Action Against a War

[AlpineK]

You peace protesters might want to bring some hankies to wipe the egg off of your faces on Saturday. Looks like GW was right all along.

 

GW has been for war all along. It sure sounds like you've been for war all along. Why else would you start a topic based on this.

 

I have questions. If you want me to be behind war then the administration needs to answer those questions. I think a LOT of people take my view.

 

North Korea is run by a bunch of freaks so is Iraq. If either country tried to use nuclear weapons against the US our government would turn their country to glass. North Korea has nuclear weapons and means of getting them to us. Iraq may have weapons in the future, and they might have a means of delivery in the distant future.

 

Since you love ( ) GW you are unable to ask critical questions. Going to war demands answers to those questions.

 

Edited February 14, 2003 by AlpineK

[glacierdog]

N. Korea is already covered. The Kitty Hawk is going there soon, just in case. If they step, we will stop them. It's not a question. Iraq is a question. I'm more concerned with what we don't know. Does Iraq have chemical weapons? Do they have biological weapons? The signs point to yes in this instance. I don't think we need to wait for them to use them to do something about it. And I'm all for taking some steps to deal with Pakistan. But lets handle things a step or two at a time, shall we?

[AlpineK]

Well it really doesn't matter what they have or don't have. It sould be obvious to any country with less than 2000 intercontinental nuclear weapons that if they were to attack the US with those weapons they would be, "bringing a knife to a gun fight," as the saying goes.

[fleblebleb]

Err... I think the idea is that Iraq might have the wherewithal to make the weapons, but might not succeed in keeping them safe, e.g. some might be lost and might turn up later, elsewhere. Of course that creates a tricky situation if you can't figure out any of the might and might-nots, and even if you could trace to the origin it might be hard to prove intent. So who do you nuke? Iraqi civilians? French farmers perhaps? I mean, at least the latter group burns McDonalds shops.

[AlpineK]

The link between Iraq and Al Quida (Sp?) is pretty weak. In fact it's the weakest part of the case against Iraq.

 

Saddam may deserve to get his ass kicked, but so do a bunch of other folks who we are willing to talk with.

[Fairweather]

You peace protesters might want to bring some hankies to wipe the egg off of your faces on Saturday. Looks like GW was right all along.

 

GW has been for war all along. It sure sounds like you've been for war all along. Why else would you start a topic based on this.

 

I have questions. If you want me to be behind war then the administration needs to answer those questions. I think a LOT of people take my view.

 

North Korea is run by a bunch of freaks so is Iraq. If either country tried to use nuclear weapons against the US our government would turn their country to glass. North Korea has nuclear weapons and means of getting them to us. Iraq may have weapons in the future, and they might have a means of delivery in the distant future.

 

Since you love ( ) GW you are unable to ask critical questions. Going to war demands answers to those questions.

 

 

AK,

 

My "egg-on-face" comment was re finding the weapons that the anti-was crowd seems so convinced Saddam does not have.

 

I'll ask YOU the same question that Dr Flashunamazing still has yet to answer:

 

If GW had not massed troops on Saddams border, do you think the UN inspectors would even BE in Iraq? You folks seem to want to have your cake.....

[mattp]

Fairweather-

I believe you are right that if we (the U.S.) had not threatened to use force, the inspectors would not be there now. Does that mean that, as George Bush says, time is up? Should we invade right now or what further circumstances should occur before we do? Prey tell.

[sexual_chocolate]

so, are you still of the opinion that I need "counseling" because I disagree with you?

 

shalom, Dwayner

 

Jeez, Dwayner, I was agreeing with you! Now you need therapy for anger and paranoia issues, along with the others. How can I help?

[sexual_chocolate]

N. Korea is already covered. The Kitty Hawk is going there soon, just in case. If they step, we will stop them. It's not a question. Iraq is a question. I'm more concerned with what we don't know. Does Iraq have chemical weapons? Do they have biological weapons? The signs point to yes in this instance. I don't think we need to wait for them to use them to do something about it. And I'm all for taking some steps to deal with Pakistan. But lets handle things a step or two at a time, shall we?

 

The paranoia continues....

