I get it now!

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Well, you SOUND like Jimmy! Sorry 'bout that.

So, ST, explain to me exactly WHY you're against this war. You say you think Saddam is a bad guy, you say you support our military. Is it just because of Bush?

We have already covered this on many occasions. In a nutshell, I felt we needed more world support for the war. I felt we were miscalculating the resistance we would face. I felt we didn't look or think hard enough about the tactics they may use (when you are outnumbered, out-equiped and out-trained, you'll do anything to get an edge) then we complain about the tactics they use.
In the first gulf war, we fought against an invading country and pushed them back. Many iraqi soldiers could rationalize surrendering because they knew they would have a place to go home to. But now, they know it is time to fight to the death. So of course they are a lot tougher to remove this time.
And I dont trust the motives.
First it was to protect us here from terrorism. When people pointed out that iraq didn't fly planes into our buildings and other nations pose a much greater threat, we decide to say it is to remove a bad dictator. Again, people pointed out that other countries have similar dictators, so then we just just said it was to liberate the Iraqi people.
It also concerns me that we have focused a large portion of our national defense towards a country we acknowledge does not pose as immediate of a threat as say iran or N. Korea. With so many resources focused on Iraq, the true global terrorists are finding other ways to leak through the cracks. I feel (I hope I am wrong) that while we are basking in our own glory at the defeat of saddam hussein, al-qaida (or another group) will strike, and strike hard. Knowing it will take time to maneuver troops and equipment, and resupply food and ammo, they could easily strike and hide without us even firing a shot. This is a new kind of war with new rules. Our handling of afghanistan is the way it needs to continue. We were doing so well.

 

[vraiblonde]

ST, do you think that the only thing going on with our military is Iraq? Do you think that EVERY combat soldier is over there? We're still holding down the fort in other areas, along with the "hunt for bin Laden".

I felt we needed more world support for the war.

We obviously have enough world support - we're winning, aren't we? If it were so important to France and Germany that we not attack Iraq, wouldn't they bring in forces to help Saddam?

I felt we didn't look or think hard enough about the tactics they may use

Do you honestly think our military commanders had no idea that Saddam would employ suicide bombers and human shields? Do you think they just went in there blind, thinking Iraq would follow the Geneva Convention?

The reason it's tougher now is because of what you said, before we were just pushing them out of another country. Now we're invading them on their turf. Certainly the military guys have thought of this and planned for it. They're not stupid, you know.

There are many reasons why we're going after Saddam. Any one of them is fine with me. I was willing to settle for them breaking UN resolutions - I though that was good enough. To oust the dictator - that's fine. Hell, I'm even okay with just controlling the price of oil.

We can't fight all of the dictators and mullahs at once, unless we just nuke them and be done with it (which is how I would handle it). So we need to send a message - then the others will fall in line. If they don't, they get a piece too. Notice Kim Jong Il hasn't had anything to say for awhile?

 

[SmallTown]

We do have a pretty large number of people in and around iraq currently.
And yes, our active generals HAVE said they were surprised by the tactics being used, such as the fake surrenders and such. Sure, it is awful they are doing that, but I can't say I wouldn't do it if in their shoes.

Interesting article:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/893971.asp

 

[jimmy]

Ok back....meetings....grumble...

Anyway first, thanks for defending my sexuality vrai ;-) I love bush and I'm not gonna be ashamed to admit it....

ok now onto the OTHER Bush...Is the reason I'm against this war because I hate him? The simple answer is: no.

It's not the fact that its Bushie giving the orders that makes me disagree. It's (and ST did a very good job of pointing this out) the dancing around that was done in order to drum up support/justification for this war that gets me. And because of it, I have grown distrustful of him in this war. I think he is a passionate president who cares about the American people but I also believe that he is an AGENDA president who has a path for America in mind that frightens me.

Vrai and Frank,

You both seem to be expressing that, for all you care, it could have been Saddam's decorating choices that we could go to war under. You aren't looking for any pretext; you are simply looking to get rid of a bad man. Fair enough. (side note: there IS, of course, a difference between us in that you all seem really gung-## about military action and are gonna just be quicker to drop bombs then I am but that doesn't make you wrong, just a different approach to foreign policy than my own).

