Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Don't Want The War? Too Bad.  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Here is a discussion I had with a friend yesterday. My comments are italicized.


What is your take on the war?

I’m not really sure. It’s hard to say. But it seems pretty clear that Saddam Hussein needs to go. He’s gassed his own people, he’s a liar, and there is nothing that he is beneath doing. Clearly he has an ax to grind, and given half a chance, will try and take over the world.

Such as?

What would be to prevent him from having exact duplicates of American or British soldier uniforms made up, and sending in a few of his men to come in and open fire on us. He knows that CNN is watching everything. You can bet that he will make sure that the cameras will be watching, whereupon he will say “See what your Bush is doing! He’s firing on his own men!”

That sounds pretty far fetched and chickenshit to me

Can you swear by your life that this has no possibility of happening?

No.

There you go. A lot of people don’t WANT to consider these possibilities, for whatever reason. To them, it’s see no evil, hear no evil, there is no evil. It is, in my opinion a very dangerous attitude and symptom of someone in denial. Just because you don’t ADMIT the problem, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Now what about all of these war protesters?

Although I think that everyone is entitled to his opinion, I wish that they would just shut their f-ing mouths and let Mr. Bush do his job. What do these people know that he doesn’t? They've all become experts at mouthing the biased, and leftist Liberal Media fodder that is spoon fed to them. I guarantee you that there’s plenty that they don’t know. Nobody knows. Mr. Bush is between a rock and a hard place. I mean think about it. If he gives full disclosure about what was going on, our National security could be compromised. If he says nothing, then everyone demands answers. He can’t win either way. So under the circumstances, it makes better sense security wise to not say anything. No wonder no other countries support us. They see all of these people right here protesting. And then they look and that and say “his own people won’t even support him. Why should we?” In my opinion, these protestors are doing nothing but throwing gas on the fire and spreading nothing but pure hearsay and speculation. And then there’s all of these reporters asking questions like “How many troops are you sending? Where are they being deployed? When do they plan on striking? What tactics will they use?”
I think it’s a safe bet that Mr. Hussein has access to CNN. All we would need to do is watch these reports, and then he’d know exactly where to station his troops the next day. If it were up to me, I’d say to every one of these reporters “shut the hell up. That is none of your business. Bailiff, please escort this person out”. Obviously, I wouldn’t be too popular, but I’d rather lose brownie points than spill the beans.


What about the argument that this is only about oil?

Once again, these protestors are showing how blind, misled, and gullible they are. Think about it. If this was about oil, what good is that going to do for Mr. Bush? Does he plan on annexing Iraq as a United States territory? We had the chance in 1991 with both Iraq and Kuwait. Yet we pulled out of there. And even if we were after oil, wouldn’t it make better sense to try and befriend Mr. Hussein and lift the sanctions and embargoes against him? And exactly how are these people getting to these protests? What about their jobs-assuming they even have one? What about all of their day to day errands. Unless you ride around on a bicycle or a solar powered vehicle, you have absolutely no right to utter this nonsense argument.

What about the idea that this is really about “son finishing daddys work”?

Again, I think this is utter nonsense. The idea that George W has a grudge against Mr. Hussein has nothing more than an anecdotal possibility. If that was the case, he would’ve gone in, and taken him out the minute he took office. But like I said, why can’t we just let Mr. Bush carry out the business of leading the country and doing what needs to be done? As I stated already, what do these protestors know that he doesn’t? Nothing. It’s all guesswork. If it turns out that Mr. Bush is wrong, and this is nothing more than a score to settle, then I’ll be the first one to sign the petition calling for the Impeachment, trial, and imprisonment of Mr. Bush.

Ok. Then what about Mr. Bush trying to have access to the oil AND “ settling the score?”

Again, this is not a very likely scenario. Even if we only cared about access to oil, the US has never been interested in humanitarian causes when we have a vested economic interest at hand. Look at how many other dictatorships there are out there, yet we do nothing. Look at China for crying out loud! They have one of the most repressive societies out there, yet we export more goods from there than every other country on the planet COMBINED. Yet no one has lifted a finger to try and replace the current government with a more friendly democracy because the truth is, we don’t give a damn. It’s a non issue.

