Should we fight? A liberal's view.

[Az]

No. but you're saying that you're against him "disappearing", because the US supported his atrocities?

and about strong nations and strong morals, I was talking about the rule . There ARE exceptions, as I've said in my previous.

ok, that's it . good night.

[devilmunchkin]

i would not want to go to war with china.......i'm sorry..but they'd so nuke up faster than anything.
and i'm undecided about going to war with iraq...ESPECIALLY if the UN opposes it.
it stills seems to me like bush might trying to be finishing up what his daddy started..and to me that isn't good enough reason..so if he really can pull together some solid evidence of what iraq is doing, then hemight have me convinced

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by orange


We have a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire population of the planet

But we never agreed not to have one

[orange]

why should any soverign nation agree not to have something that another nation can't have just becuase they invaded some rhode island sized nation 12 years ago?

Iran has more capability and more motive than Iraq does....

Why is our focus limiting potential when we should be focusing on ridding the motivation to attack another nation...

As 9/11 proved, the motive is more lethal than the capability.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Jaakko
And considering the failings of human nature, the basic message of this is that if you're small and disagree with someone big, you're screwed.
Not a world I want to live in.

Hasn't it been always like this, even at your own schoolyard?

[orange]

that's what the recess lady is for

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no recess lady in international politics...

[Sandman]

I am opposed to the war for the following reasons:

1. It will kill thousands and thousands of people. Iraqi conscripts will be mowed down by helicopters, civilians will perish by the bucketload as the definition of military target is widened further and further to include water treatment plants, hospitals and mosques. Excessive depleted uranium use (as is likely) will render the country uninhabitable if it seeps into the water table.

2. I consider nuclear weapons to be the only true weapons of mass destruction. Gases and germs have no business being under this category. They are no better than conventional weapons at killing people, and can be considerably worse. A missile tipped with liquid anthax is simply not as effective as a conventional warhead. I also see no moral difference between gassing a village and blowing it up. They are both equally dispicable acts and should not be treated differently. Therefore in my opinion, having these weapons does not constitute a casus belli.

3. Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. In fact they are simply being used as a stand-in for Osama bin Laden. If he'd been captured or reliably killed then it is possible that Saddam would not be in the firing line.

4. Furthermore, this is simply another scene in a chapter of increasing American miltarism. The "War on Terror" is so completely and utterly open-ended that there is no discernable end in sight. The easy victory in Afghanistan should have been the end. But it seems it is only the beginning of a series of conflicts which could go on for ever. It should be ended now while there is still time.

5. It is sowing the seeds of a greater conflict. This could create a genuine arabic Hitler, who is able to tap into their national anger and unleash a real war on the world.

[Gatekeeper]

Just a quick hypothetical: What happens if the world does nothing now and, in 1 to 3 years, Iraq does acquire several nuclear warheads?

Theoretically, Iraq could attack Kuwait again, occupy the country, and then threaten to detonate one of its nukes in a Kuwaiti city. How would we deal with a situation such as that? Would a threat of massive nuclear retaliation against Iraq deter that as it did in 1990-91? And, yes, I know I am assuming that Iraq is still in the market for acquiring nuclear weapons.

Elsewhere, I thought former President Bill Clinton made some worthy points when he was on the Late Show with David Letterman (of all places) Wednesday night. If we were to go in with the goal of toppling Hussein, what's to stop him from deliberately spreading his WMD wares to terrorist groups (or to use them in some futile last stand)? We'd have to act fast in order to stop something like that (and with surprise, I might add).

No matter what happens, I am of the opinion that somebody, somewhere, will pay a terrible price.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jaakko
And need I remind you that Saddam gassed his people with the US' approval?

I don't think we approved anything like this, Jaakko. True we helped Saddam with intelligence info. But we were simply aghast that he would use nerve gas against the Iranians. I know the news media showed the corpses of gassed Iranian troops. I don't remember the official US response to this, but I believe I would have remember my shock if we indicated approval.