 

Ah yes, the Kittyhawk will certainly take care of any issues that might arise with North Korea. Tell that to the South Koreans. I'm sure they'll be impressed.

Please don't even think for a minute that Iraq is better armed than North Korea. I'm not sure what they're telling you there in the service, but this flies in the face of all military "intelligence". So we have one country entirely hostile to us (I think for very good reason, I might add) in North Korea, with known weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps two or three workable nuclear bombs.

 

Then we have another country entirely decimated by a previous war, whose armaments were systematically located and destroyed for a 7 year period AFTER the war. Some SUSPECT them to be in possession of chemical and/or biological agents potentially useful in war, although no factual proof exists. It is nearly universally agreed that they have no nuclear weaponry, nor the resources to make any. Oh, but the leader there tried to kill our president's father (let's forget our president's father tried to kill HIM)! And he also sits on the SECOND LARGEST known oil reserves on the planet! What a coincidence!And his country is strategically located, plus, he's an easy victim (limited military), AND at least a pre-text of justification for attack can be made, however weak it may be (UN resolution violations. We seem to violate them quite often; who threatens us with war?) We damn well know that he wouldn't be stupid enough to attack the US, for he isn't suicidal. Nor could he in a 100 years develop competitiveness militarily with the US or its allies. I think it's safe to say he'd be happy having his life and his palaces. I'm sure he'd LOVE to attack the US (wouldn't many countries?), but even arming "terrorists" would be too risky for him. Oh good god, this becomes more and more insane the more one thinks about it.

 

Look, I know you have to feel justified in risking your own life and taking the lives of others; can't you just pick a better cause to die for than this? You're not doing anything to make the world "safe for democracy". You're just stirring the pot, helping to kill people you don't know, for people you don't know.

[iain]

It's strange that Hussein has NOT been assasinated by now. I'm sure the CIA has been actively tracking him ever since the gulf war and we have who knows how many operatives in Baghdad at any point in time. Why have we not heard that he "tripped" on the stairs last night or had a heart attack? Surely he's not that good at evading us, and that we could fabricate a plausible story and most countries would look the other way....it's certainly not beneath the US to carry out such a plan is it? And would it solve a big chunk of the perceived problem there?

[Fairweather]

SC writes:

 

So we have one country entirely hostile to us (I think for very good reason, I might add) in North Korea, with known weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps two or three workable nuclear bombs.

 

 

SC,

 

You say N Korea is hostile to us "for very good reason"?

Are you off your rocker? If the depth of your America-loathing goes this deep, you are truly beyond help. Possibly even a...dare I say... traitor.

[Fairweather]

Fairweather-

I believe you are right that if we (the U.S.) had not threatened to use force, the inspectors would not be there now. Does that mean that, as George Bush says, time is up? Should we invade right now or what further circumstances should occur before we do? Prey tell.

 

Mattp

 

The time table appears to be dictated in part, by the approaching heat of the summer. Our forces can't fight as effectively in the scorching temps of the desert summer. And maintaining the force that is already gathered in battle-ready mode until next autumn is probably too risky - politically and physically.

 

So yes, it does sound like the time is almost up.

 

Although I have grave reservations about the war (based on fears about China/N Korea and NOT lack of faith in our cause) I will stand behind our troops, country, and president 100% when the shooting begins.

[PullinFool]

It's strange that Hussein has NOT been assasinated by now. I'm sure the CIA has been actively tracking him ever since the gulf war and we have who knows how many operatives in Baghdad at any point in time. Why have we not heard that he "tripped" on the stairs last night or had a heart attack? Surely he's not that good at evading us, and that we could fabricate a plausible story and most countries would look the other way....it's certainly not beneath the US to carry out such a plan is it? And would it solve a big chunk of the perceived problem there?

 

Maybe because of the "cut off the head and three grow back"/danger-of-martyrdom principle?

[sexual_chocolate]

SC writes:

 

So we have one country entirely hostile to us (I think for very good reason, I might add) in North Korea, with known weapons of mass destruction, including perhaps two or three workable nuclear bombs.

 

 

SC,

 

You say N Korea is hostile to us "for very good reason"?

Are you off your rocker? If the depth of your America-loathing goes this deep, you are truly beyond help. Possibly even a...dare I say... traitor.

