[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 00:10:04 03/28/03 Fri
Author: Scott Tilde
Subject: OK, Jim - Why is war at this point a mistake, and what would you do to solve the Saddam Hussein problem instead of going to war?
In reply to:
Jim Walsh
's message, "I'm Against The War" on 23:33:47 03/27/03 Thu
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Why War with Iraq is not the smartest thing..... -- Sam (Bucks County), 11:46:52 03/28/03 Fri
A year and a half ago we were outrageously attacked by people who hate us and want to destroy our way of life. They were not affiliated directly with any govenment, except maybe loosely with the Taliban, but were/are supported directly or indirectly by many, some of whom purport to be our friends. They are also supported, at least in spirit, by many Muslims throughout the world, who hate us also, for reasons real and imagined. The war with Iraq will only make them hate us more and swell the ranks of those who want to destroy us and REALLY will try. I suspect we are going to be in for some rough times because of this for a long time.
I don't see an up-side. Is Saddam a bad guy? of course, but frankly who he hurts primarily are his own people. Could he be a source for arming our real enemies? I suppose... but not the most worrisome one. He is an easy target... but I fear not the one that poses the most danger to us.
He is, frankly, one loudmouth tinhorn dictator in a part of the world where tinhorn dictators and autocratic kings are the norm, and all do horrible things to their people, more or less, if their people cross them.
Is war an inevitable consequence of 9-11? Absolutely. Is this war? Not so sure. We are there because we can be. All the high and mighty calls for freedom and democracy for a people who don't even have a clue what that means and wouldn't know what to do with it if they had it are not sufficient reason to make more new enemies than we have ever had, IMHO. The "unforseen consequences" are going to bite us in the ass bigtime.
I hope I am wrong...
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
You make good arguments, but... -- "Vince From Villanova" (And no, you're not un-American.), 01:49:03 03/29/03 Sat
You make good arguments, but I have to go with something Bush said: in a world where the first blow can kill thousands or even millions, delaying action is irresponsible at best.
Yes, I suppose this war could make the terrorists hate us more, but they already hate us badly enough to slaughter thousands of innocents. See September 11th, and I guarantee you if they'd had the ability to carry out a more damaging attack, they would have.
For me, the mere fact that their hatred is past the "Let's kill them all!" threshold is enough for me. Whether it's 1 notch or 10 notches above that threshold doesn't change their goal or their methods... or their abilities.
See, that's the real problem: ability. The #3 Al-Qaeda guy that we captured last month, his hate-o-meter for us is probably off the scale right now. So what? He's in a jail cell somewhere and can't do a darn thing about it, because we've captured him and, and here's my main point, TAKEN AWAY HIS ABILITY TO ATTACK US.
If we can take away the terrorists' ability to strike at us (or at the very least limit that ability), that will save innocent lives in the short run. It will also do something else: it will make the terrorists look impotent and ineffective. People may love a winner, but they sure don't love a loser, so this could very well dampen the recruiting efforts of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
I do agree with you on one point: Hussein is not the most likely source for terrorists to get weapons of mass destruction. He's a secular leader who manipulates the religious beliefs of his subjects for political gain, while many of the terrorists are true believers who hate Hussein almost as much as they hate the USA. That's why there hasn't been much cooperation there yet. But I guarantee you that in a world where the USA and USSR can unite as allies against a common foe, Hussein and Al Qaeda is not an impossible alliance in the future.
So why hit Hussein now, instead of going after a more likely source? Simple: when Bush made the decision last year to start the ball rolling against Iraq, it looked like this was the most likely target behind which the world would unite. Now that the world has shown its cards, we're just going to have to fight the war we've spent the past year prepping for.
The most dangerous source, whoever that is, can then be hit next, regardless of world opinion. The right thing doesn't have to be the popular thing. Once upon a time, Europe united behind the concept that appeasing a dangerous dictator was the safest course, ignoring the lone dissenter, Winston Churchill. Churchill didn't care what the rest of Europe thought of him. And 6 million dead Jews later, the rest of Europe changed their mind and decided Churchill wasn't such a crackpot after all.
But, Jim & Sam, you two are not un-American. I can easily see that your arguments against war are rooted in a love for this country and a genuine concern that Bush's present course of action could threaten the USA in the future.
That contrasts greatly with the most vocal protestors who are currently blocking streets in New York City and staging "vomit-ins" in San Francisco. Their signs and slogans look remarkably similar to the ones these same people were waving after the 2000 election, and which they WEREN'T waving after Clinton's 1998 bombing of Iraq. Those protestors aren't anti-war: they are truly anti-Bush and anti-American, or at best are dupes who feel important by chanting the same slogans they heard on the TV last week. (Instant entertainment: walk up to one of these people and ask where they were in 1998. The brook-trout faces they make are hilarious.)