[uh Clem]

True we helped Saddam with intelligence info. But we were simply aghast that he would use nerve gas against the Iranians. I know the news media showed the corpses of gassed Iranian troops. I don't remember the official US response to this, but I believe I would have remember my shock if we indicated approval.

When ABC News televised a report in 1989 about Saddam's gas attack at Halabja, the Reagan administration (at that point, making way for Bush 41) issued denials the very same day. Bush 41 continued this policy.

Throughout the 1980s, there were reports and condemnations of Iraqi use of poison gas from human rights organizations (not to mention the Iranians). The Reagan administration consistently denied and disparaged them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
I am opposed to the war for the following reasons:

1. It will kill thousands and thousands of people. Iraqi conscripts will be mowed down by helicopters, civilians will perish by the bucketload as the definition of military target is widened further and further to include water treatment plants, hospitals and mosques. Excessive depleted uranium use (as is likely) will render the country uninhabitable if it seeps into the water table.

Imagine a hypothetical (secret ballot, UN supervised) vote by the Iraqi's themselves on the issue of US liberation vs continued UN sanctions. How do you think they would vote?

[Velociryx]

Personally, I hope we do not go in. Not that I wouldn't dearly love to see Sadam ousted from his position of power, but....

The time to have done so was when we went to war with him in Desert Storm. We had the clear support of the international community and clearly, momentum was on our side. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to prevent us from simply sweeping into any part of the country we wished (not that he could stop us now, but the key difference is that we lack international support).

And that's the crux of it. If we go in, we go in alone. And it's not that we need "help" to beat the two-bit bully, but in doing so, we become no better than any other rogue state out there that attacks another nation without provocation.

The threat that one day they *might* do something wicked or nasty is not justification enough. By the same token, China could launch an all out attack on us....after all, we've been their personal boogey man in Southeast Asia for an entire generation, so that's justification enough, right? Sure it is, using the Dubya mindset.

His notion of striking the (percieved or real) bad guys before they do something to warrant it amounts to thought control, and pushing the agenda of same.

Don't think improper thoughts it seems to say, because under THIS administration, the thought is as good as the deed!

If we're going to do this, then we should be consistent. We could start by forcing all citizens of the USA to take a psych profiling test, and branding (via barcode strip on the forearm, clearly visible and easily accessible) any person who's test results turned up abberrant results. In this way, you see, we could easily create a mechanism to track would-be troublemakers before they cause trouble.

In fact, we could take that one step further! In addition to branding them, why not go ahead and lock them up now (can't put them to death....Daddy's legacy was a "kinder, gentler America)! After all, they MIGHT do something in the future, per their psych profile, so sure.....let's save ourselves the time, terror, and trouble, and just be done with them.

It's the EXACT same line of thinking we're seeing now from the Bush administration, applied to the homefront.

No thanks.

-=Vel=-

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by C0ckney
and the gulf war was the international community protecting a weaker nation from the aggression of a stronger one.

where were you when Cyprus was being invaded?

my reaction at a fast cross reading to Bug's post, and with all due respect, is go do what you like, you'll find it in front of you in the future.

[Jac de Molay]

Vel - Good points. I'm especially concerned about the pre-emptive strike mentality, especially in the face of slim evidence that saddam is strenuously rebuilding. Who's to stop India from using the same rationale against Pakistan if terrorist attacks escalate??

I say re-issue another resolution that sets a strict timeline for inspection return and puts Saddam on the clock.. This will at least make the UN SC feel useful and give them the kick in the butt they need.

2. I consider nuclear weapons to be the only true weapons of mass destruction. Gases and germs have no business being under this category.

I agree. The destructive potential of these weapons is vastly overblown. Consider the strain of anthrax (one of the strongest ever seen) that was floating around in the mail last October and how few people it actually affected. The efficient dispersal of these agents is a tricky business.