So what you’re saying is that the only reason we’re going after Saddam is because you believe he presents a legitimate threat to the United States and the rest of the world.

Based on what I’ve heard, yes. But again, since I don’t know the full story, I really don’t want to comment any further.

Some people will read your comments and say that YOU are the one that’s full of BS.

Let them. It’s a free country. Like Mr. Bush, I don’t care what anyone else thinks. Like I said. Unless they know the Magic Word, they don’t know any more than any of us. We’ll let it unfold and then we’ll see who’s right. But anyone that believes that indefinite pacifism is the answer is in for a very rude awakening.




26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1259 times:

I fail to see any point to this thread....


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1251 times:

Try opening your eyes and mind and re-reading it.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1237 times:

Just goes to show how many morons there are in the world.

And what's this?! Matt D and We're Nuts bickering?!!? Trouble in paradise!


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1235 times:

Can anyone actually address any of the points [even if you happen to disagree with him] that my friend made, or is he simply 'a moron'?

Just wondering.


User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

Same old pro-war argument. Big lapses in reasoning. Nothing new.

Try opening your, mind Matt D.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1220 times:

My mind IS open. I only asked the questions. He gave the answers. I only typed them up here.

But the one question he kept asking is the same what that I'll ask you [because I don't have the answer]:

What do you guys know that Mr. Bush doesn't?

Or is this simply another battle based on personal politics where everyones mind is alreday made up, and just no information, or brainstorming is going to even cause you to consider changing your mind?


In other words, if Al Gore or Ralph Nader was behind this, would you support him?


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1205 times:

also, just so I understand some of you, your interpretation of "open mindedness" is basically something along the lines of "You need to agree with me, but if you disagree, you're an idiot. You need to go along with my opinion, but I don't need to go along with yours."

Sounds like you're really being open minded yourself. Practicing what you preach.  Yeah sure

Am I right?



User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

This is what I know: I know how to make a logical, rational argument. The current adminstration is not making a logical, rational argument for war. Nor are they providing any facts that lead me to conclude that making war is the only solution.

If Al Gore and Ralph Nader supported the current administration using the same flimsy arguments I would continue to stand against this proposed war (So much for an open mind, eh Matt? You've managed to stereotype me as being a slave to the left just because I'm against this war.)

Then there's the other possibility: when your friend says "What do you guys know that Mr. Bush doesn't" he is taking a paternalistic stance on this. Something along the lines of...the president has access to intelligence that he cannot share with us but informs him that Saddam is on the verge of doing something terrible and we should trust the president when he says we should go to war.

If that's what he means by his statement, then I outright reject it. I live in a democracy and I support the concept of democracy. If the president cannot make a reasonable argument for war and provide reasonable evidence supporting his case, I will not take it on faith.



User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

Bush is getting more and more isolated. And not only outside USA ...

It’s a free country. Like Mr. Bush, I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

Amen. The end of Democracy is looming ...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/dissent.html

Next US President will have to restore international relations/credibility.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

So then what you are in essence saying is that you believe in full disclosure at whatever the consequences.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Ooo, something's up YOUR ass today (no prizes for guessing what).  Smile Ok, ok, I'm sorry.  Sad

But it seems pretty clear that Saddam Hussein needs to go. He’s gassed his own people, he’s a liar, and there is nothing that he is beneath doing. Clearly he has an ax to grind, and given half a chance, will try and take over the world.

Well, it's NOT pretty clear. This is the argument that everyone makes. "Saddam must go". No one tends to elaborate on why. He's gassed his own people. Well, maybe. What right is it of any country what happens internally? The US and other cannot just declare that what a country does interally is wrong. The US executes its own citizens, how is this any different in principle to the Iraqi government gassing people? I'm not defending Saddam (thought I bet someone will claim I am), but people have to realise that people are different. It's not within the rights of any country, now matter how powerful, to declare that another country's leader must go. And...a liar?! Please. Like any politician anywhere in the world is 100% honest.

