UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately

POSTED BY: Haken
UPDATED: Monday, May 10, 2004 04:48
VIEWED: 26062
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HAKEN

Monday, March 17, 2003 10:42 AM

Well, this is probably the first real sign that an attack on Iraq is imminent. I was gonna say something, but right now, I'm kinda at a lost for words. And maybe a bit freaked because many people from my state is over there.

KAYTHRYN

Monday, March 17, 2003 4:49 PM

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.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, March 17, 2003 6:59 PM

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.
----------------------------------

CHANNAIN

Monday, March 17, 2003 7:29 PM

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

HJERMSTED

Monday, March 17, 2003 8:59 PM

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

CHANNAIN

Monday, March 17, 2003 9:03 PM

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

WULFHAWK

Monday, March 17, 2003 11:04 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

SARAHETC

Monday, March 17, 2003 11:52 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

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:07 AM

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*

SARAHETC

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:16 AM

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

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:26 AM

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?

KAYTHRYN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:35 AM

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.

KAYTHRYN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:10 AM

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.

SARAHETC

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:52 AM

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

SLYNN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:46 AM

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

TALRIUS

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:43 AM

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

NICOLA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:28 AM

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

LERXST

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:06 AM

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.

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:17 AM

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

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:36 PM

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

KAYTHRYN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:53 PM

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.

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 4:45 PM

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

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:50 PM

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

RANDY

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:02 PM

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.

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:01 PM

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

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:08 PM

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

still walkin and talkin

RANDY

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:00 PM

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

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:23 PM

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

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:25 PM

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

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:37 PM

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

RANDY

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:41 PM

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

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:57 PM

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

HAKEN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:57 PM

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.

KAYTHRYN

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:20 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

WULFHAWK

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:02 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

HARDWARE

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:20 PM

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.

TALRIUS

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:21 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!

RANDY

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:26 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

TALRIUS

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:44 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.

MERLINDREA

Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:46 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...

RANDY

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:14 AM

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

HJERMSTED

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:19 AM

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

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:21 AM

*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

SARAHETC

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 12:33 AM

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

MERLINDREA

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:09 AM

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

SARAHETC

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:22 AM

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

KAYTHRYN

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:26 AM

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.

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:32 AM

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

SARAHETC

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:52 AM

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

TALRIUS

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sarahetc:
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

And sometimes you just end up running into a bunch of trees.

--------------------------------------------------
Ya know why I picked Dobson as my Avatar? 'Cause he looked all kinds of lonely. Poor guy was only doin' his job.

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:15 AM

*picking out the splinters*

Hawhaw! Heck, I warned ya'll when the gloves came off. I think ya'll did just fine, standin up for yourselves like that. Get a few years on ya, learn to listen to the quietest voice instead of the loudest, ya'll might be able to tangle with me.

tanstaafl

NICOLA

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:20 AM

Wow! I went away for a day, and I came back and this thread was just smokin'!

Wulfhawk: The knowledge that you want us to listen to the quietest voice, instead of the loudest is heartening, although I have to point out, that to suggest that people's opinions are ill-informed because of their age is somewhat... non-productive.

At some point during this active day, I was asked to explain where I got my information re: Faked information and nuclear weapons.

To clarify ... my original statement was:

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

Randy answered this and I have posted his response as follows:

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.

Thanks Randy. Still don't know who faked the information... I am not a big conspiricy theorist but it does beg the question.

Is this war about oil? Partially, but not mostly. (I mean everything, ultimately is about scarce resources, but I don't think the dominating factor in this instance is oil.) For information sake, the US gets the vast majority of its oil from Venezuela and Canada.

It really is about the fact that Iraq is weak - easy pickens as it were. (Although I can't believe I am saying that about peoples lives...). Regime change (not disarmament) is the goal of this administration.

As to what we should do now?

I think the die is cast. I think the die was cast last August. It disturbs me that so many well-informed people are against this war, and yet...here we are.

Is this war about global domination? No. Not really. I do believe that most Western governments would love to have a healthy, thriving, democratic government installed in the Middle East. Not just so that they could buy cheap oil from Iraq, but also to sell lots of consumer goods to them - isn't that what capitalism is all about?

What disturbs me most about this war, is the shift in foreign policy that it indicates. The US had a policy of not engaging in preemptive war. The link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is unproven, which makes this war with Iraq just that - a preemptive war.

In Babylon 5, Sheridan said "My father taught me never to start a fight, but by God, when you are in one you finish it." (Not exact quote - forgive me.) That seemed to me to be an estimable attitude, and one I thought was intrinsically American.

I still stand by my position that Saddam has to go. I just don't think that the case has been made to go now.

"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

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:35 PM

Nic, let me ask again...where did you get the info? Did you aquire the Nigerian documents, learn Nigerian, study the fakery?

No

You have taken the word of someone else, just like the rest of us. That don't make you any brighter or righter. You are likely as far from the original source of the intelligence as all of us.

We, all of us, are built to believe. The most important quiet voice is the one within, the one that whispers Occam's Razor to me when I get carried away, the one that quotes "...however unlikely, what remains MUST be the truth."

I question you because you speak, but remember we ALL have our little voices.

tanstaafl

RANDY

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:08 PM

It seems that no one on this board wants war. The divisive issue is whether it is justified or not.

Nic, thanks for the quote but unfortunately, that wasn't me. Wish it were because I agree 100%.

And Wulf, although your sarcasm is thinly veiled, I agree with you too as far as taking the word of someone else. Gosh, something we agree on...other than Firefly, of course. We are all forming our opinions based on knowledge we've received and yet have no way of verifying its veracity. Whether it is propaganda from the government or propaganda from the peace activists, none of us are privy to the truth. And therefore, we need to listen to each person and RESPECT their opinion.

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

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:10 PM

While I await the wonderful news that Joss has found a home for Firefly, I'd like to add a couple thoughts here that I've yet to see posted.

One major factor in this war for which I don't need any documentation (just a little common sense and a willingness to "go there"), is racism. Oil or no, we would not be going to war right now if Saddam Hussein were white. You know it would be funny if it weren't plain evil, but there's a very obvious link between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq: skin color.

