Attack Iraq?

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
Joe, some people on these boards know more than you think.

I won't doubt that for a moment.
But it's also quite obvious to anyone who cared to watch, that every post regarding the middle-east conflict(s) has merely resulted in emotins running high and comments being made in all seriousness that I find both shocking and disgusting.
Reducing people (no matter their beliefs) to less than human is just fundamentally wrong (IMNSHO).
They may have done horrible acts, they may even be crazy and/or dangerous. But they're still humans.
If we start negating that just so we can safely call for their deaths, we are just lying to ourselves. Hiding in delusion that by doing so, we can keep our humanity.

Am I saying we should hug them, give them a cookie.. and everything will be ok? No.
Am I saying we should never and under any circumstances defend ourselves? No.

What I'm basically trying to say is nicely summed up in this quote:
"Many that live deserve death. And many that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. "

Originally posted by mactavish
Oh, and by the way, Joe... your characterization of Americans and warmongers, particularly the way that you delivered it with sarcasm and utterly unforgivable bad taste, was exceptionally offensive. Of course, that's just the opinion of an evil American, so take it for what its worth.

I find it particularly telling that you made several assumptions based on my post without regarding the facts.

1. At no point did I refer to Americans in my original post. In fact I have repeatedly written that the post was not aimed at Americans, but at certain members on this board.
2. At no point have I declared Americans as evil. Or you for that matter.

I find it quite puzzling that you seem to see yourself as an American first, and as in individual second. The post was as I have explained not targeted towards people of a certain nationality but towards people of a certain attitude. If you see yourself in my words in the first post, then it is your problem not mine.

If you jump to conclusions that quickly when dealing with something that is clearly marked as satire, I don't want to know how you form opinions on more complex and far more serious matters.

Joe

P.S. - Maybe some people should just go out and watch Dr. Strangelove again.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by calguard66
So... you're saying we wouldn't give them money, so they blew up the WTC?

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Go read that site, especially the timeline in the 'Oh Lucy' article.

[calguard66]

Drivel.

Read several of the "reports" on the site. All uninformed drivel...

Written by someone who doesn't understand the military... some of the things just COULDN'T happen, without hundreds of people knowing and talking...

If you're reading and believeing that crap, better go put your foil hat on.

Originally posted by Anomaly


Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Go read that site, especially the timeline in the 'Oh Lucy' article.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by calguard66
Drivel.

Read several of the "reports" on the site. All uninformed drivel...

Written by someone who doesn't understand the military... some of the things just COULDN'T happen, without hundreds of people knowing and talking...

If you're reading and believeing that crap, better go put your foil hat on.

Prove him wrong and get the thousand bucks he is offering, then.

I also think it's funny that just because I don't prescribe to your party line, nor since I do not accept what the media has told me, I must be insane and therefor I should wear a foil hat. Instead of coming up with rebuttals to his arguments, you've indicated that we're insane. Drivel. Uninformed. Instead of discrediting the facts presented you attempt to discredit the source. How typical. Learn to think for yourself for goodness sake. Weigh in objectively.

[calguard66]

Well, it will take a while to write it all up.

In any case, in an argument the party aserting the positive has to provide the proof. You can't prove a negative.

The article about the response of Andrews AFB is an easy one. The fighter squadrons there are RESERVE COMPONENT squadrons... not active "combat ready" units, as he himself states. Civilian aircraft in distress are not routinely intercepted in DC or anywhere else... or weren't until now. Reserve squadrons tasked with continental air defense used to keep aircraft on ground alert as part of SAC... but since the end of the cold war they don't any more. Several of the full-time personnel at these reserve units would be pilots, but they are there for admin tasks, not as ready alert pilots...

Where is his proof of deliberate acts to prevent response? His only proof is that there was none... nobody has come forward and claimed to have been ordered not to scramble, nobody has claimed to have been told to ignore anything. There is no way that, out of the HUNDREDS of people who would have to be involved, NOBODY has even peeped.

The whole site is like that... alternating claims of government/ military incompetence and government/ military masterful conspiracy... which is it? Are they stupid or brilliant?

I could go line-by-line... but just don't have that kind of time, and wouldn't change your mind if I did.

Originally posted by Anomaly


Prove him wrong and get the thousand bucks he is offering, then.