What would be to prevent him from having exact duplicates of American or British soldier uniforms made up, and sending in a few of his men to come in and open fire on us. He knows that CNN is watching everything. You can bet that he will make sure that the cameras will be watching, whereupon he will say “See what your Bush is doing! He’s firing on his own men!”

Pretty far-fetched and sounds like chicken shit to me too. What your friends appears to be saying (badly) is that Saddam will use propaganda. Don't be under any illusions, every country uses propaganda, especially during wartime. Whether it's "official" or not is a moot point. How much attention will be focused on dead US soldiers? Probably a lot at first, as it strengthens the resolve of the US against big bad Saddam, but as soon as the bodies start pileing up you can be sure Bush will get a bit hot under the collar. At that point, other, more pressing press-releases may come out of the White House. This is just an example, but you honestly can't say that any country is above using propaganda.

Can you swear by your life that this has no possibility of happening?

I can't swear by my life that the universe doesn't exist in the head of a giant space-beetle named Brian.

There you go.

Shit! The universe exists in the head of a giant space-beetle named Brian!

Just because you don’t ADMIT the problem, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

A simple point that no one in their right mind would dispute. But...WHAT problem? All your friend has talked about so far is him gassing his own people and that he's a liar!

Although I think that everyone is entitled to his opinion, I wish that they would just shut their f-ing mouths and let Mr. Bush do his job.

Contradiction, non? This is that freedom of speech everyone harps on about, right? It's ok when it works for your cause, bad when it works against your cause.

and let Mr. Bush do his job.

Mr Bush's job in this case is to best represent the views of the American public. Is he doing that...?

They've all become experts at mouthing the biased, and leftist Liberal Media fodder that is spoon fed to them

So...what your friend is admitting here is that Iraq uses propaganda, but so do people in the US? Let's bomb the US?

Mr. Bush is between a rock and a hard place.

Agreed, but why does Bush make out like he's between a rock and a wonderful meadow, full of beautiful naked women roaming the sun-kissed ground?

I guarantee you that there’s plenty that they don’t know. Nobody knows

Including Bush? Or is he omnipotent now as well?

No wonder no other countries support us.

Thanks yeah, that's really nice to say to us Brits.

And then they look and that and say “his own people won’t even support him. Why should we?”

So what your friend is trying to say (badly), is that the US people HAVE to support Bush, whatever he does, and however wrong they think he is, to make the US look good on the world stage?

And...wait a minute! Americans are demonstrating against Bush?! Oh my god! He's evil! The EU should invade and free the US citizens of its evil leader with his WMDs and his urge for war!

Yeah, it's not nice when you look at it from the other side of the fence is it?

And then there’s all of these reporters asking questions like “How many troops are you sending? Where are they being deployed? When do they plan on striking? What tactics will they use?”
I think it’s a safe bet that Mr. Hussein has access to CNN. All we would need to do is watch these reports, and then he’d know exactly where to station his troops the next day


So knowing roughly how many troops are being deployed means he knows where strikes are going to be? Where did this amazing leap of logic come from?

If it were up to me, I’d say to every one of these reporters “shut the hell up. That is none of your business. Bailiff, please escort this person out”.

Holy shit, surpressing the media! Propaganda! Let's bomb the US!!

Unless you ride around on a bicycle or a solar powered vehicle, you have absolutely no right to utter this nonsense argument

Whine whine whine. "You can't protest! It's WRONG!! IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN! HOW DARE YOU!"

The idea that George W has a grudge against Mr. Hussein has nothing more than an anecdotal possibility.

Like the idea that "there's nothing he [Saddam] is beneth doing"?

Again, this is not a very likely scenario.