I, however, am really looking for some justification for changing the international system the way we appear to be doing. I know I can't get you all on board with this but I'm not the only one who thinks so. This is a New Doctrine of Pre-Emption that is being enacted and one that is dangerously close to having us lose credibility with the rest of the world.

Many important, valid questions were never answered by this administration and, instead, we get a "causey" fight from an idealistic president that jumps from limb to limb: "It's terrorism, It's WMDs, Its non-compliance with UN Resolutions, Its Freeing the Iraqi people" etc.

Now you all will come back and say "It's all of those". And you may, in fact be right. One of the things I've wanted to say for a while is one of the reasons I say that I support the "Successful" victory of the Troops and the military action in Iraq is because, hey, prove us wrong. Show us the WMDs. Show us the ties to terror organizations. Show us the documented plans in work to attack our countries or give those WMDs to those who would. The end of this war should go a long way to proving the legitimacy of our administration in the eyes of the international community.

But I think this reasoning is certainly something that could have and should have been brought up to the international community. And no, not just speculative and outright FAKE satellite photos and cell phone calls.

I don't see why that was too much for the international community, namely the permanent members of the Security Council to ask.

But, Bush decided that it wasn't appropriate to wait any longer (don't give me the 10 years argument, this threat was trumped up overnight), or to get international support and for that reason our troops are fighting.

I don't think the time to question "how we got here" is after the war. That's poli-speak and I don't buy into it. There's no right or wrong time to express your voice in a democracy. Martial law hasn't been enacted. And I believe that discussing how we got here doesn't mean that you can't support the people who were left with that lot.

 

[Makavide]

Originally posted by jimmy
Show us the ties to terror organizations.

From Fox news

Officials said that between 75 and 150 Al Qaeda members have been captured or killed in northern Iraq in recent days.

U.S. sources told Fox News that documents and equipment were found in the rubble of an Ansar facility that had been built into a cliff near Sargat. The material was described as "a cookbook and kitchen" for chemical weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html

 

[Beckweti]

Originally posted by jimmy
Ok back....meetings....grumble...

Anyway first, thanks for defending my sexuality vrai ;-) I love bush and I'm not gonna be ashamed to admit it....

ok now onto the OTHER Bush...Is the reason I'm against this war because I hate him? The simple answer is: no.

It's not the fact that its Bushie giving the orders that makes me disagree. It's (and ST did a very good job of pointing this out) the dancing around that was done in order to drum up support/justification for this war that gets me. And because of it, I have grown distrustful of him in this war. I think he is a passionate president who cares about the American people but I also believe that he is an AGENDA president who has a path for America in mind that frightens me.

Vrai and Frank,

You both seem to be expressing that, for all you care, it could have been Saddam's decorating choices that we could go to war under. You aren't looking for any pretext; you are simply looking to get rid of a bad man. Fair enough. (side note: there IS, of course, a difference between us in that you all seem really gung-## about military action and are gonna just be quicker to drop bombs then I am but that doesn't make you wrong, just a different approach to foreign policy than my own).

I, however, am really looking for some justification for changing the international system the way we appear to be doing. I know I can't get you all on board with this but I'm not the only one who thinks so. This is a New Doctrine of Pre-Emption that is being enacted and one that is dangerously close to having us lose credibility with the rest of the world.

Many important, valid questions were never answered by this administration and, instead, we get a "causey" fight from an idealistic president that jumps from limb to limb: "It's terrorism, It's WMDs, Its non-compliance with UN Resolutions, Its Freeing the Iraqi people" etc.

Now you all will come back and say "It's all of those". And you may, in fact be right. One of the things I've wanted to say for a while is one of the reasons I say that I support the "Successful" victory of the Troops and the military action in Iraq is because, hey, prove us wrong. Show us the WMDs. Show us the ties to terror organizations. Show us the documented plans in work to attack our countries or give those WMDs to those who would. The end of this war should go a long way to proving the legitimacy of our administration in the eyes of the international community.