I also think it's funny that just because I don't prescribe to your party line, nor since I do not accept what the media has told me, I must be insane and therefor I should wear a foil hat. Instead of coming up with rebuttals to his arguments, you've indicated that we're insane. Drivel. Uninformed. Instead of discrediting the facts presented you attempt to discredit the source. How typical. Learn to think for yourself for goodness sake. Weigh in objectively.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by calguard66
A German advocating appeasement. The irony...

Oh, you think that's ironic, do you? I'll just try to restrain myself from taking this comment as being aimed at all Germans.

OT:
Should the US attack Iraq? Let me answer with a quote we can probably all place: "Never start a fight, always win it."

Why that answer? Simply because I believe there is a moral difference between someone who starts a fight and someone who fights back to defend himself (or someone else who is too weak to defend himself).

If US policy makers decide to attack on Iraq simply because Sadam is 'evil' or 'the enemy' IMHO that's not enough justification to start a war, as both terms are just labels you can put on just about anyone you don't like or want to get rid of and as such open to abuse. If ,OTOH, the US were to start a war with Iraq to stop Sadam from killing Kurds, Iraqis and a lot of other people standing in his way I would see things differently.

Sure, this is just a difference on how politicians would justify this war, but I think it's still an important difference. And it makes a difference for how people perceive this war, should it ever happen. And while it may not be as important as it should be, public opinion still plays a big role in political decisions, especially when election time is comming up.

As for how the war should be fought:
Just consider two questions: (1) Who is the enemy in this war, Sadam or the people of Iraq? (2) What's to become of Iraq after such a war?
If you answer (1) Sadam and (2) an ally of the US or at least a neutral country, than a litle restraint might be in order.

Please note, that I am not saying ou should avoid all civilian casualties. I realize that in war that's impossible. All I am saying is that carpet-bombing or using nukes could be against US interests in the long run.

[Dr. Jonas Bashir]

I think the problem here is the motivations for this interventions. Saddam Hussein was funded and, almost, placed, by the US Government like, 20 years ago already, and they want to remove the guy who helped them while funded (still being a total SOAB himself, they funded him) and now ran amok using the great power of being the ruler of Iraq.

And the oil, don't forget the oil. Anomaly said it better about Afghanistan. Curious that the Bush administration hits (again) the same spot. I heard, not just once, the links between the Bush family and the oil industry.

Let me correct myself a little: in Afghani soil it was natural gas, not exactly oil. Same industry, same hands behind it, same interests.

[calguard66]

"A German"

So you think we should let him detonate a nuke before we do anything? How far does he have to go before we can act? What about the fact that the "fight" has been going on for over 10 years?

When military force is used as a last resort, the situation is almost always deteriorated to the point where more force must be used and restlting in more bloodshed than if force had been used earlier.

And what of the oil issue? Oil is the lifeblood of the US. Any disruption of the supply is an issue of national security. What if the UK's tea supply was threatened, or Germany was suddenly cut off form saurkraut?

Seriously, I don't understand why "it's just about oil" is even an argument...

Originally posted by Lancer


Oh, you think that's ironic, do you? I'll just try to restrain myself from taking this comment as being aimed at all Germans.

OT:
Should the US attack Iraq? Let me answer with a quote we can probably all place: "Never start a fight, always win it."

[C5]

*sigh*....

< RANT >

It seems to me every political thread now turns the same way...

1. Someone asks a question about American politics
2. Some Americans claim they agree with the American governement
3. Some Americans (less) disagree (more or less politely)
4. Some non-Americans disagree (more or less politely)
5. Some of the posters of stage 2. start a constructive discussion with posters of stage 3. and 4.
6. The other posters of stage 2. claim that : Europeans are all some sort of sissies who think nothing but bashing America, and that anyway they the posters are right 'cause they know everything and have been everywhere and America is the only true way and you're a moron if you disagree.
7. A heated discussion starts on why the USA are the Empire of Evil Cretins and Europe the Kingdom of Useless Wimps

< / RANT >



I don't know much about Iraq and the situation there and whatever.
I just know these things :
1) War is something mankind has been doing since its darkest ages
2) Today's technology means a war can kill a lot of people (like, say, all the casualties of the Hundred Years War in one day)
3) Today's technology means also we may be able to do things we couldn't do before
4) There are other options than war

Gandhi proved that you could win without war. And I'm an atheist, but I think there's also something in the Bible about the other cheek and so on.

