Any opinions about the war? <off topic>

[Vicki Richter]

I am not anti the President or anything, but I really don't think we should go to war. It is extremely expensive and will kill a lot of Americans as we try to take over... It's kinda scarey. The worst part is the rest of the world is really looking down on us about this. I think there could be greater reprecussions than we anticipate. I wasn't really around when Viet-Nam happened or Korea, but honestly that was really terrible... Lots of people died and way too many American soldiers. I was dating someone for awhile who is now in Kuwait. He was supposed to come home, but they won't let him now. In summary, I don't think I know more than the government, but we keep talking about disarming them and we haven't really even found anything. I guess I will support whatever decision that the President and co. make, but I just wish we didn't have to go there...

Oh yeah.... Hi NYC!

Vicki

[snatch]

Bush wants this war and doesn't really care what the aftermath of it will be. I think its scary that not only didn't he win the election, but that ultimately he'll be creating more enemies of america by forcing this war.

[Desperado]

Bush won the election.

The only reason I don't want war is 'cos it's a waste of our money. And I could care less about supporting the rest of the world....or give a crap about what any of them think about us. Plus, after the war we'll have to spend three times the war amount in Iraqi aid, buying off all neighboring countries, kissing up to all those U.N. morons and their fucked-up countries freeloading on America.....and hear about our intolerance for not letting the 5 million new Iraqi immigrants on foodstamps fuck their goats in our public schools.

Plus, rather than having America police the world.....making a billion new enemies in the process, I just know that our ever-ballooning government could find even more wasteful things to do with our money right here at home. Maybe they could go looking for a few million more losers to put on welfare. Or maybe just wire our money directly to the French.

Or maybe Washington could sponsor all the HungAngels posters to a yearlong TS fuckathon.

[Vicki Richter]

Are you saying that last thing would be a waste of money?

:P

Vicki

[Desperado]

Definitely not!

I can see why it might have sounded like that - all caught up in my ranting!

[bezane]

Vicki, consider this....

Speaking of the conflict with IRAQ, it would be more like an invasion than a war. Given the last decade of military upgrades there is little if anything an army like IRAQ's could accomplish against the might of the US armed forces. More daunting is the US tank supported ground force than even its' completely superior air force. With these elements alone the US would easily take control of IRAQ, not to mention the extensive logistical intelligence that would render any military attempt by IRAQ useless. Hardly much of a war.

That said, is it right?

Going back eighteen months just after 9/11, this administration had a unanimous mandate by the American people and its' allies to root out, and destroy terrorists, while thwarting any new attempts to harm Americans, their friends, allies and interests both here in the US and abroad. This far reaching mandate was exemplified by The Patriot Act, swiftly passed through the Congress to give greater espionage power to authorities to assist in this huge objective.

The timeframe for this objective was reiterated many times; whether it be ten months or ten years, the US is committed to hunt down organized terrorists and their sympathizers and put an end to their activities.

Now that some time has passed and boredom has set in, it seems much of the American public and others have lost interest and think that the world will heal itself with love and more importantly financial aid. It won't. IRAQ may very well be another target to stabilize the program against terror. But we all gave our blessing and now we must allow those in charge to see it through.

Those that cling to the mantra that it's about oil, should re-evaluate thier stance. The US can cut a deal with Saddam Hussein much better than the one they can get from EXXON. He uses slave labor if need be and can beat OPEC prices hands down while still making a hefty profit. American companies have a rock solid history of paying top wages, benefits and making matching dollar investments in foreign lands and obviously here at home.

Those that think this is the President's personal revenge against a leader that attempted to assasinate his father, should first acknowledge that his father was a President, and when this nation stops seeking justice for a crime like that, it will no longer be able to lead a free world.

Having an oil producing nation with all of its potential finacial power support terrorism is simply a dangerous additive in the mix. While it would be naive to think the US is without fault in some international problems, it is also naive to ignore the trillions of dollars in aid the US supplies to third world countries, allies and those nations in need, which is often pilfered by rogue leaders with their own agendas, while millions of their own people suffer, starve or are marginalized. Look no further than RWANDA.

Remember that we all enjoy freedom and a lifestyle that is envied by many. American policies are responsible for those freedoms and perks. There is a price to pay for it as well.

I sat thinking one night after a long debate with friends. I took my usual far left liberal stand and view during that debate, but later, while alone, I couldn't think of another government I would trust with my freedom and tax money. There is something to be said for that.

I don't like war Vicki, but this is the path chosen for us. In strength we can command respect or resentment. The aftermath will be telling. May we be guided by a just cause.

[Elpachio]

Hi Vicki - hope you're okay.

I have to say that I'm becoming increasingly anti-war as this whole debate continues. I don't pretend to understand quite what it must have been like on September 11th, but just seeing the images from that fateful day effect me like no other tragedy that we have seen in our world. The world has felt like a far less safe place since that day.
But whether George Bush is looking for a scape goat for that day, or whether he's trying to seek revenge on Saddam for trying to kill his father, or whether it comes down to oil, to me there just isn't enough justification to attack Iraq.
Just how do you fight terrorism? That is the dilemma that has faced the civilised world, and if you can't fight a "thing" like terrorism, then you have to single out an individual for villification - come in Saddam. I'm not saying Saddam should be in power because he's an evil tyrant, but how can we possibly justify our position as "the doers of righteousness" if we attack a country that we have not yet proved has all the weapons we say it has, and that is even showing signs of disarming.
And what happens if we do attack? Do we see an outbreak of even more terrorism around the world? Violence breeds violence.
As for Tony Blair, the man seems alone in his government fighting this battle for war, and if it does come to strikes and they fail to have any impact, Blair is for the high jump. About time!