But I think this reasoning is certainly something that could have and should have been brought up to the international community. And no, not just speculative and outright FAKE satellite photos and cell phone calls.

I don't see why that was too much for the international community, namely the permanent members of the Security Council to ask.

But, Bush decided that it wasn't appropriate to wait any longer (don't give me the 10 years argument, this threat was trumped up overnight), or to get international support and for that reason our troops are fighting.

I don't think the time to question "how we got here" is after the war. That's poli-speak and I don't buy into it. There's no right or wrong time to express your voice in a democracy. Martial law hasn't been enacted. And I believe that discussing how we got here doesn't mean that you can't support the people who were left with that lot.

 

[vraiblonde]

Show me proof! (But if you do, I'll just call it fake)

Give me a reason! (But if you do, I'll just say that's not a very good reason)

Prepare for unconventional battle! (But I have to actually see you do it in person, or else I won't believe you're doing it right)

Get international support! (But it must include not only France, Germany and Russia, but all the Arab countries as well)

That about sum it up, Jimmy?

 

[SmallTown]

Al-qaida members in iraq. Ok... We had what 19 who exposed themselves on 9/11, and guess where they had been? Here. So I guess we support terrorism now? We have a watch on a ton of other al-qaida people here in the US. Wow, we must REALLY be a supporter for terror since we have so many here.

As for the books on chemical weapons. Heck, I had books on weapons when I was a kid, doesn't mean I would ever launch an attack.

The simple fact is the Bush justifies the war in Iraq with 9/11, yet NONE of the hijackers were from Iraq. Case Closed, find a new excuse.

 

[alex]

Okay, We all heard and/or read this information....


From Fox news


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials said that between 75 and 150 Al Qaeda members have been captured or killed in northern Iraq in recent days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. sources told Fox News that documents and equipment were found in the rubble of an Ansar facility that had been built into a cliff near Sargat. The material was described as "a cookbook and kitchen" for chemical weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html


There was never any report on if this was a new plant, an old plant or what. In fact, after the original broadcast the story died. It makes me wonder why? I mean, if this was what the media said it was then it should have been held up to the world that Bush was right and they were wrong but it hasn't.

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by bluto
Meetings -- the biggest time burgler in the business world.


My mistake, fellow Bush lover. In the future I will attempt to better read for comprehension, but I still think you are pretty gay

I love you, Bluto!

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by SmallTown

The simple fact is the Bush justifies the war in Iraq with 9/11, yet NONE of the hijackers were from Iraq. Case Closed, find a new excuse.

He did say that if you support or harbor terrorists, you are guilty of terrorism. There's more than active cells in Iraq - there are training camps. Anyway, 9/11 or not, a crazy and brutal dictator has been building dangerous weapons, hates the US and has bragged how he'll use them. It's one thing to attack someone you 'suspect' is dangerous - it's another to get them before they get you as they openly claim to want to do.

Does anyone remember a news blip about how some of the terrorists were found to have *died* in the Gulf War, in Kuwait? Which would suggest that they got their ID's from Iraq? Did anyone see this? I seem to remember seeing it a while back.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by bluto



Yeah, even China pimp-slapped him. The South has been kinda meek lately, too, coinciding with Rumsfeld musing about withdrawing American troops from the peninsula.

Exactly. And that's more or less my answer to the stupid retort "well why Saddam? What about North Korea?". Simple. China will never in a million years let it get out of control. Why should WE contain him, when China will do it for us?

 

[Flo]

Originally posted by jimmy
Haha...I was hoping someone would respond with the "support our troops" arguement....man, I'd say that's about the saddest tactitc in use right now to quell dissention.

"oh, if you don't support the war, you must not support our troops and care about them fighting for us and our freedoms."

Fact 1-- The troops are not over there fighting for OUR freedom. I believe the name of the operation is Operation IRAQI Freedom.

Fact 2--Being against the war is NOT being against the troops. How it can even be suggested is beyond me. I realize that our military serves a very high purpose to our freedom and safety. I also realize that they take orders and are over there doing a job. I find it repulsive that there were those during the vietnam war that supposedly were spitting on troops and yelling "baby killer" and all that crap. That's retarded and I don't support that at all.