There's a lot of noise being made about the stupidity and denial of those of us who are against the war, but opposing this war seems pretty sensible to me if for no other reason than it is too expensive. Expensive in lives, expensive in money we don't have, expensive in loss of a global community, expensive in astronomical risk. In the face of these obvious reasons to find other solutions to our "Mideast Problem" this war starts to look pretty stupid and full of denial to me. Some day, as Americans and human beings, we are going to have to respect our limitations. Which is not to say that we are not the richest most powerful nation on the planet, only that we are not God and we are not (or should not let ourselves become) the benevolent dictator of the world.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:36 PM

Randy, I don't veil my sarcasm; what fun would that be? No, the fact is, facts are hard to come by, and however loudly or longwindedly some folk decry there own point of view, it's unlikely to be fact.

I don't argue with fact, but anyone says I have to believe the facts they a'tellin me better be prepared to have them disputed.

As my final post on this thread, to the folks that felt I was tryin to run 'em off, or tryin to shut 'em up, or just ridin' roughshod over 'em:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

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

What? You were expecting an apology? Haw

RANDY

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:52 PM

Merl, don't EVER let anyone silence you. Speak out. Your beliefs and opinions are just as important. And by being civil and respectful, you rise above. It takes strength to stand strong especially when you're the minority. That is the only way to facilitate change. And though you may not be able to change someone's mind, it is important that you let the world know that you don't agree. Silence comes across as tacit approval. I participate in the peace rallys not because I think we can change the government's collective mind at this point but to show them and the world that there are Americans who do NOT approve of their actions.

Besides, don't leave me here alone with the wolves...

And your English is excellent, by the way.

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

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:48 PM

I guess the thing that really bothers me is the way Saddams past actions are being used to justify this war.
Yeah the guy is a tyrannt, yes he has killed thousand. No I would not shed a tear if he took two to the back of the head.
But if his crime is murder, and I would say it is, aren't the people who handed him the weapons and supported him accomplices?
Hell, the laws in some states find you guilty if you stand back and watch a crime going down if you don't do anything...
Ugly situation, Saddam wasn't alone in making it

Wheres the responsibilty?

Perhaps international credibility would be restored if some Americans went on trial at the Hague as well...

Does that seem right to you?

MERLINDREA

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:03 PM

First of all: Thanks to everybody here for asking me not to be silent. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside . Seriously, big thanks to all on the board for being civil over this matter which calls out for strong opinions.

Second, I'm not sure if this made the news in the US, but I found it interesting:

Several Iraqian families now living in Belgium have started a law suit against George Bush senior, based on crimes against humanity. In the first golf war, the US Army had bombed living quarters, resulting in the dead of 403 civilists.
They also want to sue Cheney, Powell and Schwarzkopf.

I can give you the source of that article, but its in German: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,240813,00.html.

No wonder the US government does not want an international court

Merl

KAYTHRYN

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 7:17 PM

Grrrr... Randy, we're not all wolves. Well a few of us are, but there are a lot of sweet little kitties here too.

And to everyone else out there- I still want to hear what you think we should do instead of going to war. I haven't heard anything reasonable yet. Come on, I want to know what you think.

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

HJERMSTED

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:11 PM

Crazy, crazy alternative to war: How about letting the combination of sanctions and inspections work? Give them time. I know GW wants to coordinate wartime high approval ratings with the approaching election year (hence the rush he seems to be in), but why not slow down and let the UN sanctioned process work?

But Bush has ruled out that idea, so here's a new one:

Instead of going to war and spending $200 billion of US tax dollars to kill/maim Iraqi people and destroy the Iraqi social infrastructure (which is the conservative estimate of what the US is about to spend/do)...

Bush and Co. should offer Sadaam Hussein half of that amount to go into exile (and once he's in exile, promptly freeze his accounts, arrest him with the aid of whatever country allowed him in and ship Hussein off to The Hague to stand trial for attempted genocide of the Kurds).

Bush could then spend the other $100 billion on fixing the broken US economy.

Less blood and destruction... plus it's crazy enough to work.

Or we could just call Superman.

mattro

WULFHAWK

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:14 PM

Oh hell, I lied. That wasn't the last post.

I just wanted to point out sumthin that was so obvious, so unignorable, I thought it didn't need sayin here.

Well. I can see I was wrong.

If Saddam's only crimes were ethnic genocide, racketeering, and the seeking of nuclear capability, we, the US, wouldn't be there.

Anybody not with me so far? Good.

Saddam Hussein decided to jump into the deep end of the superpower pool, and build him an empire ... a nuclear capable, poison gas weilding, oil sheik kinda empire. He wanted Iran and Kuwait, and tried to take them. He didn't ask the UN. He didn't make reparations. And when his own people rose up against him and his thugs and his rape and his torture and his murder and his wars, he GASSED them. Whole cities of them. I guess the rest of his subjects, his slaves, got the message.

Who here thinks that's ok? Hold up your hands.

So he fails to get Iran, he fails to get Kuwait, and the world, the WHOLE DAMN WORLD, tells him to quit, lose your insane dreams of empire, get rid of the weapons you intend to use to make your empire. For over a decade now, he has ignored that mandate. He has steadily, and at great cost to his subject/slaves, rebuilt his army. Anthrax, Nerve Gas, Ricine, Sarin, Radiological materials, and Smallpox are stockpiled around his nation, and he built missiles capable of delivering them to neighboring nations.

Who here thinks ole Saddam intends to use them only for self defense?

Next time little Saddam's in a murdering mood, it may be you. You ok with that?

tanstaafl

HJERMSTED

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:38 PM

The only thing I would point out is that Sadaam Hussein HAS been contained since Gulf War I. UN imposed sanctions with the help of a constant US military presence have been working at keeping Sadaam in check. No reported aggressions toward his neighbors in over 12 years (only a great deal of colorful bravado and bluster... all talk).

The current strategy, though not as satisfying as ousting this fevered ego from power, has been successful at neutering Hussein.

Also keep in mind that during Gulf War I, we KNOW that Iraq had WOMD, but he did not use them on the UN forces that were attacking him! Today we only SUSPECT he has WOMD. However, just like the "communist hoardes" infiltrating America in the 50s... we cannot find them anywhere. Whatever "proof" the Bush Admin has shown the world was only enough to convince TWO nations (out of 160-ish) that Iraq's threat to the world is real.

