Serious questions for those who oppose this war
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Vermont
Great debate folks! Both sides make some great points.
Let's not forget to look at the situation from our enemies perspective though. These animals live and die by the sword. hussein thinks he beat us in '91 because he is still in power. Our "failure" to finish him off gave these animals the impression that we were weak and didn't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. This only gives them confidence to expand there activities. 9/11 changed all the rules. I bet Bin Hidin never expected to be running for his life a month after he brought this war home. That in itself is reason enough to clean up the mess in Iraq NOW. These animals know only one way to get what they want. We have to beat them at their own game. You can't use diplomacy when your enemies don't know what the word means.
Sure it would be nice to have the world behind us but like said before it's obvious that our most vocal opponets are taking their positions based on their own selfish interests rather then looking at the big picture. Besides they can just sit back secure in the knowledge that the USA will make the world safer for them.
If I was running the show the only thing I would have done differently is to maybe back off on the "your with us or against us" rhetoric.
This is a time to walk softly while getting ready to swing that VERY BIG STICK.
All JMHO.
Let's not forget to look at the situation from our enemies perspective though. These animals live and die by the sword. hussein thinks he beat us in '91 because he is still in power. Our "failure" to finish him off gave these animals the impression that we were weak and didn't have the stomach to do what needs to be done. This only gives them confidence to expand there activities. 9/11 changed all the rules. I bet Bin Hidin never expected to be running for his life a month after he brought this war home. That in itself is reason enough to clean up the mess in Iraq NOW. These animals know only one way to get what they want. We have to beat them at their own game. You can't use diplomacy when your enemies don't know what the word means.
Sure it would be nice to have the world behind us but like said before it's obvious that our most vocal opponets are taking their positions based on their own selfish interests rather then looking at the big picture. Besides they can just sit back secure in the knowledge that the USA will make the world safer for them.
If I was running the show the only thing I would have done differently is to maybe back off on the "your with us or against us" rhetoric.
This is a time to walk softly while getting ready to swing that VERY BIG STICK.
All JMHO.
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Vermont
Besides they can just sit back secure in the knowledge that the USA will make the world safer for them.
The USA isn't doing this alone.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
TexasSteve:
First let me say I think your post was good. You have some valid points you bring up and from reading it I feel you are sincere in your beliefs and not just some lines.
With all due respect I have to disagree with some of your points and I will explain why.
First,
Quote:
“My biggest problem with this war is that it is fundamentally unilateral.”
Definition of unilateral – Of, on, pertaining to, involving, of affecting only one side.
Therefore this is not a unilateral actions taking on by “only” America. At this time there is over 34 nations with us on this, in agreement with us, and in one way or another participating with us.
Now France “was” acting unilateral in their own self interest and greed and nothing more.
Second,
Quote:
“But this time, we did not wait until most countries agreed that it had to be done”
Actually we already had unanimous agreement from every country in the United Nations. Resolution 1441 was voted and approved by every country involved. Now, looking past the UN which is nothing more then a debate society, there were many other countries already in agreement with America and Britain on what needed to be done. Therefore, we have even more then just the nations involved in the UN.
Third,
Quote:
“Bush never made a compelling case that SH still had banned weapons. I am not saying that I believe that SH had/has clean hands, but I am saying that the case was not made.”
Perhaps for you President Bush did not make his case, but to the majority of the country he had. Irregardless, if some people did not feel he made his case, it has now being proven beyond any disputes. Now the case that President Bush and America attempted to prove to the world has been shown to be absolutely true. Scud missiles have proven the case. Saddam had stated he had none, and any that had been left over had all been destroyed. Furthermore it was illegal according to the UN resolution for Saddam to have any scud missiles. As you should be well aware of at least 5 – 8 scud missiles have been fired towards Kuwait.
Therefore, one with logic has to admit that the case President Bush made is factual, correct, and undisputed.