Less likely that Saddam dressing people up in American uniforms, phoning up CNN and saying "look, Larry, they're shooting on their own guys!"?

the US has never been interested in humanitarian causes when we have a vested economic interest at hand

Well at least you admit it! Yet why is one of the key reasons you want to attack Saddam "because he gasses his own people". Right now, the only reasons you friend wants to attack Saddam is because:

1. He's a liar.
2. "There's nothing that he is beneth doing"

Look at China for crying out loud! They have one of the most repressive societies out there, yet we export more goods from there than every other country on the planet COMBINED.

"Export more goods from there"? What the hell does that even mean? I'm assuming your friend WENT to school?

So...the arguement here is attack China? Don't attack China? Weren't we talking about Iraq a few minutes ago?

Yet no one has lifted a finger to try and replace the current government with a more friendly democracy because the truth is, we don’t give a damn. It’s a non issue.

So Saddam gassing his own people is a non-issue? Your friend seems to be contradicting himself on this rather major point.

Based on what I’ve heard, yes. But again, since I don’t know the full story, I really don’t want to comment any further.

Well look at you Mr-important-"no comment"-style-bigshot-who-wouldn't-like-to-speculate-further! Speculating that Saddam will dress people up in US uniforms and send them to get shot by US troops, so that CNN will go "oh ho! US forces shooting our own guys!" goes preeety far, that one extra step won't make much difference.

Let them. It’s a free country.

Yet you want protestors to "shut their f-ing (flipping?) mouthes"?

Like Mr. Bush, I don’t care what anyone else thinks

Again, this guy's childish and simplistic views on the world omit one big point - of course Bush cares what people think about him! If they don't like him, he's not re-elected! To be so stupid and declare that Bush doesn't care what people think about him shows the mentality of this person.

Unless they know the Magic Word, they don’t know any more than any of us.

You don't know more than anything else either genius. Yet war is a must!

Once more, the reasons for going to war, according to your friend:

1. Saddam Hussain is a liar.

2. "There's nothing that he is beneth doing"


User currently offlineMbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

"So then what you are in essence saying is that you believe in full disclosure at whatever the consequences."

I'm assuming that you aimed this comment at me. If so, please do not put words in my mouth.

Bottom line, I expect my president to provide an articulate, compelling argument for going to war and I expect him to back it up with verifiable facts.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

MATT D

I think you should get yourselve some other friends.

777236ER:

I had a great time reading your 'analysis'.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1161 times:

Ooo, something's up YOUR ass today

Funny you should mention that. I am feeling a bit constipated. A bowl of Frosted Mini Wheats oughtta take care of that. How'd you guess?  Big grin

I can't swear by my life that the universe doesn't exist in the head of a giant space-beetle named Brian.

hey, you never know.

"You can't protest! It's WRONG!! IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN! HOW DARE YOU!"

I agree. This does seem pretty contradictory to the cherished American right to free speech.

"Export more goods from there"? What the hell does that even mean? I'm assuming your friend WENT to school?

well he does hold an MBA in business. I think what he's referring to is for you to go to your local Wal Mart and notice the approximate percentage of items on the shelf marked "Made In China".

So...the arguement here is attack China? Don't attack China?

I think he is trying to shoot down the "it's for the oil" argument.

Mr Bush's job in this case is to best represent the views of the American public. Is he doing that...?

Let's clear up the distinction between what the public wants and what the public needs, and decide what's more important. We'll go from there.

The two are not necessarilly mutually exclusive.












[Edited 2003-03-10 17:53:23]

User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

Can anyone actually address any of the points

Well said. Shame on the armchair generals unwilling to take this rather small minded opinion to task. Don't condemn...confront. That's the only way we'll get out of the mess we're in.

Here goes...pass this wisdom over to "your friend":

But it seems pretty clear that Saddam Hussein needs to go.

Then kill him. Look, if Dan Rather can get in the same room with him, so can a cruise missile. This is what most of these people you want to "shut (our) f*cking mouths" are trying to tell you. No liberal, French, Martian or even Arab tears are going to be spilled if Saddam is sent to hell. Why don't we just skip to the end and miss a very awful story?