American paranoia is NO REASON to spill blood anywhere.

mattro

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:24 PM

I'm distressed and discouraged even more than when FF was cancelled, if that's possible.

I don't have much time so I'm not going to go into deep explanations. I'll try to make this as strightforward and factual as possible.

The USA government has nothing against dictators. Hell, they're our favorite buddies! We set them up in Iran (Shah), Iraq (Hussein), Congo (Mugabe), Phillipines (Marcos), Indonesia (Suharto), Chile (Pinochet), Panama (Noriega), Guatemala (forgot the name), etc etc etc. If you think we didn't know what these guys were up to, I'll give you an example of our complicity:

When Kissinger was in Indonesia, Suharto asked for the go-ahead to invade East Timor. Kissinger basically said "wait till I leave". The invasion began the next day (after Kissinger got his *ss on a plane) and over 200,00 people were killed... with USA military supplies and intelligence. I'm not going to supply you with references to declassified documents and all that... just do a google search on any of the above countries + CIA and take a look around. Info is only a click away.

We don't have anything against WMD either. Where do you think Saddam got all of his fancy toys? So, while Saddam was busy gassing Iranian troops and his own villagers, George Schultz, Baldrige and Bush Sr. were busy shipping Saran and VX precursors and "crop spraying" helicopters (indeed!) to their big buddy and providing "ground truth" "calibrating" information to the Iraqi army on their kill rate of Iranian troops using mustard gas. Again, I don't have time to explain or argue. If you want to know for sure, look it up.

As far as the sanctity of UN resolutions goes, Israel's ignored over 500 UN resolutions. But we don't seem to have a problem with that. We're pretty good at ignoring UN resolutions too.

I really don't expect the average USA citizen to know about our tainted history. It's not something that our government or our official history books like to brag about. But GEORGE W BUSH KNOWS 'cause it was his own daddy who did a lot of this. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle know, too.

They follow the same scenario:

Decide that something (say, the Panama Canal) is an objective.
Claim over and over again that the leader of that particular country has an especially nasty trait (Noriega is a major drug runner)
Invade, to applause
Forget to metnion that we have failed to attain our stated objective (drug runnng didn't even slow down)

If you think I'm just being a horrible cynic... do any of you remember that "major buildup of Cuban troops" in Granada that sparked our invasion? In retrospect, it sounds like a sitcom, doesn't it? And a not-very-convincing one at that.

So there's only a couple of things I can conclude about our fearless leaders:

1) They're either liars, as in the Hilterian version of the "big lie"
2) They're delusional.
3) both of the above.

Quite frankly, I think the USA public better get a grip on reality real fast because the world is not going to be a nice place for us.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:48 PM

Oh, and by the way, the biggest contributor to Islamic fundamentalism in general and bin Laden in particular was Saudi Arabia. The biggest contributor to the Taliban was Pakistan.

Although Saddam is a dictator, he is not a RELIGIOUS dictator. That is why we buddied up to him in the first place. Most of you are too younf to recall, bvut he was presented as a moderate to the USA people, in contrast to the Ayatollah in Iran (who had just overturned the Shah, who was our puppet.)

Gotta keep the players straight here, boys and girls!

WULFHAWK

Thursday, March 20, 2003 3:47 AM

like it or not fellas, Saddam is going down.

say hello to mr. cruise missile...

tanstaafl

NICOLA

Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:38 AM

Hey guys. Well, it looks like the war has started. There really isn't much information out there, BBC World Service and CNN are both running the same video feed, (nothing terribly unusual to be seen) although the commentary is quite different.

I do agree with Wulf and Randy that it is not appropriate to believe everything you read and/or see on the news. However, I think that if you are a reasonably discriminating reader/viewer, you can winnow out the hype and hysteria that is so prevalent in papers and TV news today. And if you really work at it (i.e., try to read news from outside the US), you might even get different facts that the US media has decided is not worth reporting.

Merlindrea has provided us a link to a German article highlighting exactly this point. Americans do not get unbiased, uncensored news. And before you all jump on me with 'Freedom of the Press', please remember, the first level of news reporting is the reporter - and self censorship is not imaginary. And then there is the editor and then the publisher and then the owner....

Noam Chomsky has often pointed out how American media tends to be uncritical of various actions of the decision-making elite. (I would like to add - not just American Media - we are all products of our culture and this inevitably will affect media reporting). Not because the media is controlled by the government, but because American culture enforces a kind of implicit comformity. A comformity that most people never recognise. Those that leave the US and live abroad for a period of time find a sudden exposure to thoughtful, critical discourse from a different perspective to be disorienting.

I spent three months in Morocco working a few years ago, and I was consistently taken aback by the completely different viewpoint that the Moroccans, British, Canadians, Germans and Dutch held to the Americans on the very same news items. It opened my eyes rather brutally to the knowledge that if you want decent news about foreign affairs you have to get news from more that one source, and some of it has to come from outside the US.

I really wish I spoke Arabic - because I think that Al Jazzera would be a fascinating perspective to balance what I hear from CNN and BBC.

I didn't mean to get involved in a post-modern polemic about the self-corruption of the US media - but I did want to say I am very sensitive to the issue and have done a bit of serious thinking on the issue.

THEGN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:48 AM

Why We Must Fight — and Now!

Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.

Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."

Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.

Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.

Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.

It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators.

In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.

We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.

This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the han

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:13 AM

NICOLA,
You are so right. I always try to read my news from different sources around the world, and it can be very scary when they disagree “facts”. Personally, I hope the news does lie to us about some of the things they report. When they say where our troops are, and when, what types of guns they have, and what they plan to do, I hope they lie. Its not that what they say sounds bad, but I could easily be the enemy listing to the news. Some of the things they report, we don’t even have to know. I don’t need to know every specific location, and what are plans are. I’d leave that information to the military specialists, it’s not like the general public makes any decisions about those types of things anyway.
THEGN,

Quote:
Originally posted by THEGN:
Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.

Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."