Forth,
Quote:
“Bush has made it look like this was never about disarming Iraq, but rather about finding an excuse to go in and finish the job that his dad started. A job that may very well need doing, but which Bush has not succeeded in proving to the rest of the world, in fact not to most of our traditional allies, that it needs doing.”
President Bush has always made this war about:
1. Disarming Saddam
2. Preventing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction from getting into terriost hands
3. A country proven to be involved with terriosm.
4. Did have a part in 9/11
5. To end the suffering of innocent Iraq people.
President Bush was able and did succeed in proving the case to America’s traditional allies.
France, Germany and Russia are not “traditional” allies or America. France has always been absolutely jealous of America and that America was the world leader and not themselves. Russia was an enemy of America for 50 years or so, Germany, well they are just a lost nation looking for a friend somewhere, but they like France do NOT hesitate to call America when they are in trouble.
Fifth,
Quote:
“So, it is not that I think that the war may not be necessary, but I believe that we have gone about it in an embarrassingly arrogant manner, in a way that could tarnish our reputation for years to come. After the first Gulf War I was so proud. I am afraid that after this war, I will only be relieved.”
We went about it in a brave way. President Bush along with Tony Blair have shown the world what “real” leadership is. Neither of these fine gentlemen has tarnished their countries reputation.
For America, the former X-President Clinton done his very best at tarnish America’s reputation as well as making America looking extremely weak. President Bush has, for the most part, turned 8 years of weakness, around to strength and moral compassion in about 2 years. That is very remarkable.
You may indeed be relieved after this war is over, however the people of Iraq will be absolutely joyful that that have been freed, the opportunity to succeed in life as every person in the human race should have.
First let me say I think your post was good. You have some valid points you bring up and from reading it I feel you are sincere in your beliefs and not just some lines.
With all due respect I have to disagree with some of your points and I will explain why.
First,
Quote:
“My biggest problem with this war is that it is fundamentally unilateral.”
Definition of unilateral – Of, on, pertaining to, involving, of affecting only one side.
Therefore this is not a unilateral actions taking on by “only” America. At this time there is over 34 nations with us on this, in agreement with us, and in one way or another participating with us.
Now France “was” acting unilateral in their own self interest and greed and nothing more.
Second,
Quote:
“But this time, we did not wait until most countries agreed that it had to be done”
Actually we already had unanimous agreement from every country in the United Nations. Resolution 1441 was voted and approved by every country involved. Now, looking past the UN which is nothing more then a debate society, there were many other countries already in agreement with America and Britain on what needed to be done. Therefore, we have even more then just the nations involved in the UN.
Third,
Quote:
“Bush never made a compelling case that SH still had banned weapons. I am not saying that I believe that SH had/has clean hands, but I am saying that the case was not made.”
Perhaps for you President Bush did not make his case, but to the majority of the country he had. Irregardless, if some people did not feel he made his case, it has now being proven beyond any disputes. Now the case that President Bush and America attempted to prove to the world has been shown to be absolutely true. Scud missiles have proven the case. Saddam had stated he had none, and any that had been left over had all been destroyed. Furthermore it was illegal according to the UN resolution for Saddam to have any scud missiles. As you should be well aware of at least 5 – 8 scud missiles have been fired towards Kuwait.
Therefore, one with logic has to admit that the case President Bush made is factual, correct, and undisputed.
Forth,
Quote:
“Bush has made it look like this was never about disarming Iraq, but rather about finding an excuse to go in and finish the job that his dad started. A job that may very well need doing, but which Bush has not succeeded in proving to the rest of the world, in fact not to most of our traditional allies, that it needs doing.”
President Bush has always made this war about:
1. Disarming Saddam
2. Preventing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction from getting into terriost hands
3. A country proven to be involved with terriosm.
4. Did have a part in 9/11
5. To end the suffering of innocent Iraq people.
President Bush was able and did succeed in proving the case to America’s traditional allies.