Clearly he has an ax to grind, and given half a chance, will try and take over the world.

You've just summed up George Bush. Hold it, you say.....no way Bush wants to take over the world. Thats far fetched. Well, its just as far fetched as Saddam taking it over. And you know it.

What would be to prevent him from having exact duplicates of American or British soldier uniforms made up, and sending in a few of his men to come in and open fire on us.

You said it yourself. CNN is there, and Saddam has the credibility of day old dog sh*t. Such a ruse would work once, and not very well at that. Besides, practically all of us have seen The Battle of The Bulge. It's been done, we get that.

Can you swear by your life that this has no possibility of happening?

If it does, I can swear by my life, worse things will happen in this combat.
Can you swear by your life a massive action against Israel with chem and bio weapons wont be responded to by the nuclear option? Because my scenario is way closer to reality than yours.

A lot of people don’t WANT to consider these possibilities, for whatever reason.

It sounds like you havent begun to consider worst case scenarios, for whatever reason.

I wish that they would just shut their f-ing mouths and let Mr. Bush do his job. What do these people know that he doesn’t?

Yeah, I heard this one over the weekend. He's got so much more tactical intelligence available than the average person, he knows what's really going on, so we should support him. You know why I think that's crap? Because if HE DID have data that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks in 2001, or Iraq was plotting to nuke New York or nuke Miami or whatever.....all he'd have to do is show us the proof, and the most liberal columnist or commentator in the world would support him. There were very few domestic voices of dissent when the US military went to Afghanistan. So there. Even liberals support war when it's just.

Mr. Bush is between a rock and a hard place.

AND HE PUT HIMSELF THERE, DUDE. Even if combat in Iraq was the end result, he and his lieutenants could have acted like a STATESMEN and not a collection of hick amatuers in the run up to war. Rummy's loud, obnoxious mouth started the public opinion firestorm in Europe, Powell stayed home when he could have been canvassing Turkey or Jordan or even Iran for base support, and Bush's ingrained unilateralism since long before 9/11 have WON HIM NO FRIENDS. A smile goes a long way, so don't ask me to sympathize with poor Mister Bush. He's acted like A DICK.

If this was about oil, what good is that going to do for Mr. Bush? Does he plan on annexing Iraq as a United States territory? We had the chance in 1991 with both Iraq and Kuwait. Yet we pulled out of there.

And had an open spicket from Kuwait for the next decade (and by the way, no...we never left Kuwait OR Saudi Arabia. You may remember an unpleasant morning in September 2001....well, our continued presence in those places was a big reason as to why it happened.)

And what good is it doing Mister Bush? Are you kidding? Who was his biggest campaign contributor? Enron, an energy company. What industry does this man and his family know best? Petrolium. What industry does his secretive Vice President hail from? Petrolium. What state does he hail from, and what is that state's biggest industry? Are you THAT blind?

Unless you ride around on a bicycle or a solar powered vehicle, you have absolutely no right to utter this nonsense argument.

And.....who gets to tell me I have no right to something........?????? You??

Yeah we're all hypocrites, we all need oil in our lives. But whenever we suggest maybe its time to spend some serious money on GETTING PAST THAT.....people like YOU call us a bunch of effing tree huggers and then go buy vehicles with worse gas mileage since the 1950s. So why don't we hold a vote. Everyone...and I mean everyone....who WANTS 11 mpg family trucksters, and WANTS top pay a buck 25 a gallon, and gets snotty when someone says maybe thats not good for the country....gets a rifle and goes over and takes the oil.

The idea that George W has a grudge against Mr. Hussein has nothing more than an anecdotal possibility. If that was the case, he would’ve gone in, and taken him out the minute he took office.

It's funny you say this, then go on to say this......

If it turns out that Mr. Bush is wrong, and this is nothing more than a score to settle, then I’ll be the first one to sign the petition calling for the Impeachment, trial, and imprisonment of Mr. Bush.