And that's the world according to me. But hey, I flunked out of college and failed as a radio talk-show host, so what can I possibly know? ;)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I suppose the 22 nuclear bombs that we found Saddam with from a tip from his son-in-law were just to decorate the palaces, eh? Of course he had his son-in-law shot while welcoming back with "all is forgiven." ....(click to continue) -- SurveyGuy, 22:37:44 03/29/03 Sat
...
I think a lot of known information is being ignored. Saddam only hurts his own people? I guess the fact that his troops were in Saudi Arabia at the same time he was invading Kuwait makes him a home-boy tyrant? I guess you must also believe that Iraq had nothing to do with the Murrah Building either.
There is some point at which fact and suspicion must lead one to act. For some acts, you only know what is right or wrong after you do something. Ask yourself, would I feel safe with my fate in the hands of Hans Blix?
This war has one positive outcome. We now know who has hated us for many years and the extent of that hatred. You would be surprised at the extent anti-American rhetoric in places you might have though friendlier to us.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Okay, I'm pro-war, but I'm also pro-facts. Where in tarnation did you read that Sadaam once had 22 nuclear bombs? Not even ultra-liberal Peter Jennings would bury THAT one... -- "Vince From Villanova" (Maybe I missed something, but...), 02:01:57 03/30/03 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
I forget who I heard discussing Saddam and his history a few weeks ago -- maybe it was Tim Russert -- maybe not. That was one of the items that flew by that caught my attention. Maybe I should search for the details. They might have "only" been warheads. I'll get back to you. -- SG, 17:53:01 03/30/03 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
OK -- that discussion went pretty fast. From what I can tell it was 122 nuclear-capable missles (which we had destroyed) and an active secret nuclear program running at full steam. The point is still the same. Some rumors of underwater uncoupled nuclear tests to hide seismo evidence. -- SurveyGuy (getting back as promised), 10:19:17 03/31/03 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Made-Up Stories -- Harry Kalish, 15:01:36 03/31/03 Mon
No, the point is that innacuracies were being spread, and, if you weren't called on them, they would have been taken as truth by someone, and spread somewhere else.
You don't see a difference between having 22 nuclear bombs and having 122 nuclear-capable missiles, which we destroyed no less.
And where did you find out that this (innacurate) information came from his son-in-law, who Saddam then executed - the National Enquirer?
Everybody is entitled to make mistakes, but, unfortunately, conservatives tend to brand their mistakes as truth ("This is what the liberals don't want you to know!!!" - Rush Limbaugh - three times a week - any week)
In this country, thank God, people are innocent until proven guilty. In the world of ideologues, the opposite is the case - the truth is what I say it is until you prove me wrong. And, if you do prove me wrong, I'll just say so what if I'm wrong, the point is still the same. In other words, facts will never get in the way of an ideologue's argument.
We're in Iraq - where innocent Americans, English, and Iraquis are being killed - to destroy the Saddam regime because he has built and bought WMD. You can agree or disagree with our rationale, and either viewpoint is valid and protected. But what if we accomplish our objectives, yet find no WMD. We will either have to plant them or use them ourselves just to justify our own rationale. How can you expect people to back their government, when their government has put them in this untenable position?
And, in order to continue to justify this rationale, in the place of hard facts, conservatives will convey these whisper-down-the-lane, heard it somewhere, stories that have no basis in fact. Why can't conservatives have enough belief in their opinions so that they don't have to manufacture and rationalize the reasons for those beliefs?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Real Stories -- Scott Tilde, 23:53:11 03/31/03 Mon
Nothing wrong with nailing inaccuracies to prevent their spread. But no one can deny that Saddam was going for nuclear capabilities. I'll use PBS as a source since they're not commonly known as a conservative bastion. This Nightline report talks about Saddam's weapons capabilities through the eyes of UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
And, hell, I can do ideological generalizations too...
"conservatives tend to brand their mistakes as truth"
Sh'yeah, and liberals tend to either ignore their mistakes or rebrand them as the "greater truth" and label the criticism as irrelevant. This is big reason why liberals don't work on talk radio. That stuff just don't flush...
"what if we accomplish our objectives, yet find no WMD?"
Then we didn't look hard enough. We've effectively verified their existence already, haven't we? What are the Iraqis doing with those chemical suits and gas masks? Did we plant them there?? Did they plant them there to confuse us??? C'mon... this ain't "Coast to Coast AM".
"We will either have to plant them or use them ourselves just to justify our own rationale"
Christ, I was joking. Had I seen this line ahead of time, I wouldn't have even wasted time responding. There's the 'hate America first' types and then there's the 'hate logic' types. Can't really converse with either camp. It's like they're on Mars...
Well, since I'm already mucked in here, one more...
"in order to continue to justify this rationale, in the place of hard facts, conservatives will convey these whisper-down-the-lane, heard it somewhere, stories that have no basis in fact."
The guy makes an easily identified mistake, and you're going to brand it as part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'?
At least conservatives are, rightfully, held to a factual standard.