France, Germany and Russia are not “traditional” allies or America. France has always been absolutely jealous of America and that America was the world leader and not themselves. Russia was an enemy of America for 50 years or so, Germany, well they are just a lost nation looking for a friend somewhere, but they like France do NOT hesitate to call America when they are in trouble.
Fifth,
Quote:
“So, it is not that I think that the war may not be necessary, but I believe that we have gone about it in an embarrassingly arrogant manner, in a way that could tarnish our reputation for years to come. After the first Gulf War I was so proud. I am afraid that after this war, I will only be relieved.”
We went about it in a brave way. President Bush along with Tony Blair have shown the world what “real” leadership is. Neither of these fine gentlemen has tarnished their countries reputation.
For America, the former X-President Clinton done his very best at tarnish America’s reputation as well as making America looking extremely weak. President Bush has, for the most part, turned 8 years of weakness, around to strength and moral compassion in about 2 years. That is very remarkable.
You may indeed be relieved after this war is over, however the people of Iraq will be absolutely joyful that that have been freed, the opportunity to succeed in life as every person in the human race should have.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,922
Likes: 1
From: Lexington, KY
Texassteve ...
How bout if I said, "I don't care what you say, you're wrong!"
Would you see that as an unreasonable stance?
Then what about ... "France will veto any resolution brought
to the UN by the US and/or Britain"?
I really need to start reading over here when Steve moves
one of my prohibited OFF-TOPIC posts. Y'all have some great
discussions !!!
How bout if I said, "I don't care what you say, you're wrong!"
Would you see that as an unreasonable stance?
Then what about ... "France will veto any resolution brought
to the UN by the US and/or Britain"?
I really need to start reading over here when Steve moves
one of my prohibited OFF-TOPIC posts. Y'all have some great
discussions !!!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
billycouldride:
Your post is a bit strange and smells a bit of liberal BS mixed with some illusions of never, never land.
I will try my best with you and hope I can succeed. Ready?
First,
Quote:
“we know who took down the towers, and as far as i am concerned, they did so unwarranted & unprovoked.”
“i dont see the tie between them & iraq.”
There is a tie, very simple tie, it’s called terriosm. That is enough of a tie. Furthermore their were Iraqi’s defectors that told the American government about Saddam having a 747 hull where terriost were trained on how to take over the coc*pit. These defectors seen this training going on just months prior to 9/11. Second there are satellite pictures proving what these defectors said as well as the location are correct. I do not have a link to the site, but perhaps someone that comes along will.
Why would terriost need to be trained in Iraq in a 747 hull on how to take it over?
Second,
Quote:
“i dont see the threat that he poses to us.”
If you have kids would you not agree that a drug lord is a threat to your kids? The logical answer is YES. Why? Because the drug lord provides drugs to the dealers which in turn “could” supply your kids with the drugs “if” they so choose to use it.
Saddam poses a GRAVE threat to America. Not because he can actually invade us, he can’t. The threat Saddam poses to America is his chemical and biological weapons. Saddam is a supplier, he has the cash and material to supply his “dealers” to bring to America. Saddam has proven he is a supplier with his payments to suicide families in Palestine. If you don’t think that is enough of a threat then nothing would prove to be threaten to you unless, God forbid, your picking a dead child up in your front yard because of a chemical or biological attack from a terriost supplied by Saddam.
Third,
Quote:
“this will sound cruel, but if they are sitting there killing each other internally, let em go. maybe they will take care of the job themselves.”
If you truly believe that, then your logical answer to WWII and Hitler would have been to let him go ahead and kill of untold thousands of Jewish people. Would that be correct?
It was the same thing, it wasn’t Iraq people killing each other it was Saddam and his men doing the killing and raping. Are you married? If so then your logical answer to say if you did something to **** President Bush off and he sent some men to rape your wife in front of you would be ok. Would that be correct? Or, if you have a daughter, to have someone come over and rape her. Would that be correct?
Not trying to sound harsh, only trying to use your logic and see if you really and “actually” agree with your own logic.