Now please, for the love of God, try to visualize the state of conditions that will exist "if it turns out Mr. Bush is wrong".

The President, I'm sure you'll agree, is gambling, Texas style. He'll win or lose big. And the first rule of gambling is "leave your emotions at the door". Hopalong has made it clear time and time again that he has NOT left his emotions about Saddam Hussein at the door. That to me makes for a sucker gambler. If this guy were betting the future of his company, or his baseball team, or his cattle ranch, on such an epic gamble, I'd sit back and relax, watching the drama unfold. But THIS ROLL.....me, you, people I love, people you love and the nation we love are what is sitting in the middle of the poker table. We're along for the ride. If it turns out Mister Bush is wrong, trust me impeachment or imprisonment will be a very empty consequence.

Look at China for crying out loud!

YES...look at China for crying out loud. Based on the new Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare to any and all who pose a threat to us, China is on the not so short list. And the harder you tell me that we'll deal with each threat on a level that will be the most common sensical, the more you convince me that THIS threat(Saddam) is about O-I-L and R-E-V-E-N-G-E.

But again, since I don’t know the full story, I really don’t want to comment any further.

If your brother or dad or best friend in the world were about to chopper into the maelstrom that the 'Battle of Baghdad' will become, with a 50/50 chance of survival, you'd goddamned well want to know the full story. And believe me, if they come home to you as a headstone, you'll want to comment the rest of your life. But it'll be too late.

Like Mr. Bush, I don’t care what anyone else thinks.

I DARE YOU to survive comfortably in this life not caring what anyone else thinks. That pair of shoes? They're mine, I'm taking them, and I don't care what anyone else thinks. That guy just flipped me off, I'm gonna kill him and not care what anyone else thinks. The funeral of the guy who was in Iraq is slowing traffic, so I'm gonna burst right through it, and f*ck everyone else.
If you follow laws, or rules, or regulations, or decorum, or good manners, then you apparently care what everyone else thinks, and they apparently care about what you think. If you don't care, that's anarchy. And you and Mister Bush seem to be taking us there at a brisk pace. That will be ALL OF OUR rude awakening.










User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

No wonder no other countries support us
-----
There are plenty of countries that do. Just about all of Europe with the exception of France, Germany and Belgium support us. In fact, this is not a story of Europe vs. the US. It is Europe vs. Europe. France and Germany want to dominate all of the EU and NATO economically and politically. Their main way to do this is by making the US look like the bad guys. The newly free countries in Eastern Europe are supporting us because they see through this charade. Western European betrayed them by appeasing Hitler and then by pushing the US (with varying degrees of success) to appease the Soviet Union. They are not about to let this happen again.

The mainstream media still make it look like we are going at this war alone. This shows in that even people who are in favor of the war tend to mention it as if it was a fact. But it is simply not true. Most of Europe is behind us. Many free peoples all over the world are behind us. Even many gulf states who stand to lose a lot economically should we win are behind us.

As to the 'We're doing this for oil" argument......

It is France and Russia who are opposing this war for oil. They have billion-dollar deals with Saddam Hussein to develop his oil resources. These agreements only pay off in the long term if

1. Saddam stays in power...and
2. The sanctions are eventually lifted.

This cannot happen if we remove Saddam by force. What the France and Russian governments want to happen is for us to gradually give up and withdraw, letting Saddam Hussein get away with more and more. Meanwhile, they drink up the oil revenue from Iraq and watch the US decline in diplomatic importance. And when anything bad happens in Europe or elsewhere, they have a convenient actor to cast as a villain - the United States.

France has a long history of providing Saddam with weapons and nuclear technology. While the US was giving Saddam some support in his war against Iran (a regime that at the time was as bad as Iraq), France was building reactors for him and giving him some of the most advanced military tech available. The US did the wrong thing. But France did the wrong thing to a far greater degree and did it for profit. The US did the wrong thing because they were then as now trying to support the lesser of two evils. So sue me if I think that the US's motives are more honorable than those of the French.