People do have a strange way of ignoring things, just picking and choosing what they want, whatever fits with their side don’t they? I think a lot of people--not all--who are protesting the war just don’t want any change in their lives. They don’t want things to be disrupted by a war, they want things to just be left how they are. They are willing to give money to Iraq, something clean and simple. Something they can do from the comfort and safety of their homes. The problem won’t be solved by simply giving money, but it would be doing something, and thus Iraq and other respective countries could be ignored guilt free. I can’t accept that. Nothing worth doing was ever easy. That goes for us going to war, and those protesting it.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:13 AM

Thegn, your impassioned call to liberty would be stirring and uplifting if it were only based in reality. So as not to confuse you with a long list of facts, which you apparently skipped over, let me put this in terms you might understand:

The USA is the Alliance, not the Rebellion. Sadaam is a Reaver, not the Alliance.

Who is the Rebellion?

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:18 AM

Call me stupid, but I didn't understand that. Maybe because I think that the Revers might be a part of the Alliance but that would mean that Sadaam and the US...wha?...okay, no, I'm still confused. Can you put that in other, other terms?

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:48 AM

You REALLY don't understand????

Or are you just kidding?

WULFHAWK

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:57 AM

It is my firm belief that American reporting is the best in the world in most ways. Why?

Competition. No other country has media quite so competitive. Sure, evil vampire tycoons could be controlling every channel, every reporter, every paper...NOT!

Please try to understand - because of this competition, each media group must try to be the best at what it does. Some address niche markets-Conspiracy Paranoid Daily, for instance. But mainstream American media has to compete in a vast and discerning market. Calling us, the citizens of the US, ignorant and uninformed begs the issue.

They can't afford to be wrong, or lie, or steal, because every other group will be watching. Local papers in distant countries may have different takes on events than USA Today, or CNN, but what makes it a more truthful take? Nothing.

Reading about events described in a government controlled, government run, government censored paper in Iraq could hardly be expected to have an unbiased account.

Reading about events described in a local German paper, the same Germany that decided not to back us, the US, might not really be unbiased.

Just having many sources doesn't make you brighter or righter, don't you understand?

For good social and economic reasons, I've always felt American media is just about the most trustworthy in the world. Not perfect. Not only. Just among the best.

While you are welcome to feel differently, be aware of how that effects your credibility. I've seen some wild-ass statements here, stated as fact, that completely lack credibility. You may have an opinion, you may state your opinion...

Don't expect your opinion to be transmuted to fact simply because you wish it.

tanstaafl

THEGN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thegn, your impassioned call to liberty would be stirring and uplifting if it were only based in reality. So as not to confuse you with a long list of facts, which you apparently skipped over, let me put this in terms you might understand:

The USA is the Alliance, not the Rebellion. Sadaam is a Reaver, not the Alliance.

Who is the Rebellion?

Don't blame your lack of facts on me. It's not my fault you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And I don't know what is with your little analogy here.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:16 PM

Hmmm... you apparently didn't read my previous posts, which were basically just lists of facts...backed up by declassified documents.

I'd be willing to go rounds point by point, except that I don't think you'd be willing to listen. Even if I showed that you were wrong... point by point and incontrovertible fact by fact, I bet you wouldn't change your mind.

But if you ARE willing to listen honestly, as I am, then I'd be happy to engage in discussion.

MERLINDREA

Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
It is my firm belief that American reporting is the best in the world in most ways. Why?

Competition.

Actually, I don't believe this is true. First of all, almost all stations are private. Meaning they depend on the money of the advertisers to survive. So they are NOT independent. They make the mood but they also have to follow the mood.

In Germany, we have private stations, too, but we also have several stations financed by the public. Everybody who owns a TV or radio has to pay a certain amount, which gets distributed to those public channels. That means they are not dependend on advertisements (it also means that they have show very few ads, what a luxury :-)) and are free to report what they want. And there is also a certain competition between them. I don't see a real competition, when all stations yesterday just showed CNN the whole night.

Talking about CNN, thats another thing I noticed: what CNN calls news are very few facts with hours and hours of air. Bla bla bla, we got this expert here speculating and another one speculating and bla bla bla. But there are no background stories, no deep information. During the war in Afghanistan, after 9/11, did they ever bring a background story on why Afghanistan became such a poor and destroyed country? Did they ever discuss that US and Russia used Afghanistan to fight their war and that both those countries supplied the warlords with weapons to utterly destroy the country after the two big players left - and totally forgot! - Afghanistan for 15 years?

Accept it: US is not always the best in the world

. There is a whole big world out there...

Merl
Sorry, couldn't keep quiet :-)

MERLINDREA

Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:58 PM

To lighten the mood a bit, I just got this joke (had to translate it, so wording might be a bit awkward):

Last month, the UN asked worldwide following question:

"Please let us know your honest opinion how to solve the lack of food in the rest of the world"

Unfortunately the answers were not satisfying.

In Africa, the people didn't know what "food" is.
Eastern Europe didn't know what "honest" means.
Western Europe didn't know "lack".
The Chinese never heard the word "opinion".
The Middle East asked, what they meant with "solve".
South America didn't know the word "Please".
And in the US, nobody knew what they meant with "the rest of the world".

That joke actually describes another thing I noticed when watching the news here. The news are all about US. Okay, now they are about Iraq, but only because of the US involvement. No wonder Mr. Bush didn't get the name of the canadian president right - do you ever hear about this guy in the news? Or Mexico - do you ever hear news about them? Those are your closest neighbours, but just from watching the news, I wouldn't even know how their countries are shaped.

The only radio channel I found to send both American and International news and background stories is the PRI channel. But everything in tv you can just forget about it - its entertaining, but thats it.

Merl

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 3:28 PM

That is hi-larious!!!

And the news today- you are right, they are just trying to be entertaining, not actually informative.

-------------------------------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

RANDY

Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:49 PM

Merl, you are so right. I read the news online from several sites and I subscribe to the Economist (which is surprisingly pro-war but, being a non-US publication, still provides excellent well-rounded coverage). So I try to get a global perspective. But as Molly Ivens pointed out, most U.S. media is not asking the difficult questions, delving deep into the mire to find the "truth". But instead, they simply regurgitate what the government tells them to say. They never seem to ask, "well, but is that the truth?" Oder ist es nur mich?

I continue to read the posts on this board and am in awe of the narrowness of vision. There are tons and tons of "facts", both current and historical. But the pro-war posts seem centered on the basic argument: Saddam bad. Must be killed.