Forth,
Quote:
“the us has looked past many other countries questionable practices. i am not saying that is wrong or right but it just seems to me that we are fixated on saddam for some reason. if that reason was clear maybe i would agree with going in there.”
The reason is clear, so very crystal clear. Saddam is the BIGGEST supporter of terriosm, period.
So, going along with “your” logic about looking past questionable practices. The fact of the matter is it happens every day. People here in America get away every day with breaking one law or another. There is just not enough, nor will there ever be enough police force to insure that NO law is broken.
Therefore, you go after and try to prevent the worst crimes. Here we go, ready? You’re a cop on a beat, you see someone jay walking, and see someone mugging and beating an older women. What do you do? Do you go after the jay walker (they are break the law) or do you go after the person mugging and beating the older women?
Your logical answer should be neither, you let both the jay walker go and let the mugger continue to mug and beat the older women, possible until she is dead. Is that correct? You would do that? With your logic you would.
Your logic states that since someone looks past one “questionable practice” (this case a law being broke) that you would do nothing. I did not say it but rather your logic has already said it.
Fifth,
Quote:
“wonder if the loss of troops, the ramifications on the economy, and opening the door to more future terriost acts warrants what the best possible outcome of this could be. i know that i now worry about my son more (due to terrosim).”
If you truly worry more for your son now, then I can not understand your logic. Let’s say you have 3 known child molesters that live in your neighborhood. That would be cause, at least for me, to worry about my daughter. So let’s say you now have 3 known child molesters living in your neighborhood and the police are now aware of it. The police decide they are going to do something about it they are going after these known molesters and are going to take them out of there. At this time the police have rounded up the 3 known molesters, maybe some in the neighborhood beat the molesters real bad, bad enough they needed medical attention. Now if there are any other “unknown” molesters hanging around logic would tell you after seeing this they would want no part in it.
So your logic is saying that since the police went after the known child molesters that you will now be “more” worried about future molesters. Is this correct?
It is very simple, these are indeed scary times. One must be brave and do what is right.
It is like a school bully, if you keep appeasing him by giving him your money it will NEVER stop, he will continue to want your money and perhaps more as time goes by. It will NOT stop until you stand up to him. Will you possible get beat by him and feel pain, perhaps but once you confront him and he KNOWS you will not back down he is not going to waste his time and resources on you, he will either move on or just stop.
Force is needed and not everything is solved by talking it at all the time. Liberals would love for you to believe that but it is a fantasy, and illusion that will never happen in “reality”.
Your post is a bit strange and smells a bit of liberal BS mixed with some illusions of never, never land.
I will try my best with you and hope I can succeed. Ready?
First,
Quote:
“we know who took down the towers, and as far as i am concerned, they did so unwarranted & unprovoked.”
“i dont see the tie between them & iraq.”
There is a tie, very simple tie, it’s called terriosm. That is enough of a tie. Furthermore their were Iraqi’s defectors that told the American government about Saddam having a 747 hull where terriost were trained on how to take over the coc*pit. These defectors seen this training going on just months prior to 9/11. Second there are satellite pictures proving what these defectors said as well as the location are correct. I do not have a link to the site, but perhaps someone that comes along will.
Why would terriost need to be trained in Iraq in a 747 hull on how to take it over?
Second,
Quote:
“i dont see the threat that he poses to us.”
If you have kids would you not agree that a drug lord is a threat to your kids? The logical answer is YES. Why? Because the drug lord provides drugs to the dealers which in turn “could” supply your kids with the drugs “if” they so choose to use it.
Saddam poses a GRAVE threat to America. Not because he can actually invade us, he can’t. The threat Saddam poses to America is his chemical and biological weapons. Saddam is a supplier, he has the cash and material to supply his “dealers” to bring to America. Saddam has proven he is a supplier with his payments to suicide families in Palestine. If you don’t think that is enough of a threat then nothing would prove to be threaten to you unless, God forbid, your picking a dead child up in your front yard because of a chemical or biological attack from a terriost supplied by Saddam.