The former head of the US weapons inspector teams said that France was continually undermining their work. They leaked to the Iraqis the list of sites to be inspected. They consistently fought against the inspection team's objectives.

As for the "Lets give the sanctions more time to work" argument....

There are few people with knowledge who really themselves believe this. Those with knowledge who put this argument out are those who -

1.Would oppose the war in any circumstances, especially by a Republican president. Or would oppose any "preemptive war". Or any war that may increase US influence and prestige.

2.Or who, as mentioned above, stand to profit economically and diplomatically if the war never happens.

Before 9-11, the same people(mainly western-European politicians) who now put forward this argument were arguing for the economic sanctions against Iraq to be gradually lifted. This is despite the fact that in 1998 Iraq KICKED OUT ALL THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS. How can they be for inspections as an alternative to war, yet advocate normalizing relations with Saddam when he had expelled the inspectors? The only reason these people favor inspections is as a way of stalling the US until its will to go to war declines and the troops are withdrawn. Then they will advocate normalizing relations with Iraq - or at least severely weakening the sanctions.

But the above answer does not rationally refute the argument - it just points out the motives of those who put it forward. I will refute it now, for it is trivially easy. If Saddam wanted to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, he would have done so in the last decade. The only times he has shown any significant cooperation when was under the CREDIBLE threat of force (like when Clinton dispatched a couple infantry divisions to the Kuwaiti desert). Saddam Hussein knows that the credible threat of force cannot be maintained forever. The minute the US withdraws its forces, Iraq stops cooperating. This has happened many times in the last 10 years. And every time the inspectors come back, they find that Iraq has been lying about its weapons programs. Inspections cannot work under these circumstances. In fact, the only times that UN sanctions/inspectors have worked in disarming a country is when that country was democratic (eg. South Africa). This process DOES NOT WORK against repressive regimes and never will.

In short... Some of those who say "Let the sanctions work" are being disingenuous. The rest are either gullible or missinformed. This is not a real argument that fully informed people use to shape their own opinions. Those who oppose the war and also are fully informed of the situation for the most part oppose long-term, credible sanctions and inspections as well. They say "Let the sanctions work" in order to stall for time while they push their own agenda.

There are better arguments against the war than those I have mentioned above, and I'd prefer to deal with them since they are more fact-based and show more thought. It is more of a challenge. But that will have to wait till those arguments come up in this thread, since I have been to long winded already....



User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

I strongly take issue with those that argue that this war is about controlling oil or some axe to grind. I think the President has demonstrated that Iraq must be disarmed and that he is motivated by his desire to avoid another 9/11. I do not think he has demonstrated that the US can and should undertake the mission with the UK and no one else. Thomas Friedman in the column below articulates clearly the reason for my own angst:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09FRIE.html?8hpib


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1103 times:

I dunno, En.....sounds to me like Tom's doubts are getting the best of him. And I live by the rule....when there's any doubt, there's no doubt.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1097 times:

HM,

Aside from Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz, and the other ideological cheerleaders of regime change, I think everyone else is naturally queasy about this whole this mess. It's crazy not to be. Perle should be sent back to academia where he cannot do any damage post haste.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

The Post is featuring rather unflattering pictures of Karl Rove on their homepage today, and detailing how much power he commands over Bush policy. I hope you're as nauseated by this guy as I am.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

I am not sure how Rove fits in with the rest of crew regarding Iraq but I have never liked him from the beginning. He has prostituted the Bush Admininstration for votes on many occasions and some appalling policies have resulted.

I was particularly annoyed with decisions to impose tariffs on steel, Pakistani textiles, and (I believe) Canadian lumber that resulted from Rove's influence.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

To Cloudy:

"The newly free countries in Eastern Europe are supporting us because they see through this charade."

I think the only thing these former Eastern European countries see are $$$$$.

"Western European betrayed them by appeasing Hitler"

You skipped the History-classes, didn't you?