I grieve for those troops that lose their lives, I want the rest (including a few good buddies of mine) to return home successful and safe. But that doesn't mean I can't question the overall premise behind their being over there in the first place.

Just thought you, Smalltown, etc. who think that the war is just about finding chemical weapons, should read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26523-2003Apr4.html

 

[jimmy]

Frank,

You are right about N. Korea and there are many other reasons too (namely, they've got a far greater ability to inflict collateral damage than Iraq).

But that's kinda my point. Seems like we're going into this w/Iraq because, uh, we can. Which, as I've said before, is fine under the right circumstances. The problem I have with how Bush handled it is that he HAD all the justification in the world for going in EVENTUALLY. You all may not agree, but a re-written resolution with a deadline and spelled out consequences would have had a much greater chance of going through had Bush and his boys not been so antsy about the whole thing and not openly expressed their blatant disregard for international opinion.

So, to justify this action, Bush uses Terrorism, international security, WMDs and the freedom of the Iraqi people. However, each of these reasons for war could be applied to any number of countries (including America's no. 1 buddy, Israel) yet we will conveniently look the other way or deal with those issues 'diplomatically'.

All I'm saying is don't feed me this line of BS reasoning for a conflict that seems to have been predetermined from the moment Bush Jr came into office...

 

[jimmy]

Flo,

Oh so I get it. This war is about gaining in public opinion polls??? What was the point of posting that article? THat the average Joe 12 Pack doesn't care about WMDs? There's news for ya!

 

[Flo]

Overall, I believe that the article (even though it is from the Washington Post, and I notice a few digs against Bush) supports the views of most Americans. I particularly agree with:

"I would not feel that I had been sold a bill of goods by the Bush administration" if no weapons of mass destruction are found, said Brad Stephens, 27, a law student living in Morgantown, W. Va.. "I think the guy [Saddam Hussein] is a threat. If nothing else, the guy's paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That alone is enough to show his militant stance toward the West."

I believe Saddam Hussein is (or was) a threat, and I for one do care for my FREEDOM. If Saddam Hussein remained a threat, how many more years before we could not say that? I am proud that President Bush would not sit back and let our nation be bullied by this coward any longer.

 

[Frank]

But that's kinda my point. Seems like we're going into this w/Iraq because, uh, we can. Which, as I've said before, is fine under the right circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

Makes sense to me. Why should we go into a situation that we CAN'T resolve? I still think we're going to see serious trouble with China itself, before the end of this century.

I also believe that we are going in, because it CAN'T be resolved by other means. We didn't even have Saddam going in for half-hearted measures until he had troops at the borders. Americans are at the gates of Baghdad, and they're in denial. Who believes they would have complied to further inspections?


The problem I have with how Bush handled it is that he HAD all the justification in the world for going in EVENTUALLY.


EVENTUALLY, they would have had live film of them building more weapons, and France would have said it was for making baby milk powder.


You all may not agree, but a re-written resolution with a deadline and spelled out consequences would have had a much greater chance of going through had Bush and his boys not been so antsy about the whole thing and not openly expressed their blatant disregard for international opinion.


I really don't think so. France vetoed it faster than the Iraqis did. They were going to shoot it down, no matter what it said - and they SAID they would, before it was released. I wonder what it would have been like, if they had taken the SAME resolution and re-submitted it.


So, to justify this action, Bush uses Terrorism, international security, WMDs and the freedom of the Iraqi people.


AND his *real* reason is - what, revenge? I think those are good reasons, and they make sense. International security? Sure - isn't that WHY 1441 was there, in the first place? WMD's - isn't that WHY the inspectors were there, in the first place?


However, each of these reasons for war could be applied to any number of countries (including America's no. 1 buddy, Israel) yet we will conveniently look the other way or deal with those issues 'diplomatically'.


Well, I said before - SOME of those can be resolved by other means. Nothing else is working on Iraq, now.