 

Oh fairweather. Now I am a traitor. Do you even know what that means? Probably not. To the John Birch society, everyone is a traitor.

Did you think Patty Murray was a traitor for stating the obvious about bin Laden? Probably, huh?

 

My best understanding of the N. Korea crisis comes from a variety of news sources, including the New York Times, Reuters reports, Time, "left-wing" rags such as Z Magazine and CAQ, etc.. I like to read everything, so my ideas are a little more contextualized, with info and data drawn from many sources. Hey, I even listen to Rush Limbaugh, although I find him to be an annoying little pug. Oh, and now Debka.com is another source I occasionally look at.

 

But I wander. Back to N. Korea. From what I have gathered, agreements were made in '94 that N. Korea would dismantle its nuclear program if its energy needs were met through importation of fuel... Some shipment began, as we all know, but Clinton couldn't get congress to approve the rest. (Why did he promise what he couldn't get from congress? I don't know, maybe he thought they'd come around, or just wanted to avert a disaster.) So for all these years since '94, N. Korea didn't get what it had been promised during negotiations.

Put yourself in N. Korea's shoes for a minute. Try at least. You've been promised something, and it never materializes. You've been moving your country towards the direction of more openness and dialog with the rest of the world, and a new, quite bellicose administration labels you as part of an "axis of evil". Hey, you know and I know that you, and many others, would begin to immediately arm to the teeth, considering what's happening to the other "axis of evil" member, Iraq.

I ramble.

 

Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining.

[eternalX]

Where are you getting your information from? Can you point me to where one article is that the US stopped giving aid to North Korea that we had promised in return for dismantling nuke sites? I don't suppose you think that NK has anything to do with its current famine? Did you read that NK was diverting its aid shipments? Designing and building nuclear weapons is incredibly expensive and NK has a very large army. Not to mention they are working on long range missles, something very few countries have. Ask yourself, how came no other countries have long range missles? Because they are incredibly expensive and have very few purposes. I don't think you realize that NK has a lot to do with the situation it's in. I also don't think you realize that this aid for nukes program was set up by the UN. Other countries have participated as well. Having said all that though, I don't really find NK to be a threat in itself. If it ever decieded to launch a long range nuke at us, the rest of the world would just fucking decimate NK. You can't have nukes flying around. Everybody knows this, which is why even the US has never used them again.

 

The biggest problem with NK is that they might possibly sell a nuke to the highest bidder. That's hard to believe though because if a nuke ever went off and they traced it back to NK, which they can do, NK would suffer the same consequences as if they launched it themselves. Afghanistan is a good example of what happens when your country plays easy with terrorism, as I'm sure the Taliban would have second thoughts about harboring Osama had it knows that the US would do what it did after the Sep 11th tragedy.

 

And I'm sick of this argument that "Iraq is a great location for a base." As opposed to what? Qatar? Diego Garcia? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Kazikstan? Uzbekistan? I'll buy that the interest in oil is there, and possibly the diversion in attention away from domestic matters, but not geographic location.

 

--eternal

[sexual_chocolate]

 

Here's one.

 

Some more context.

 

China's input.

 

Something very reasonable.

 

I'd check the last link first, since it most clearly illustrates my line of thinking on this issue.

 

Oh, and a correction, of course. US compliance within the framework of '94's treaty wasn't abrogated by our refusal to ship more oil, it had to do with assistance in constructing light-water reactors. My error.

[AlpineK]

I'm having a hard time remembering which Iraq thread I was arguing with Fairweather on.

 

Anyway

I'll ask YOU the same question that Dr Flashunamazing still has yet to answer:

 

If GW had not massed troops on Saddams border, do you think the UN inspectors would even BE in Iraq? You folks seem to want to have your cake.....

 

I figure we would know the same things we do now.

 

Saddam is an asshole.

he has hidden some nasty stuff we didn't destroy in the Gulf War.

He would like to make or get more nasty stuff.

 

Well so what. We have an embargo on Iraq, and we have the no fly zones. Saddam is smart enough, politically, to control Iraq. I think he's smart enough to know he will never be able to dirrectly challenge the US. He might want to fuck with his neighbors, but if he did that too much he would get put down like in the last Gulf War.