"Meanwhile, they drink up the oil revenue from Iraq and watch the US decline in diplomatic importance."

The decline in diplomatic importance of the US started when Rumsfeld first opened his mouth.

"While the US was giving Saddam some support in his war against Iran (a regime that at the time was as bad as Iraq)"

Check how many billion dollars this "some support" amounted to. And guess who provided Saddam with Anthrax? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't France nor Germany nor Belgium.

"France was building reactors for him and giving him some of the most advanced military tech available."

Well, the US sold $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application to Iraq, so I guess you are even then.

"The US did the wrong thing. But France did the wrong thing to a far greater degree and did it for profit."

Well, that's what capitalism is all about, isn't it? And are you saying a capitalistic country like the US gave away, for nothing, $1.5 billion worth of material? Get real!

"The former head of the US weapons inspector teams said that France was continually undermining their work. They leaked to the Iraqis the list of sites to be inspected. They consistently fought against the inspection team's objectives."

That's weird, 'cause Scott Ritter, the american former UN weapons inspector stated it was the US that did the undermining, not France. Actually, he's been telling this in every single interview afterwards. Ah, and you have conveniently forgotten about the spies the CIA planted on the UN inspection teams, as acknowlegded by Clinton Administration officials, on 8 January, 1999.

"As for the "Lets give the sanctions more time to work" argument.."

Actually, it is the "Lets give the inspections more time to work" argument, but never mind...

"Before 9-11, the same people(mainly western-European politicians) who now put forward this argument were arguing for the economic sanctions against Iraq to be gradually lifted."

Wrong again, they wanted them changed, not lifted.

"This is despite the fact that in 1998 Iraq KICKED OUT ALL THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS."

Not true, the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN on 16-19 December, 1998, so operation Desert Fox could begin.

"If Saddam wanted to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, he would have done so in the last decade."

Check why Scott Ritter resigned. Surely you can trust him. His not German nor French nor Belgian. (go to Google, type in "Scott Ritter" and pick a link)



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineKaiTakFan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1588 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 991 times:

I feel I am an open-minded person regarding the situation in Iraq now. I do not fully support war because I dont see enough evidence to go to war. However, I see enough of a concern to feel there is more than meets the eye in Iraq. With that said, I see both sides arguements are valid. But in this situation, I will just have to go with what happens. Good things can come from action in Iraq, or really bad things can come. But the door swings both ways in the situation. Good things can come from not doing anything, as well as bad things! That is how I see myself as being open-minded on this issue.

User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 988 times:

The question should be "What is it that Bush knows that the rest of the world doesnt?" Clearly finer minds than Mr.Bush's have not found a reason to link Iraq with a potential attack against the United States.

Check out the Thomas Friedman article in the WAshington Post today - March 10, 2003.


25 We're Nuts : Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, Matt. What I fail to understand is why you are posting a conversation you had with a friend. So what? Which one of you
26 Airplay : My mind IS open. I only asked the questions. He gave the answers. I only typed them up here. Man...you must have recorded the conversation. Otherwise
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
But Don't Mention The War - The Winning Proposal posted Thu Jun 9 2005 12:45:42 by NoUFO
It's Almost 2 Weeks, Do You Still Want The War? posted Sat Sep 22 2001 03:26:21 by Jm-airbus320
Don't Want To Clear The Dance Floor posted Tue Apr 20 2004 07:56:26 by AirxLiban
The Picture Some Here Don't Want You To See posted Wed Apr 9 2003 01:14:53 by Marcus
Don't Try To Tell Me The (U.S.) Economy Is Bad posted Mon Aug 12 2002 04:01:51 by TWAL1011
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
Is Hezbollah Winning The War? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 02:05:01 by SFOMEX
Don't Watch The World Cup In Somalia! posted Thu Jul 6 2006 19:15:45 by MaverickM11
Superman Returns - Not Too Bad posted Wed Jun 28 2006 21:17:48 by AndrewUber