Well, yes, everyone agrees on that. But it seems the pro-peace people are more concerned about the much wider ramifications and implications of this war. The war is a stone dropped in a pond. The pro-war people are focused on the big splash. The pro-peace people are focused on how the ripples will cover every inch of the pond. Even more things to think about: There have been recent reports of how the war will destroy extremely valuable archaeological sites (after all, it is the birth-place of modern civilization) and it will cause irreparable ecological damage whose affects will be felt beyond the immediate region (including radioactive shrapnel used by armour-piercing weapons that will scattered everywhere).

Nic, you are right on target. We all hear the news coming down the pipeline. It is our duty to listen and to THINK, not simply accept.

Kaythryn keeps asking about alternatives to handling Saddam. Hmmmm...I can't answer that one. But what I do have to say is are you asking the right question? Why now? Why alone? I have yet to hear a good answer to these aside from the "saddam bad man" answer. There is a plethora of domestic problems that are crippling our country. What about those? What about a president who makes unilateral decisions in a "democracy"? What about our own government torturing its prisoners?

Wulf keeps attacking other people for not questioning their "facts" while spouting more of his "facts" and never questioning them. No entiendo o tal vez no entiende. Let's be fair. We ALL have to question our facts. Just because we don't agree with something, doesn't make it untrue. Wakarimasu ka?

To other pro-peace-ers, the protest in SF last night was awesome! Wet but awesome. I could just feel the power of the people surging...or maybe it was just my wet shoes. No Armageddon! Sigue la paz!

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

RANDY

Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:49 PM

Merl, you are so right. I read the news online from several sites and I subscribe to the Economist (which is surprisingly pro-war but, being a non-US publication, still provides excellent well-rounded coverage). So I try to get a global perspective. But as Molly Ivens pointed out, most U.S. media is not asking the difficult questions, delving deep into the mire to find the "truth". But instead, they simply regurgitate what the government tells them to say. They never seem to ask, "well, but is that the truth?" Oder ist es nur mich?

I continue to read the posts on this board and am in awe of the narrowness of vision. There are tons and tons of "facts", both current and historical. But the pro-war posts seem centered on the basic argument: Saddam bad. Must be killed.

Well, yes, everyone agrees on that. But it seems the pro-peace people are more concerned about the much wider ramifications and implications of this war. The war is a stone dropped in a pond. The pro-war people are focused on the big splash. The pro-peace people are focused on how the ripples will cover every inch of the pond. Even more things to think about: There have been recent reports of how the war will destroy extremely valuable archaeological sites (after all, it is the birth-place of modern civilization) and it will cause irreparable ecological damage whose affects will be felt beyond the immediate region (including radioactive shrapnel used by armour-piercing weapons that will scattered everywhere).

Nic, you are right on target. We all hear the news coming down the pipeline. It is our duty to listen and to THINK, not simply accept.

Kaythryn keeps asking about alternatives to handling Saddam. Hmmmm...I can't answer that one. But what I do have to say is are you asking the right question? Why now? Why alone? I have yet to hear a good answer to these aside from the "saddam bad man" answer. There is a plethora of domestic problems that are crippling our country. What about those? What about a president who makes unilateral decisions in a "democracy"? What about our own government torturing its prisoners?

Wulf keeps attacking other people for not questioning their "facts" while spouting more of his "facts" and never questioning them. No entiendo o tal vez no entiende. Let's be fair. We ALL have to question our facts. Just because we don't agree with something, doesn't make it untrue. Wakarimasu ka?

To other pro-peace-ers, the protest in SF last night was awesome! Wet but awesome. I could just feel the power of the people surging...or maybe it was just my wet shoes. No Armageddon! Sigue la paz!

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

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:33 PM

Randy,
I'm not just asking for alternate courses of action in handling Sadaam, I’m asking for any other alternates. I mean ANY. For you who are protesting the war, what do you want us to do? You must have some idea. If we don’t continue on as planned with the war what do you think we should do? What are you saying in these protests??? Negotiate a little longer? Give him money like some people have mentioned? Just ignore these problems are and go on as if nothing has happened? If you want to protest the war fine, I have little problem with that, but you must have and an idea of what you want the world, or just your country to do afterwards- even if you say you don’t want us to do anything, that is still saying something. I ask because I don’t understand. I don’t want us to fight, I don’t think anyone really wants to fight, but I don’t see any other options at this juncture for handling these problems.

-------------------------------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

SARAHETC

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by merlindrea:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
It is my firm belief that American reporting is the best in the world in most ways. Why?

Competition.

Actually, I don't believe this is true. First of all, almost all stations are private. Meaning they depend on the money of the advertisers to survive. So they are NOT independent. They make the mood but they also have to follow the mood.

Not that I posted the original, but I agree with it and as such: Competition and Independence are not the same thing. Competition should encourage Independence, properly applied, but it is not and does not guarantee Independence.

As a former jounalist and now as a journalism educator, there is no such thing as total journalistic independence. News should ideally be the first rough draft of history--and as such, contain as many viewpoints as possible. It is possible to watch ABC to get one viewpoint, switch to Bloomberg News to get another viewpoint, and then switch to FOX to get yet another viewpoint.

Furthermore, news is a commodity. I believe Merl expressed disappointment that CNN ran the same 4 clips over and over interspersed with "expert" testimony or whatever. CNN was not the only network to do so. Because all news sources, public or private, accept funding from somewhere, they are required to provide a product or a service. Public news considers itself a service and often performs as independently as humanly possible (and humans are fallible to greater or lesser degrees), but as such, provides the service for a limited amount of time. Private news organizations, such as the major 24-hour news networks, provide a good. The more a good is a available, the more it can be consumed, leading to demand, which offers money leading to supply, which hopefully leads to more consumption, more demand, and on and on ad nauseum.

Fox, CNN, Bloomberg, etc. are all competing for advertiser dollars and advertisers are monitoring our consumption in great detail to determine to what extent their advertising has an affect on our consumption. Like so: You buy a coke. Coke says, "How did you hear about our product?" You say, "I was watching news coverage on CNN" Coke says, "Do you often choose CNN as your news provider?" Do you often make soft drink choices based on television advertising? Will you continue to view CNN as your primary news provider?" Then Terrible Research Monkeys take that information and tell the advertising department that a majority of the 18-35 year olds who drive white cars and watch CNN purchase coke products. The ad dept. makes the decision to give X amt. of dollars to CNN based in order to secure further demand. CNN receives the money and, based on info provided by the Ad dept., alters their coverage to greater or lesser degrees to reflect what they perceive to be the desire of their audience.