 

If we had proof that Al Quiada was involved with Iraq like they were in Afganistan (which we knew for years before 9/11) then I would be down with war. We do not have that kind of evidence.

 

All GW's pro war bs has done is make the US look stupid.

 

We should keep up the embargo, no fly zone. We should be spending most of our energy hunting and destroying Al Quiada and fixing our economy. Our economic recovery is being delayed by all this Iraq war bs.

[fleblebleb]

Our economic recovery is being delayed by all this Iraq war bs.

 

Hallelujah.

 

But Bush has painted himself into a corner with all the big talk. How can he get out of it without a war and without losing face?

[Fairweather]

 

SC writes:

Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining.

 

SexC,

 

Had thinking like this taken root in the late 1930's, we'd all be speaking German or Russan by now. "Notions of right and wrong"? Would you have negotiated with Hitler? Face it SC; your sypathies will always lie with any nation or group that opposes America. Especially if they have socialist or communist ideals.

 

There IS right and wrong, good and evil. And, as demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the best path to peace is through war.

 

The light-water reactor has been under construction in NK for several years. There have been reasonable technical/political difficulties/delays in its timely completion. NK promised to abandon its "plutonium seperation" efforts. Clinton/Albright/Carter, dupes all, forgot(?) to tell NK that its uranium enrichment efforts were included in this.

 

GW could withdraw us from the Iraqi borders tomorrow and I suspect you would proceed to blame him for allowing Saddam to kick the inspectors out of Iraq once again, and for all subsequent brutality perpetrated by his regime.

 

I stand by my statement. You're no different than Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose, or the idiots that spat at our soldiers upon their return from Vietnam.

[Wopper]

DFA and SC, et al -

The really sad thing about all of this is you will probably be in the same crowd that bitches because nothing was done to protect you after some asshole blows up the Space Needle. Though I do not agree with what you say, I fought for your right to say it!

[AlpineK]

I like to think of this in terms of elementary school playground rules.

 

If somebody hits me I can hit back, but if someone taunts me then I'm in the wrong to start a fight.

[To_The_Top]

I have always wondered why Bush has almost completely forgotten about Al Quiada.

 

They are the ones that attacked us from what I remember, not Iraq.

 

I think saddam is evil, and we should wait until they mess up and then take action like something on a war like magnitude, or SHOW us or someone the proof if going in now.

 

Where is the connection, and what about stirring up too many hornets nests at once?

[Fairweather]

TTT!

 

Where you been?

[To_The_Top]

TTT!

 

Where you been?

Climbing, hiking and enjoying my new found unemployment. I haven't had time to read this whole thread, and my questions have been asked before on this thread, and coming in after 5 pages it is hard to follow.

[sexual_chocolate]

Fairweather said:

 

SC writes:

Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining.

 

SexC,

 

Had thinking like this taken root in the late 1930's, we'd all be speaking German or Russan by now. "Notions of right and wrong"? Would you have negotiated with Hitler? Face it SC; your sypathies will always lie with any nation or group that opposes America. Especially if they have socialist or communist ideals.

 

There IS right and wrong, good and evil. And, as demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the best path to peace is through war.

 

The light-water reactor has been under construction in NK for several years. There have been reasonable technical/political difficulties/delays in its timely completion. NK promised to abandon its "plutonium seperation" efforts. Clinton/Albright/Carter, dupes all, forgot(?) to tell NK that its uranium enrichment efforts were included in this.

 

GW could withdraw us from the Iraqi borders tomorrow and I suspect you would proceed to blame him for allowing Saddam to kick the inspectors out of Iraq once again, and for all subsequent brutality perpetrated by his regime.

 

I stand by my statement. You're no different than Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose, or the idiots that spat at our soldiers upon their return from Vietnam.

 

You're doing it again. You're comparing Iraq to Germany. You're a bad and silly boy. I don't know why I waste time with you. I guess I'm just a sucker who gets baited really easylike. Silly me.

So anyways, like I was saying, you're a bad and silly boy. Shape up. And until you can come up with something better than the WWII analogy, I'm done with you, cuz you're making yourself seem as silly as George the Dumb.