Do you find yourself having to remind yourself not to support the plucky underdog?

[Berzerker]

You think it's better for Saddam and his thugs to stay in power because you suspect the alleged unilateral action is designed to oppress the Iraqi people even worse than what has happened under Saddam? There are decent reasons to oppose the war, but not this "unilateral" kenard, it isn't even a unilateral action to begin with as if that matters.

[Dis]

yes.

How is many nations invading a lightly defended country without provacation any better than 3?

The unilateral argument is dumb.

There are many better reasons to oppose the war.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You think it's better for Saddam and his thugs to stay in power because you suspect the alleged unilateral action is designed to oppress the Iraqi people even worse than what has happened under Saddam? There are decent reasons to oppose the war, but not this "unilateral" kenard, it isn't even a unilateral action to begin with as if that matters.

He ment we should get the blessing of the international community or don't go to war at all, Bush doesn't give a sh!t about the Iraqi people. The anti-war people are not pro-Saddam, we think Saddam is an @sshole, but The Hyperpower is being a bully. (Don't think I like Chirac, he's a sh!thead. He wants Saddam in power because the people who should replace them would kill France's oil contracts no matter if Chirac was for the war or not.) Vetoes aside, the US didn't even have a majority in the UNSC.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dissident
The unilateral argument is dumb.

There are many better reasons to oppose the war.

BTW, most of the countries in the coallition are just boot-licking the US.

[DanS]

It's important to resist the urge to root for the underdog, even if you are against the war in Iraq. In part, we are putting on a show for the likes of North Korea. Do y'all want a world where North Korea is emboldened by coalition losses?

[Berzerker]

Odin -

He ment we should get the blessing of the international community or don't go to war at all

And I asked why.

Bush doesn't give a sh!t about the Iraqi people.

I can't read his mind, but we do know what Saddam thinks of the Iraqi people.

The anti-war people are not pro-Saddam, we think Saddam is an @sshole, but The Hyperpower is being a bully.

You have a strange argument there, Saddam is an a$$hole, but you'd rather see him stay in power because a "bully" is the one taking him out? Do you hate the USA more than Saddam? Who did you have in mind to take him out? Btw, you don't have to tell me Saddam is an evil person, as I said, there are rational reasons for opposing the war and having those reasons is not an endorsement of Saddam.

Vetoes aside, the US didn't even have a majority in the UNSC.

And that matters? Just as the USA has been trying to buy votes, so have those countries contracting with the Iraqis. If a vicious murderer breaks into your home and only the local "bully" will help, would you tell him to go back and get the support of the community before helping? Here's an idea, let's see how Iraqis react once Saddam and his gang are out of power. Let's hear what Iraqis say once they can speak openly without fear of torture... Well, we don't have to wait, we can see how Iraqis are reacting as parts of Iraq are liberated. They are reacting just like Afghans reacted when the local Taliban took to the hills.

[Frogman]

I'm usually as hawkish as anyone, but I have to say I'm against going to war without the support of the UN. I'm afraid we have lost our moral leadership to bring peace to the world. We have now demonstrated that its OK to attack anyone you think is a threat whether or not they have directly threatened you.

How can we go to Pakistan or India with a straight face and tell them not to fight?

Sure, I would hate to see thousands of people die in a repeat of 9-11, but in the long run, I'd rather have us take the punch, then respond. I'm sure we thought the Japanese were a threat before we entered WWII, but we waited for the punch and were able to go into the war with no lack of resolve or polls to worry about. The basic principle of mutually assured destruction that kept us from war with the Soviets was that no one would strike first. Its the only way you can have peace. By legitimizing the first strike, the US has made a decision that will affect foreign policy for years. Sadly I have to agree that if the US/UK could win this war without any pain, it would lead to similar actions throughout the world.

All that said, the real problem is the lack of conviction on the part of the UN to keep criminals and terrorists from running countries. France, Germany and Russia are the ones who sold out their votes for the money they get from Iraq. If it didn't piss me off so much, I'd have to laugh to hear the french say its the US who is out for the oil money. The sad truth is that the UN is a failure, and their resolutions are meaningless. I'd like to see the US just pull out of it, but of course thats no solution.

Iraq is the underdog for sure, but Saddam is a vicious criminal, a killer of his own family members. Root for him and you have lost your humanity.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DanS
It's important to resist the urge to root for the underdog, even if you are against the war in Iraq. In part, we are putting on a show for the likes of North Korea. Do y'all want a world where North Korea is emboldened by coalition losses?

Well, OTOH, the ease with which U.S. forces take out the Iraqi army through convential means may encourage NK to continue to pursue long-range nukes as insurance against future U.S. aggression. It may also encourage them to up their blustering hyperbole, as the Bush Administration has been tiptoeing around them so far.