Consequently, 24-hour networks never want to cease offering a product. So if all they have is 4 clips on a decaptitation strike (ain't that a helluva term?) then they will offer that product until a more attractive product comes along.

Ideally, more networks and more advertising dollars would create a situation wherein those networks strived to gain viewership and viewers demanded the most impartial product possible, leading inevitably to the "best" (most impartial) possible product. But information is not washing machines and as such, people will and should demand more with better. This increases the level of competition and starts the cylce again.

Ain't free enterprise shiny?

Those of us who agree with one another know who we are. Furthermore, I don't think anyone is really in the mood to let their mind be changed (even you, Signy). The war has started. It is happening. Hopefully the loss of life will be minimal and only bad guys. Then, the money can flow in and the aid can start and the embargo can fade away. Until then, maybe we should ignore each other until we go away. And I think that I'll try to make that my p

HJERMSTED

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:47 PM

Quote:
Accept it: US is not always the best in the world . There is a whole big world out there...

Other than militarily, the US isn't even among the Top 10 best.

Iraq needed weapons inspectors, but what the US needs are IQ Inspectors. The rest of the world can form IQ inspection teams to enter the United States and improve its education system. No major overhaul is necessary just remove the paranoia here and install some logic there... Boot the creationist minded teachers and corporate sponsors out of the public school system... Make more scholarships available...

With a smarter US, the rest of the world could breathe a sigh of relief.

mattro

Regime Change Begins at Home: No Bush '04

WULFHAWK

Thursday, March 20, 2003 5:49 PM

Randy, you'll know if I attack. Trust me.

Facts? You are one of those half-readers, ain't ya? You read about half, then assume the rest.

I have not claimed to be the purveyer of 'fact' in this thread. I support reason, empathy, and truth. Facts, when ya can get 'em, are good, too.

Hmmm, I heard someone say up there that because american tv media are privately owned, they bow to government influence? Merl, I HAVE NOT ONCE told you to shup up, have I? But you should go back and rethink that. Maybe hit the dictionary. Somehow, you seem to not understand 'competition'. Let me help.
I want news. McDonalds doesn't have news, but would like me to come to McDonalds. McDonalds pays someone to produce news for me and to show me where McDonalds is. McDonalds has NO INTEREST in controlling the news, it just wants me to know where to get my lunch.
Burger King also wants me to know where IT is. Burger King pays another someone to produce news for me, competing with the other news program. Now I have 2 programs to chose from. Which one will I watch? The best news program, of course. Which is best? I watch them both to see. The one that gives me the quickest, most honest news will be the one I watch most. In the competition for my attention, they strive to be the best news program. If they slack, if they lie, if they are slow, their competitors will report it and take advantage, their veiwers will change the channel, the commercials won't sell, and POOF!, there's another news crew lookin for jobs.

Regurgitated crap from fringe sources, unproven radical theories, world-wide conspiracies, evil space monkies - I'll not argue with a crackpot. Believe what you want, hope you don't get too lonely way out there.

And what a lovely sentiment I read above: America isn't the best.

I guess that says it all for some of you folks. I'm glad to know where you stand. Let me tell you where I stand now.

America is the best. Maybe not the best possible, maybe not the best constantly, and maybe not the best forever, but
America
Is
The
Best

tanstaafl

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 7:18 PM

I just heard about some anti-war protests on the news where people we calling for a whole day of disobedience. I’m not saying all of you who protest the war are like this- but that was stupid. Plainly stupid. I’ve only heard a little bit so far, but thankfully all they’ve managed to do was cause more traffic. If you’re going to protest go about it a better way. That just made me laugh.

And I agree with you Wulf, America is the best. Maybe my opinion is biased because I live here, or maybe it is more informed, but America is the BEST. Those of you here who think the government is horrible and you disagree with what they are doing, feel blessed that you can stand up and say so without being executed. If you really can’t stand this country you also have the freedom to leave. Oh, and there are a few people I would like to take advantage of that freedom.

-------------------------------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

RANDY

Thursday, March 20, 2003 7:51 PM

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The point of the protests is to show that we are at war and you cannot just go about your lives as if everything is normal. NOTHING IS NORMAL WHEN WE ARE AT WAR. It is symbolic, metaphoric. Verstehest Du? Your immediate lives may be just the same. Go to work, come home. Whip up some dinner. Sure, people are dying half a world away, but you can still watch your episode of Entertainment Tonight with your dinner. The world is no longer the same place for anyone in the world and it won't be even after the war ends. And THAT is the point of the protests.

And Wulf, you crack me up! I have to say that your posts are really the most entertaining ones.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:19 PM

Hey Sarahetc, I didn't mean to push your hot button. And I AM willing to change my mind. The interesting thing is that we all seem to want the same thing: good for the people of the world... Even Thegn spends an awful lot of time thinking about the liberty for the Iraqis! The only question is "How do we get there from here?"

Then we are discussing means and not ends. (At least I hope we are!) And that is a topic about which reasonable people might disagree.

So, if you are willing to start with that goal in mind, let us reason together.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:35 PM

Kathryn, one alternative to Saddam is not to have put him in power in the first place, which is exactly what the USA did. In fact, there are a LOT of dictators the world would have been better off without that we managed to install/ prop up.

Ok, you might argue then was then, and what we did were mistakes brought about by the Cold War. And now is now and we don't do that anymore. But we're supporting Islam Karimov, the President of Uzbekistan whose resume looks an awful lot like Saddam's, or maybe even worse.

And what about Saudi Arabia? I work with an Ethiopian who knows people who worked there (Saudi Arabia has lots of "guest workers") and the stories that I heard would make your blood boil. Here's one: A woman working in one of the palaces had a 15-year-ol son who was raped by a prince in the royal family. When she protested, they killed her son and gave her $5,000 along with his body.

If we really want to do something about all of these horrible dictators, maybe we shouldn't support them in the first place?

WULFHAWK

Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:42 PM

I'm glad to be entertaining. My high school English teacher, Ms Mantooth, once said we were gonna have fun, and maybe, accidentally, learn something. I accept your thinly veiled sarcasm at face value. Thanks for the compliment. Have fun, folks.