I think this IS a perfect time to finally find a solution to the Palestinian problem, once and for all.


All I'm saying is don't feed me this line of BS reasoning for a conflict that seems to have been predetermined from the moment Bush Jr came into office...

PRE-determined? How? You mean, has Iraq been undergoing inspections for years, had no-fly zones established, and a White House under Clinton bomb them, and declare them dangerous, a situation that will have to be resolved by military means? That has BEEN the stance of the government for years, and you're right. But the reasons given have BEEN reasons for Saddam's removal.

Is there some OTHER reason you can think of, why this is happening?

 

[demsformd]

I can tell the people here that opposing a war does not necessarily mean that one opposes the troops. There are cases of that...I mean there are always radical agents in an anti-war movement. But Jimmy and ST are definitely not those type of people.

The ones that go to the marches and say I hate you America, they oppose the troops. Believe me, they would oppose this war if Clinton was in office because the people that are out there marching...don't vote. I remember protesting the Vietnam War...there were people that spit on soldiers and opposed the war through three administrations - 2 Democratic and 1 Republican. Many of the protesters that I had the misfortune of meeting refused to vote because "it's part of the system man." These people today don't care if it is Clinton, Bush, or Gore in office. They don't care if its a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. They want to overthrow the system and oppose anything that the government does that seems to be "imperialistic" or indicative of the "American Empire." I, as a member of CALCAV, opposed the war on moral grounds but I flew my flag high, cried when I heard the body counts, and helped when I could when soldiers needed it. They were more courageous than me and all the others that went to Canada or received deferments or joined the National Guard. I supported each and every one of them but I still opposed a war that put them in harm's way for nothing that had to do with America. I support the Iraqi War, I have for quite a while now, but I see how others could view this war and I viewed Vietnam and I can understand how they can oppose it and still support the troops.

 

[Larry Gude]

Freedom of Speech...

...and freedom from reality.

jimmy, ST, whomever feels their freedom of speech is being threatened by a bunch of hyper-patriotic robots:

Is there a point, to you, where failed, incorrect arguments are allowed to be dismissed without the defensive cry of "blind patriotism" or "censorship" having to be addressed?

There is no doubt that Hussein is a bad guy with bad intentions for the US. His remaining in power is a threat to US National security in terms of terror support, regional destabilization (consistent, secure, market driven oil production) and actual military hostility as more and more weapons capability, including nuclear, are attained.

Arguments against these facts amount to "let's wait until he is powerful enough for us not to be able to do anything about it without much greater risk invloved." This argument ALWAYS adds "..but yeah, I think he is bad and should be gone...just not THIS way"

Absurd. We put the fire out AFTER the second, third stories start burning???

These facts have been made crystal clear to me by our elected officials, W, in addition to my own native ability to process the obvious. I didn't discern this stuff from tea leaves.

International support? France, Germany and Russia have their own national interests at stake in Iraq being dealt with PER EXISTING 12 YEAR OLD RESOLUTIONS THEY ALL PUT THE NAME TO.

Their interests conflict with ours. Any argument that we didn't do everything reasonable to get them to cooperate is incorrect unless the goal is to do it their way: Let Iraq continue to be a threat to the United States of America.

Arguments here simply amount to their National interest being more important than ours. IT IS NOT IN THEIR INTEREST TO ACT IN OURS in this case.

The Onion article is a rehash of snapshots in time that attempt to put the blame, once again, on the US for Saddam Husseins actions. It merely buttresses the two other avenues of argument I've addressed here and is equally incorrect in fact and thought process.

To summarize, criticizing our government is a bedrock principal that we all engage in happily when we think those in power in our name are wrong.

BUT

At some point, A. you've lost the argument or election and must place your trust in the very system that gives you a chance for "better luck next time" or B. you're arguments are just plain factually and simply wrong and it...

GETS BORING LISTENING TO PEOPLE CONSTANTLY PROVE THAT THE FACTS JUST DON'T MATTER TO THEM.

All together now...

"I know a song that gets on everybody nerves..."

You can sing it but we are allowed, having the same rights as you, to get sick of it.