Saddam even said in a recent interview that he admires the British for their resolution during World War II - he continues to deny having weapons of mass destruction. And let's face it, North Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq..........so why don't we single North Korea out?? Simple in my opinion - there's no oil!!

I just have a bad feeling about this whole thing - I don't think war is the answer, to terrorism or to the world climate. The worldwide economy would be devastated by war. More inspectors, more controlled checks of Iraq over a long period of time...........but bombing them and innocent people....not a good idea Mr Blair and Mr Bush. The very fact that these two men seem to be alone in their drive for war while virtually the rest of the UN is against it should tell them a lot.

I just hope we don't live to regret this......

[flabbybody]

President Bush does not need to prove there's a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Sadam would perpertrate that kind of attack on us in a country minute, if he had the capability. The misguided anti-war liberals need to consider the next Sadam target may be California, or Ohio, or Anytown USA. I mean, do we need another fucking World Trade Center to convince people that we have to get these guys, before they get us?

[Elpachio]

Which guys flabbybody?? Which guys do we have to get?? Terrorism is a THING, it's not Saddam or Iraq's deputy prime minister - it's not Osama Bin Laden - terrorism is something that you cannot destroy, you cannot liberate terrorism.
Saddam is a power monger but he wasn't behind 9/11. This isn't about 9/11 and getting rid of Saddam won't stop another World Trade Centre....it will probably encourage it to happen all the more, because terrorists will feel that they need to hit back.

Do you really think that fighting Iraq and all that entails will actually end any future threat of terrorism? If you do, you are misguided.

I don't want terrorism as much as the next man, but that doesn't make me want this war!

[bezane]

Elpachio....

I have to respectively disagree, not about your view or opinion, but the way in which you back it up or support it.

To imply that any one thing would eliminate terrorism is foolhardy. Of course eliminating Hussein will not end terrorism. Nor will Bin Laden's capture or the elimination of terroristic safehouses in the Sudan and Indonesia. It may be a never ending saga, just like any war on crime be it here at home or abroad.

You state that it seems that IRAQ is starting to disarm and complying with UN sanctioned inspections. Really? It's been twelve years in waiting. Just because this administration has put a priority on it in the last two years does not mean that it is a new issue. Why was there no proof given as to the destruction of V-series and mustard gases, anthrax and smallpox weaponry and the French sponsored updated blueprints for a Nuclear Reactor. Could it be that IRAQ still possesses them and the French and German companies have their fingerprints on them?

IRAQ has attempted to "cleanse itself" of a huge Kurdish population in the north. The Clinton Administration was applauded for bombing the former Yugoslavia into the stoneage for a similiar reason, except that no chemical weapons or military might was used against the Albanians. This was done without asking the UN.


You state that violence begets violence. Really? Heard from Libya lately? Any proof that by not acting out with violence against the first World Trade Bombers stopped them from doing it again? How about the USS Cole. No military action. Yet they continued with two US embassies, one Israeli, a Bali nightclub and countless other tragedies. Heard from Germany since Hitler? Japan? I certainly don't advocate senseless violence but I also am smart enough to realize negotiating with agressors, terrorists and the like are not going to quench their appetite for headlines.

Realize that the agenda of some, is to obliterate secular nations, societies and civilations as well as those non-secular ones that do not comply with their doctrine. Should these people be allowed to have a voice as long as they act out with their own violence? Is the US guilty of generally not allowing cultural diversity?

You state Tony Blair "seems" alone in his government. Totally untrue. It it certainly true that he has not been supported by the British media, but he has garnered majority support in Parliment, albeit thin, granted. But a Republic is not ruled by a public majority on each issue. We elect leaders to make decisions and lead. They will do much we disagree with and much we are for. Think of the issues in this country that if taken to a public referendum might pass? Race? Abortion? Religion? Who knows.

You state that Saddam stated in a recent interview that he admires Great Britain's resolution since WWII. And what? Is there a point to this statement. Do you sympathize with this man because he said something complimentry about Great britain?

You state Saddam denies having weapons of mass destruction in the same recent interview. But you fail to state that he's been saying that for twelve years, with little proof. The same man that after invading Kuwait and faced with expulsion by the US-British led force, he set afire every oil production facilty before retreating. That makes him an eco-terrorist as well. No regard for millions of innocent people.

You state: "why don't we single out North Korea? Simple no oil." This is way off as a logical statement. First of all, IRAQ is not being singled out. This administration listed IRAQ right along with North Korea in Bush's famous speech. Recently the US sent 24 B-52 and stealth bombers to South Korea for staging. As far as the oil goes, from Mexico to Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, the US has done business with these huge oil producers while not hijacking their profits. Do you not think the US couldn't have if that was their desire?

You state the worldwide economy would be devastated by war. How so? Economies are cyclical. War may be a variable in the day to day operation of the markets and the consumer-driven sector of the economy, but to say that an operation like IRAQ would be devastating is way overstating the point.

Your opinion is yours, and you're entitled to it. But the points you present to back it up seem weak at best.

I'll support with my life though, your right to state them.

Vicky started something.