Anyway... our opinions don't matter in anyway. If the USA want to strike against Iraq, they will no matter what the UN, the EU, or the little green men say. I just hope that if they do so they could get at Saddam easily this time and not kill thousands of Iraqi people while letting him in charge.

[Darth Sarcastic]

Please explain to me why all of our "TOP SECRET" plans are being announced on TV. For example...two or three days after 9/11 our beloved gov't (feel the sarcasm!) announced "...a secret attack..." on Bin-Laden's training camps...they gave a local time and date for the attack...is it any surprise that these locations were devoid of people/weapons when we finally blew up all of those log cabbins? How bout the announcement a few weeks ago about "...our TOP SECRET plan to assasinate Saddam Husein..." made on all the major networks. I notice he's still alive and making threats against us for wanting him dead. Am I the only one who figures there are plenty of "sleeper agents" for Bin Laden still in the US...reporting whatever CNN has to say? Preparing for another attack? Am I the only one laughing when our "top experts" on terrorism can't decide whether or not to blame the CIA, FBI or the homosexuals...especially when they talk about "...connecting the dots..." as a way of deciphering critical information. Someone had to "...connect the dots..." for George "The Gov." Bush, otherwise he might not have cancelled his appointment at WTC on 9/11. I'm so glad he was well informed so that he would live...and 3000 of my fellow New Yorkers didn't. I bet they would've objected to getting killed if they knew it was just so Bush could put the Marines around his oil-fields and help build his family's oil pipeline. I'm glad to say that I didn't vote for him...but then again nobody did, did they...except for Florida. I do know people who got killed (and almost got killed) in WTC, and nobody deserves to die like that...especially for the reason(s) and people who allowed it. The towers can be replaced...the people never will. I've got a few friends who still have nightmares about what they saw and heard. And why is it when Bin Laden's associates announce what they intend to inflict in the US (4 Million dead with 1 Million being children, 2x that crippled/diseased and homeless...) our gov't. quietly explains how this is the all the fault of the Jews, homosexuals, the poor, the ERA, Planned Parenthood, people with the letter "L" in their names, those who watch TV at home in just their underwear, anybody who watches Sci-Fi, anybody who doesn't....the list goes on, they never blame anyone in their class though. They do this rather that track down these BASTARDS!! and eliminate them...why is that?

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Ramage
On the coldly practical end, one reason Bush II wants a war is that the US electorate rarely unseats a war-time president. An active war is entirely to his benefit politically.

Is that the only reason? No, but I think it is a serious one.

With his current approval ratings, he's not going anywhere. And in general, once you get off the left coast and out of the major cities, the rest of the country likes having a president who is, at least, reasonably honest.

Unlike the last administration. (If only the AG had followed up on some of the CI work we'd done...)

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Joe I don't get what your saying or the reasoning some people have. Should we all wait until Iraq has nuclear capabilities and uses them or should we stomp on him now before its too late? Should we wait until an allied city like Tel Aviv becomes a raging inferno or should we invade and stop them?

I don't "enjoy" the thought of people dying regardless of nationality, though, war is war. People will die and others will live, so be it. Morality has no place in war and anyone who thinks so will lose the first war they fight under such rules. We all know that Saddam Hussein is a viscious dictator, now why are we not clamoring to remove him? His regime funds and trains Palestinian suicide bombers, killing innocent people in Israel (Jewish and Palestinian).

The From the Wilderness website has some... interesting notions. I read the biowarfare bit and wasn't impressed, filed with assumptions and ill explained facts. Standard conspiracy theorizing IMHO, I'll stick to The Economist for my reading needs.


Posted by C5:

Gandhi proved that you could win without war. And I'm an atheist, but I think there's also something in the Bible about the other cheek and so on.

You are right C5, but turning the other cheek in this case will get you a broken jaw. This particular situation cannot be remedied without removing Hussein. HE is the cause of the problem, he is the same type of character as Stalin, Hitler and Khatami. Dictators who abuse their people, spout war rhetoric daily and use well-meaning organisations such as the U.N. for their own twisted ends. Any move now to allow inspectors in, would be to stave of a U.S. attack. As soon as the threat dies down he will toss them out again and again if we give him the chance. How many times must we play this cat and mouse game? We know what he wants to do with nuclear weapons and we know how close he is, according to Iraqi defectors, why not act decisively when the time is ripe?