Would that liberals someday aspire to the same.
Everybody sing along now: "Feelings, whoa whoa whoa, feelings..." [fade]...
~
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
My point is not whether we should be fighting those who attacked us, my point is where we should be fighting them... (more) -- Sam (Bucks County), 18:07:42 03/31/03 Mon
As the thread unfolded we see that Saddam is probably not nuclear-capable now. No doubt he wishes he was and made an effort, which the Israelis put a stop, or at least a major setback to.
There is no doubt that he has/had designs on his neighbors, and the '91 gulf war threw a big monkey wrench into that. We (i.e. daddy Bush et al) shot ourselves in the foot then by encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up and overthrow him and then not providing any support. Now even those in Iraq whose support we should be able to count on (the ones who survived '91 anyway) don't trust us and I don't blame them.
Personally I don't think what he did to his son in law is a reason for us to go to war with him. No arguement he is a heartless paranoid despot along the lines of a Stalin who will make anyone who gets in his way disappear if it is within his power.
Murrah Building puzzles me.... If there is an indeed an Iraq connection, I cannot understand why the administration is not milking that for all it's worth. The certainly are grasping at many less definitive straws. This would be a *real* reason. Conspiracy theories leave me cold, mainly because of the nature of a conspiracy. The more people who know, the harder it is to keep a secret. What evidence there is has been presented and gone nowhere... not hardly what you would expect from an administration that seems willing to use any other excuse to go to war.
There are those in the world with as much will to do us harm as Saddam, and who are much more capable of doing it than Saddam. That is where our focus should be. That is why I see no upside in being in Iraq now. The fallout from that is going to make it even more difficult to fight our more dangerous enemies.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
You're partially right, but... -- "Vince From Villanova" (I love this... it's making my brain sweat!), 04:08:26 04/01/03 Tue
Sam, you said, "There are those in the world with as much will to do us harm as Saddam, and who are much more capable of doing it than Saddam."
That is correct.
"That is where our focus should be."
In an ideal world, that would also be correct.
Too bad we're not in an ideal world, huh?
Much of the rest of the world has now shown us beyond a doubt that they think the only legitimate reason for war is when you've been attacked first. We know that quite clearly now, but we already had a partial view of that last year, when the Iraq debate sprang to the forefront.
Now, you keep mentioning that there are other enemies who are more dangerous than Hussein. So let's travel back in time, shall we? President Bush is looking at the nations in the Axis of Evil, as well as at other nations and organizations that pose a threat to us, and trying to decide who to target next.
Of course, there's Al Qaeda, but we're already doing something about them and have pretty much decimated them already.
There's Iraq, where no weapons inspectors have set foot for several years, who still had chemical and biological weapons when the inspectors left, and who is not likely to have destroyed them on his own. But Hussein's military is still crippled, and his secular nature makes him unpopular with the fundamentalist terrorists, which explains why he has so few terrorist allies.
There's Iran, breeding ground of radical Islamic groups, yet also run by President Khatami (I think I'm screwing up his name, but I'm close...) who is actually moderate and progressive and struggling against the radical elements within his government.
There's North Korea, flaunting its nuclear program before the world, but with a history of doing so for the simple goal of extorting financial and trade considerations out of the USA.
There's Saudi Arabia, also a breeding ground of radical Islam, with a government that pays off terrorist groups to leave them alone but also employs moderate policies within its borders.
Among Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, only Iraq had a years-long record of invading neighboring countries, using weapons of mass destruction, and ignoring United Nations resolutions. And we barely got any international support to take them on. Iran has been behaving itself lately. Saudi Arabia isn't perceived by anybody as a bad guy, except for a slice of right-wingers here in the USA. And North Korea is probably just playing their same tired old extortion game and is unlikely to attack its neighbors.
Personally, I am more worried about North Korea and Saudi Arabia. (I'm optimistic that Khatami is making progress in Iran.) Now, considering the lukewarm support we've been able to land for Iraq, how much international support do you really think we could've gotten to take on North Korea or Saudi Arabia?
None. I guarantee you, none at all.
The only target that Bush had any chance of getting international support about was Iraq. So, he went for them first, tried to rally that support, and mostly failed. But although Hussein is not the biggest danger, he is still a serious danger in his own right and needs to be taken out. And since it's foolish to throw away months of military preparation, Bush made his move.
The other targets will just have to be hit later, unfortunately, and without international support. But it's clear now that we never would have gotten such support anyway. So although Iraq was not the most dangerous target, it was still logical to go after him first. If we HAD been able to build more international support, then success in Iraq would've made the rest of the world more receptive to taking on the rest of the targets.
And even the diplomatic failure on Iraq has its upside, since we've effectively reduced the UN to irrelevance. Is anybody on the Security Council lifting a finger to stop our "illegal" war? Nope, because they know they couldn't stop us if they tried.
Was Hussein the most dangerous target? No. Was he the most logical target to go after first? Yes.
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