Ms Mantooth was a horsewoman and rancher, when she wasn't pounding sentence structure into teen-age minds. She told us once about a horse she called Satan, when she called him something printable.

Satan was a hard-headed horse, but strong and intelligent. Ms Mantooth was not a small woman, so Satan got ridden occaisonally despite his stubborness. One day, while checking some brushy areas of her ranch for foals, they disagreed on which way they would go. In the ensueing exchange, Satan bucked and reared, coming down in the crotch of a small tree, lodging himself.
Trapped by the neck, forelegs off the ground, angry and panicked, Satan began to struggle madly, ignoring Ms Mantooth's attempts to free him. Recognizing that the horse would injure or kill himself, and more that a little frustrated at Satan, Ms Mantooth took the only immediate action that might save him. She picked up a nearby deadfall branch, and knocked the horse unconscious with a single, mighty blow. Did I mention Ms Mantooth was a large woman?
She was then able to free him, and he survived without lasting injury. It was, she said with a smile, the most satisfying help she had ever given.

I'm not for war, but I sure wanna help Saddam...

tanstaafl

KAYTHRYN

Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:28 PM

Okay, this is the last time I’m going to say this because I’m tired of beating a dead horse. Everyone seems to have an opinion of who is right, and who is wrong, what caused this, and why we should attach or not, but here is what I want to know, and what I’ve been trying to ask---

All of you who are opposed to our current course of action (going to war) what do you think we should do instead? What other options do we have? The only condition I have (this is the problem I have with what you said SIGNYM) is that you can’t go back and change past events. I’m forward thinking and it doesn’t do anyone any good now to criticize past events.

- so far all of the options I’ve heard are give Sadaam money, and call superman. Superman might do some good.

-------------------------------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:48 PM

Alright Kaythryn,

The US is into the war, where do we go from here...

Win it as fast as possible, then leave as fast as possible.

As soon as there is somekind of government on the ground, not nessesarily pro american either, pull the troops out, and out of Kuwait, Saudi, the entire middle east. As long as they are there it will be an unstabilizing influence.
Cut support for Sharons government in Israel, yes the Israelis have security issues, but so do the palestinians. The current course of action is going nowhere as Anthony Zinni said US policy is quite insane.

Oh, and signing and backing the international criminal court agreement would also be a positive step.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:53 PM

This assumes we have to "do something". We could safely ignore Saddam. He might have SOME biological or chemical WMD but he just doesn't have the delivery systems. He doesn't have nuclear materials- the "evidence" presented so far has been shown to be forgery. His participation in acts of terrorism against the USA has been nil. What's the urgent urgency?

Sure, he's a dictator, but so are some of our best buddies (just like he used to be). IF we really want to make the world a better place, maybe we should just stop thwarting local attempts and economic and political self-determination, and let the dictaros fall by the wayside. (Yeah, I know wulf will say this is fringe thinking, but I can point him to USA declassified documents. I think he's just afraid to look.)

Maybe it's 'cause my dad escaped Poland and spent some time chez Gulag, or maybe it's 'cause my daughter almost died after she was born, but for whatever reaons, the following book review is a touchstone:

“It is not so sad that people die. After all, it is the natural human condition. Everything that lives dies. It's that children often die without hope.

"As "Holocaust: A History" draws to its close, Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt include a 1941 photograph of Mirka Grossman and a fragment of conversation between the little girl and her father. "Daddy," she asked in Polish, "isn't it better that today it's a bad day, but tomorrow it will be better?"

"Today doesn't matter," her reassuring father replied, "tomorrow will be much better."

It was a comment overheard by Mirka's aunt, Sara Grossman-Weil, one August day in 1944 as cattle cars packed with Jewish deportees from the Lodz ghetto rolled to Auschwitz-Birkenau..."

It's hard to remember that there are real people at the other end of our bombs and guns. But there are children just like ours, and families who want to protect them, people who cry like we do when their loved ones die. I cry about them. Don't you?

WULFHAWK

Friday, March 21, 2003 12:00 AM

Ok, here is my problem.

Saddam has long range capability, and has shown it today. He has the science and industry to produce longer range missiles yet. He has attacked innocents with SCUDS in the past. He possesses many kinds of illegal weapons of mass murder. Why, Sig, do you simply deny and ignore this?

Are you anti-american? anti-israel? anti-humanity?

You accept SOME documents, add wacko journalism, shake with denial, throw out the rest you don't want to see, and, viola', you have a different world than most of the rest of us.

France speaks French instead of German because of our meddling. Literally hundreds of examples exist in modern history (you do read history, and not just Conspiracy Daily?) accounting helpful meddlings by us, the US. Sure, we have failed. Sure, we have screwed up. The accounting ain't done yet, but we may actually turn out doing more good than bad.

...But we tried, and that's the key...you only fail if you try

all evil needs to prosper is for good to do nothing

tanstaafl

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, March 21, 2003 1:28 AM

Well Wulf,
For one, good and evil is a matter of where you are sitting.

The problem is any number of countrys are developing the capibilitys you are talking about.
What is the solution there, go after them all?

After this, many will redouble their efforts to gain such weapons out of fear of the US, after all no one can match your military spending. Other means become neccersary for defence.

And the United States didn't take Germany down, it was an international effort, Canada, Britain, the French / Polish / and whoever got clear and ( they likely could have done it on their own ) the Russians. Have you considered the reason why this war doesn't have that sort of backing.

The US has done some good, but they have also done alot of bad, and many are justified in their anger towards them. What of justice for them?

The way I see it, this solution is only going to pour gas on the fire, maybe things will calm a bit when Bush leaves office ( I hope 2004, but we'll see ) But your foriegn policy has brought the world to this point.

I was a soldier once, and as one I can picture some of the consequences here, diplomacy can only work if the other side trusts you, and is afraid of you. With most of the world, the US has lost the trust part, and fear can drive you into doing things you wouldn't normally consider.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 21, 2003 2:53 AM

OK, wulf, since you don't seem to want to do the work yourself, I'll find the links to declassified USA documents that were released under FOIA and post them here. What will you do then? Plug your ears and go "la-la-la" as loud as you can???

I don't ignore the fact that Saddam has SOME WMD. But remember where he got them from. Oh yeah, that's right, you think that's whacko, too. OK (sigh) I'll go dig up the info on that too, although you'll probably clain it's all forged.