Third,
Quote:
“this will sound cruel, but if they are sitting there killing each other internally, let em go. maybe they will take care of the job themselves.”
If you truly believe that, then your logical answer to WWII and Hitler would have been to let him go ahead and kill of untold thousands of Jewish people. Would that be correct?
It was the same thing, it wasn’t Iraq people killing each other it was Saddam and his men doing the killing and raping. Are you married? If so then your logical answer to say if you did something to **** President Bush off and he sent some men to rape your wife in front of you would be ok. Would that be correct? Or, if you have a daughter, to have someone come over and rape her. Would that be correct?
Not trying to sound harsh, only trying to use your logic and see if you really and “actually” agree with your own logic.
Forth,
Quote:
“the us has looked past many other countries questionable practices. i am not saying that is wrong or right but it just seems to me that we are fixated on saddam for some reason. if that reason was clear maybe i would agree with going in there.”
The reason is clear, so very crystal clear. Saddam is the BIGGEST supporter of terriosm, period.
So, going along with “your” logic about looking past questionable practices. The fact of the matter is it happens every day. People here in America get away every day with breaking one law or another. There is just not enough, nor will there ever be enough police force to insure that NO law is broken.
Therefore, you go after and try to prevent the worst crimes. Here we go, ready? You’re a cop on a beat, you see someone jay walking, and see someone mugging and beating an older women. What do you do? Do you go after the jay walker (they are break the law) or do you go after the person mugging and beating the older women?
Your logical answer should be neither, you let both the jay walker go and let the mugger continue to mug and beat the older women, possible until she is dead. Is that correct? You would do that? With your logic you would.
Your logic states that since someone looks past one “questionable practice” (this case a law being broke) that you would do nothing. I did not say it but rather your logic has already said it.
Fifth,
Quote:
“wonder if the loss of troops, the ramifications on the economy, and opening the door to more future terriost acts warrants what the best possible outcome of this could be. i know that i now worry about my son more (due to terrosim).”
If you truly worry more for your son now, then I can not understand your logic. Let’s say you have 3 known child molesters that live in your neighborhood. That would be cause, at least for me, to worry about my daughter. So let’s say you now have 3 known child molesters living in your neighborhood and the police are now aware of it. The police decide they are going to do something about it they are going after these known molesters and are going to take them out of there. At this time the police have rounded up the 3 known molesters, maybe some in the neighborhood beat the molesters real bad, bad enough they needed medical attention. Now if there are any other “unknown” molesters hanging around logic would tell you after seeing this they would want no part in it.
So your logic is saying that since the police went after the known child molesters that you will now be “more” worried about future molesters. Is this correct?
It is very simple, these are indeed scary times. One must be brave and do what is right.
It is like a school bully, if you keep appeasing him by giving him your money it will NEVER stop, he will continue to want your money and perhaps more as time goes by. It will NOT stop until you stand up to him. Will you possible get beat by him and feel pain, perhaps but once you confront him and he KNOWS you will not back down he is not going to waste his time and resources on you, he will either move on or just stop.
Force is needed and not everything is solved by talking it at all the time. Liberals would love for you to believe that but it is a fantasy, and illusion that will never happen in “reality”.
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; Mar 21, 2003 at 09:36 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by MikeF150
if all we can produce is one or two Scud missiles, it's going to be a political disaster for George W....
if all we can produce is one or two Scud missiles, it's going to be a political disaster for George W....
As far as Saddam having weapons of mass destruction has been PROVEN. Saddam said he did NOT have any scud missile, that has been proven false, or that Saddam had LIED.
Logical conclusion, Saddam has had what America, and President Bush has stated. President Bush has been proven creditable and CORRECT and Saddam has been proven a LIER. What more do you need?