[ThePantaloonDog]

Even though I would like Bush to come out of this with a bloody nose I can't with in reason advocate the death of Americans for my own little "I toldya so." I don't like this war, I feel sorry for the Iraqis, but unfortunately because of a lack of any kind of coherent international policy by the U.S. I can only wish for a quick and easy war and hope Bush finds a less costly way to screw up.

I don't like this war because it is a war, but because this war has unacceptable risk with minimal gain.

[Wycoff]

Does anyone else besides myself see the Security Council argument as B.S.? The Security Council is merely an extension of the idea of a Great Power Congress, dating to the 1815 Congress of Vienna and even before. Each country of the UNSC is a sovereign state, and acts according to its wishes.

The U.S. felt that (whether they are right or not) that Iraq is currently a danger to its vital national interests. France has its own issues at stake in Iraq, and opposes action. Russia and China want to balance the power against the U.S., and refuse to give their support. The U.K. supports the U.S. to spite France and decrease its international influence. At a smaller level, the Eastern European countries are supporting the U.S. as a lever against French influence in the international stage, etc.

No country is acting out of a high minded respect for international law and hoping for the loving embrace of all of mankind or anything like that. The whole situation is one of jockeying for position on the World Stage. The Cold War is over, and the Euro countires don't need the U.S. to be their big brother anymore. France acts in the interests of France. If France felt that it had a vital interest somewhere in the world it would do as it wished, regardless of the UNSC.

[nationalist]

No, never.

I'm not the biggest fan of the war. I don't like the fact that we're wasting billions of dollars on a war that won't make Americans that much safer. Terrorism would be shut down much more effectively if we merely closed our borders and kicked out illegal immigrants until we can manage to create a competant INS. We'd be alot safer as a country if we knew who we let into our country. But anyway...

Once the bullets start to fly, I support my countrymen. I just hope that we do a competant job with Iraq after we conquer it. Maybe we could use some of it for Palestine.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Well, OTOH, the ease with which U.S. forces take out the Iraqi army through convential means may encourage NK to continue to pursue long-range nukes as insurance against future U.S. aggression. It may also encourage them to up their blustering hyperbole, as the Bush Administration has been tiptoeing around them so far.

Tiptoeing so far, but we'll have to deal with that SOB and his nuke programs sooner, rather than later. I would have rather disposed of that issue before dealing with Saddam, but since we're commited in Iraq now, I want to dispose of the matter at hand.

I feel sorry for the poor bastards who are compelled by fear to fight, and for the Iraqi civilians, but the way I express that sorrow isn't to root for them, it's to root for the life-taking, heart-breaking, total and complete destruction of the Hussein regime and all it's power structure - the SRG, the higher level IRG units, the Iraqi security services. We're going to get a crack at one of those groups soon enough - IRG Medina division, and I won't lose a minute of sleep or shed a single tear if not one of those mother****ers comes out alive. IRG Medina was reassembled after GW I, with replacement equipment and a lot of replacement personnel, but they still represent one of the ******* elements of the regime - IRG Medina, Hammurabi and Tawakalna's primary roles in GW I was to keep other Iraqi forces in place for the slaughter they received, and to hunt deserters. Those bastards are not "underdogs" they're brutal murdering thugs, in a unit that prides itself on being one of the privileged enforcers and maintainers of power for one of the worst current thugs on the planet.

I was against this war for a number of reasons, mostly timing and sufficiency of force. Now that we're in it, I want to see it end with as little damage to coalition forces, Iraqi civilians and forced Iraqi military as possible, and with absolute, crushing destruction of Hussein and those who kept him in power over the Iraqi people.

edit - typos

[Berzerker]

yup, my sentiment exactly.

[David Floyd]

Actually, I - and the average US taxpayer - are pretty big underdogs too. I mean, we're forced to pay for a war that in many cases we don't even support, and don't want to fund. I'm being forced to fund murder. That sucks.

So I feel sorry for myself.

Can't say I feel sorry for most American troops, in that they should have known what sort of aggressive organization they were volunteering to fight for, although on the other hand many of them may have joined with honorable intentions, that went down the tubes when they didn't refuse to go to war. Even if they believed in the war, they are still participating in an event funded with stolen money.

As for the Iraqis, Saddam is a ****head, whose death I won't mourn. He's a murderer, after all. Most of his higher-ups, too. If we can kill him without coercing me, or any innocent people, in any way, then I support it. But Iraqi troops? ****, they're pretty much innocent - more so than US troops, by and large, because US troops volunteered, but they were conscripted at gunpoint.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So I feel sorry for myself.

Oh, you poor dear you, boo hoo ****ing hoo. I'll bet they even took an extra big chunk of your paycheck this week, too.