As for the oil argument, very highly overrated. Anyone know the percentage the U.S. buys from the Middle East? 20%. Know why the Middle East is so important to the states.

There is only one world price for oil. Japan purchases 66% of its oil from the Middle East while the E.U. purchases 33%. Any sudden change would affect them economically in a very serious way, especially Japan the key U.S. trading partner. All of this information was covered in an Economist during this year. In any case, the U.S. has nearby reserves just for itself if truly needed, the Alaskan fields and the Albertan tar sands in Canada. But they would mean much less if its number one trading partner, Japan, were to suddenly have to buy fuel at twice the price.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by calguard66
So you think we should let him detonate a nuke before we do anything? How far does he have to go before we can act? What about the fact that the "fight" has been going on for over 10 years?

No, of course I don't think Sadam should be allowed to nuke anyone before action is taken against him.
Still I believe it makes a lot of difference what the reasons for an attack on Iraq would be, i.e. if it happens because Sadam is 'evil' and may attack his neighbours again or if it happens because he already murders and oppresses his own people.

While this may look like a small difference IMO it still matters, as it influences the basic aim of such a war, if and when it starts.
If the aim is just to get rid of Sadam you can stop once he and his regime are no more.
But if the aim is to free the people of Iraq it shouldn't just stop with Sadam and his regime, but continue on to help them build a state where people like Sadam won't come to power again.

And while I would hope the later goes without saying, I feel it does not, as regretable as this might be.
Wars are started for political reasons by politicians who have their own reasons for doing so. But if they clearly state tehir aims up front it will be a lot harder for the politicians to back down later.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
Joe I don't get what your saying or the reasoning some people have. Should we all wait until Iraq has nuclear capabilities and uses them or should we stomp on him now before its too late? Should we wait until an allied city like Tel Aviv becomes a raging inferno or should we invade and stop them?

Under this reasoning you want to "stop the criminal" before he "commits a crime", thus before he actually becomes a "criminal".
You cannot "punish" somebody for what he wants to do or what he might do.

Imagine your next-door-neighbour just bought a gun. You know he's one evil bastard, by the way he mistreats his family. You might even have had a few arguments with him some time ago. One of them even resulting in open violence. He doesn't seem to like you very much. You know that because you hear the arguments he has with his family, through the walls. He thinks you're the most hypocritical p.o.s. ever to crawl on this earth, because you dare tell him how to treat his family.
So now he's bought a gun.

Do you go out and put a bullet in his head, because he could use the gun against you? Or your family?

You know, just to be safe.






D'you see what I mean?

I don't "enjoy" the thought of people dying regardless of nationality, though, war is war. People will die and others will live, so be it.

Yes. But this will only become an open war with a long list of casualties, once the US attacks Iraq.
Right now this is the same posturing stage the US had with the USSR some 40-50 years ago.

Morality has no place in war and anyone who thinks so will lose the first war they fight under such rules.

Necessity overrides morality in a war. I agree.
Ignoring morality completely in a war though, is equally short-sighted.

We all know that Saddam Hussein is a viscious dictator, now why are we not clamoring to remove him? His regime funds and trains Palestinian suicide bombers, killing innocent people in Israel (Jewish and Palestinian).

Allow me to be frank:

Violence doesn't solve shit.
Wars don't end shit. (Except for the very last one.)

Doesn't anyone learn anything from the palestinian/jewish conflict?

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


Allow me to be frank:

Violence doesn't solve shit.
Wars don't end shit. (Except for the very last one.)

Doesn't anyone learn anything from the palestinian/jewish conflict?

Not true, violence throughout history has solved lots of things... A few examples from the last few hundred years...

Are the American colonies to gain independence from Great Britain?
Is Napoleonic France to rule over all of Europe?
Is the Confederacy to be allowed to leave the United States of America?
Is the Czar to rule Russia?
Is Germany to rule over all of Europe?
Is Japan to rule over much of China and the Pacific?
Is Vietnam to remain one or two countries?

Maybe there were better ways to solve these issues, but violence did solve them.

As for ending "shit", nothing ends "shit" as nothing ends history. Peace treaties don't end shit. Surgery doesn't end shit. Laxatives don't end shit. History goes on and on. Nothing ends, nothing is ever settled for all time.

Violence is just as valid a way to determine the outcome of a conflict than a treaty. Less preferable by far, but history is filled with examples of that.

Not liking it doesn't make it incorrect.