What I find so absolutely unbelievable is some people who “claim” to be for peace have NO idea on how to get it and maintain it.
Words do NOT maintain and insure peace, only FORCE and/or the threat of FORCE will maintain and insure peace. It is very common sense, like peace 101.
Those that disagree have no clue what they are talking about, no creditability to their flawed logic.
As I have said before, utopia is a fantasy, an illusion that will NEVER exist with or without humans walking the earth. The slogan “make love not war” is for the weak, lazy, cowardly, and uneducated or inability to understand reality from a movie.
As far as "political disaster" it will be for the liberal demorats.
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; Mar 22, 2003 at 12:04 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by MikeF150
does anyone here think that the we are not going to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (and how will anyone know if they are not planted?).....
does anyone here think that the we are not going to find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (and how will anyone know if they are not planted?).....
Kind of like what I had stated before. Those that are proven wrong will never admit it and come up with some fantasized version of reality to “try” and explain why they are not wrong.
Good luck, but I am not buying it…
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
From: Buffalo, NY US
Well, overall this post is producing many useful & insightful points. I fully support the right to express opinions for any individual.
My intention with this post was to hear other's views. I just wanted to know what the plans are for those who didn't feel the current military action was warranted.
It's fine to oppose the war BUT there has to be alternative plans for accomplishing the same goals which I believe everyone endorses. To say war is bad is fine IF there are suggestions for securing world peace & safety. We're not just fighting to protect the US - we're ultimately making the world a safer place to live. If Saddam were to remain in power, with all these non existent weapons he is now using he could decide to attack ANY country at any time. That scares the heck out of me. It SHOULD scare everyone. Don't forget - terrorism has no rhyme or reason - it strikes out w/o mercy or thought & it's ONLY goal is to destroy. That's the only way a coward like Saddam or Osama or Hitler can gain power. Terrorists care about 1 thing - subordinating the helpless to further their own ambitions. History will back me up on this I believe.
The facts in this instance are being borne out each day. The latest surrender of 8,000 Iraqi troops to the US/Brittish forces pretty much shows they are not interested in perpetuating Saddam's agenda. These troops are SO willing to surrender they are even surrendering to the PRESS! That's almost comical, were the situation not so grave. I guess they know that they are better off as POW's than as members of Saddam's military. At least now they'll eat - reports say they were underfed & very poorly equipped - certainly not able to really carry out any mission to fight back.
Please let's keep this dialog open with more ideas. I'm learning a lot from it & appreciate the thought & time everyone is giving to it.
Thanks guys - God Bless.
My intention with this post was to hear other's views. I just wanted to know what the plans are for those who didn't feel the current military action was warranted.
It's fine to oppose the war BUT there has to be alternative plans for accomplishing the same goals which I believe everyone endorses. To say war is bad is fine IF there are suggestions for securing world peace & safety. We're not just fighting to protect the US - we're ultimately making the world a safer place to live. If Saddam were to remain in power, with all these non existent weapons he is now using he could decide to attack ANY country at any time. That scares the heck out of me. It SHOULD scare everyone. Don't forget - terrorism has no rhyme or reason - it strikes out w/o mercy or thought & it's ONLY goal is to destroy. That's the only way a coward like Saddam or Osama or Hitler can gain power. Terrorists care about 1 thing - subordinating the helpless to further their own ambitions. History will back me up on this I believe.
The facts in this instance are being borne out each day. The latest surrender of 8,000 Iraqi troops to the US/Brittish forces pretty much shows they are not interested in perpetuating Saddam's agenda. These troops are SO willing to surrender they are even surrendering to the PRESS! That's almost comical, were the situation not so grave. I guess they know that they are better off as POW's than as members of Saddam's military. At least now they'll eat - reports say they were underfed & very poorly equipped - certainly not able to really carry out any mission to fight back.
Please let's keep this dialog open with more ideas. I'm learning a lot from it & appreciate the thought & time everyone is giving to it.
Thanks guys - God Bless.