As far as "our" involvement in Europe- do YOU read history? Or do you just read spy thrillers? It was the USSR that won the war. My relatives were there, in Poland and Hungary. It was the EASTERN front that the Germans were afraid to go to. So while we were sort of dicking around on a 300-mile front, the Russians were fighting on a 3000-mile front. They lost 20 million people, quite a few of those starved in Stalingrad. Or did that little fact escape you? In the end, as my MIL said, the Germans were retreating from the Russians as fast as they could hobble, by foot, train, and any way they could.

The USA would do MUCH MORE good if it simply didn't promote evil so vigorously. A good place to stop would have been when we were busy supplying Saddam with every WMD imagineable.

I DO give us credit for WWII, Yugoslavia and Somalia. At least we were trying to do the right thing.But how do we explain Iran, Chile, the Congo, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Iraq, Brazil, El Salvador, Iraq, Guatemala, and Colombia? Did you all know that we (ie Unocal) was in negotiation with the Taliban for an oil pipline? That the only thing that wrecked the deal and got the government pissed off was that the Taliban get playing us agiants Bridas (Argentia)? I'll pull up the corporate report if you want.

BTW- you wonder what I'm for and against? I am against evil, whether it's done by Saddam or the United States or Unocal. We're the most powerful country in the world, and have been for the past five decades. We should acknowledge our own rather large responsibility for the state of the world as it is today.

WULFHAWK

Friday, March 21, 2003 4:07 AM

Oh yea, I remember now, it was the RUSSIANs on D-Day, not my father. stupid me. And the Battle of the Bulge, that wasn't my father, either, was it?

And, whatever documents you dig out of whackyland, a) it doesn't make 'em fact, and b) who the hell cares.

You keep insisting Saddam is our fault. You are, of course, wrong. We tried to help, him, his country, the region, and OURSELVES. He decided to be what he is. Iraqi people decided to allow him to enslave them.

We didn't clone him, program him, and install him...nor did we we clone, program, and install all the insane dictators of the world, past and present. Like you, he took the path of unreason on his own, without any need for our pushing or guidance.

I know you don't get it, I know you don't care to, but here it is again.

You can't have it the way you want it. We, the US, haven't caused all the troubles of the world.

wasted words, I know, but what the heck

tanstaafl

WULFHAWK

Friday, March 21, 2003 4:17 AM

Gin, you don't seem to be getting it either.

How can a country, youngest of it's size, only a small fraction of the world's total population, have the influence you claim?

Could it be we've done something right? In fact, a long series of somethings right? You can't have it both ways (sanely, that is). Your anti-American bias is clear. Our success as a nation, and a superpower, is simple, incontrovertable proof, that we've done the right things. Ignore it if you like, I'll waste a few more words.

Hmmm, evil is simply a point of view? You lose. Mystical evil, service of lower powers, would be evil that isn't point of view, right? You're not saying that, though. You're saying that mass murder, indescriminate torture, ethnic genocide, are not acts of evil? Right? Are there any pets left in your neighborhood?

tanstaafl

SIGNYM

Friday, March 21, 2003 4:23 AM

OK, you said it yourself: YOU DON'T CARE.

Well, I CARE. I care about the truth, you obviously don't.

I care about evil done in this world, whether it's by Saddam or Unocal or the USA. You don't.

You want to live in your little comfortable world where you pretend to be the good guy and listen to George dubya and believe.

Fine. I'm going to post the sources anyway. These will be cerdible, solid sources like declassified CIA documents, testimony before Congress, Commerce department papers, admissions by the Dutch government, historical documents. Don't bother to look, you've already said that you don't care.

KAYTHRYN

Friday, March 21, 2003 4:53 AM

I think Wulf and Signym each need a pair of boxing gloves.

Either that or you two need to sit down for a few hours at a big desk amongst piles of declassified documents and maps with a beer.

Scratch that, maybe it’s best not to introduce alcohol to the fiery tempers.

Here we go, I say instead of our Firefly raid, (since we are hopefully getting all the episodes anyway) we use all of our stealth, intelligence, connections and resources to sneak Wulf and Signym into the UN. There they can trap all of those political people in one room and have it out. Oh, I foresee a three day shouting match. I’m sure after three days, and scratchy voices you too can decide on some cleaver course of action to save the world. If not we leave the decisions to the UN and the all mighty Queen Kaythryn has been voted into the UN. How did I get in the UN you may ask? Well it‘s my story so poof, I‘m there. Anyway next we box Wulf and Signym up and send them first class to Saddam in a crate marked fragile and perishable. Once there they will each get a chance to slap Saddam. One of you give him a hit from me please? Then Wulf and Signym, your mission, if you choose to accept, and you must, it is to stuff Saddam in your crate and put him in storage. By then I’m sure you too will be able to find a common political ground. You know what that is? It will be by being Queen Kaythryn’s --who has now completely taken control of the US-- ambassadors. I don’t know where you are from Signym, but I don’t care, you still get the job. And you both get free James Bond like cars. Yeah, I like this. I get a car too. And you too Merl. Because of Merl’s cross country research all of the world has united together in the unified effort for peace. Iraq is rebuilt, gas prices go down, Queen Kaythryn gets re-elected and Merl gets a book deal. Wulf and Signym get a TV time slot where they go on from 6-7:00 every night and discuss world issues. Somewhere down the line someone’s ear gets bitten and it makes front page news. This is has just gotten nutty so I stop.

-------------------------------------
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
Albert Einstein

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, March 21, 2003 5:08 AM

Well Wulf,

The USA support Pinnocet, Bastia, Saddam, and dozens of other dictators WHILE they committed these acts. The USA benefited from these relationships. I am saying it is a double standard to help someone commit a crime, profit from it, and then bitch and moan about it.

And your military strength has opened up new problems for you. No one can beat your army, so now the only options you leave people is bend over and take it, WMD,or terrorism.

How about Cuba for an example, I have been there, talked to people. The general option is more freedom would be nice, but we are better off now under Castro, than we were under Bastisa who the Americans supported. So why does the US take every opportunity to punish Cuba. Because they are a huge threat ?

Take your success, enjoy it

Just stop screwing everyone else

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE