your town..." and the spilling of American blood is about to become the greatest expense America pays because of this.

I am deeply empathetic to any and all who have family and/or friends in the Gulf region (I am among that group). I personally am working daily as a peace activist to bring all Americans back home albeit in the alive fasion. But I cannot support the president or the war for there is no honor in him nor in his actions (George W. would make a lousy Klingon). He will only succeed in enraging the world and making day-to-day life harder for Americans. We truly must defeat this man in '04.

Peace,

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:21 PM

*looks longingly at the gloves*

Look, Merl, you're all over the place here. Maybe you're just arguing for the fun of it, and I do understand that.

Understand, if you'll try, that there is no ONE reason for this upcoming conflict. In the same vein, there really is no one overriding reason to avoid it. In the balance of things, it's our turn to clean the toilet. And really, if nobody does, it don't get no cleaner, now does it?

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by merlindrea:

PS: And why do I have the distinct feeling that the pro-war people here are the more rude and aggressive fraction? Must be all those testosterones...

This is completely unhelpful:

Yeah... I'm swimming in testosterone.

End completly unhelpful.

Further, no one here is pro-war. I don't think anyone, regardless of their vehemence is all about blowing people up. I'm not anti-war and I think that's the phrase others might use as well.

As for today's sojourn into "containment" I just got to say: Hellooo?!?! Vietnam?! Hellloooo?

And whoever made the point about the Clinton administration paying terrorists off: Right on. Hell yes that's half the issue at this point. There's a policy of appeasement and containment for you.

And you can bet your last grenade-free apple that North Korea is watching these events unfold like it's the last 2 hours of American Idol, y'all.

Or maybe that was the end of completely unhelpful.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Further, no one here is pro-war.

I apologize if my English was not hitting the mark. However, if somebody believes that in the current situation there is no better solution than to go to war, then I would see that as pro-war?

However, even though I still believe that there is only one big driver for the US government, I acknowledge that there are a lot of different reasons for the single person to support the war. I don't have to agree with it. And regarding the "unhelpful" comment: seems there are quite some unhelpful comments in this thread, which is really sad - and kind of de-idealizing (does that word make sense?) for me...

Wulf, sorry that I dared to answer yet again. I will try to be silent now.

Merl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by merlindrea:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
Further, no one here is pro-war.

I apologize if my English was not hitting the mark. However, if somebody believes that in the current situation there is no better solution than to go to war, then I would see that as pro-war?

Pro-war would seem to indicate that I, in supporting the war, am in favor of it from top to bottom. That's not the case. And I'm not in favor of war in general.

It's like the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-life." The Pro-Choice people don't want to be called "pro-killing-babies" and the Pro-Life people don't want to be called "anti-choice" or "all-about-being-barefoot-and-pregnant." See where I'm going?

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:26 PM

Don’t be silent merlindrea. All comments welcome. This is such a difficult topic to talk about, so much information, and it is hard to tell what is the truth. Keep posting, the only way any of us will come closer to an answer will be to keep talking about it....Anyone remember when this used to be a firefly posting page???

-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:32 PM

I for sure like to see the involvement and intelligence of fellow browncoats, even if we've wandered a bit into the woods here.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
I for sure like to see the involvement and intelligence of fellow browncoats, even if we've wandered a bit into the woods here.

tanstaafl

Sometimes the woods is the only place you can see a clear path.

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:59 PM