VoyForums
[ 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):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:49:45 03/28/03 Fri
Author: Jim Walsh
Subject: Sam's response is pretty much on the mark.
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:

[> It seems to boil down to one simple question... -- Rockford, 16:18:46 03/28/03 Fri

Do you or do you not believe that Saddam is a threat to us? Only the most dedicated Quaker pacifist would oppose war if they truly believed they were looking down the barrel of an anthrax vial. Almost no one doubts that he has chemical,and probably biological weapons. Could he "hand-off" to terrorists who could use them here at home. Seems unlikely.

Whatever he has, he has presumably had for a long time. Why
hasn't it happened already? Aside from the fact that Islamic
fundamentalists don't like Saddam very much, these weapons
are very difficult to deliver.

Not even the administration really believes in the handoff theory. That idea, like the 'liberation of Iraq" argument (AKA Give them liberty or give them death) are just pretexts. This administration believes that if they can bring democracy to Iraq, that will serve as a template for the other middle eastern countries to emulate. The people of these countries will rise up and demand the same sort of liberty that the citizens of the new democratic Iraq have.

That's a grand idea. It would improve lives of a great many
oppressed peoples, and make safe haven for terrorists much harder to find, thus improving our own security. It's an idea I would whole-heartedly support if it wasn't for this fact: It's a ridiculous fantasy, dreamed up by ivy league think-tankers standing over their Risk boards.

The tribal nature of the population of Iraq makes it likely that a 'liberated Iraq' will more closely resemble post-Tito Yugoslavia that post-world war II Japan.

It certainly doesn't make you un-American or "feminine" to
think that one American soldier's death in an unnecessary war is unacceptable.

The situation is compounded by the fact that this unnecessary war is being run not by generals, but by politicians. (Where have we seen this before?) Donald Rumsfeld's year-long battle plan argument with the military brass prompted this frustrated outburst from Norman Schwarzkopf about three months ago:

'Schwarzkopf, speaking about Rumsfeld, said, ''When he makes his comments, it appears that he disregards the Army. He gives the perception when he's on TV that he is the guy driving the train and everybody else better fall in line behind him - or else.'' The general said he was concerned that Rumsfeld and other hawks who have never bloodied their hands in combat are dangerously glossing over the reality of prolonged, deadly involvement in Iraq. Saying that he is worried that the wisdom of career military planners at the Pentagon is being ''ignored,'' Schwarzkopf said, ''It's scary, OK?''

To oppose an unnecessary war being incompetently prosecuted is cowardly? Feminine? I would say that exactly the opposite is true.


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> One "Simple" Question, One Complex Answer -- Scott Tilde, 23:10:57 03/31/03 Mon

Rockford starts out with the right question, and probably could have generated a good argument, but he quickly falls victim to his apparent Bush/Republican-hating ideology (This administration really believes in fantasy, Ivy-League braintrusts have no practical military experience, trotting out the quotes of retired Schwarzkopf, who doesn't have current data about anything, the war's run by politicians, not military men [as if this is the first time that's happened], the war's illegitimate because it's being "run incompetently" etc. etc...). At some point he transitions into terming the war "unneccessary". Huh?

I'll hit on Rockford's core statements:

"It seems to boil down to one simple question: Do you or do you not believe that Saddam is a threat to us?"

That's what it's all about. A lot of people either apparently don't believe that, or feel that 'peace' is more important than dealing with that reality. We all want peace and security. It's become clear to me that in this case, peace is an end, not a means.


"Almost no one doubts that [Saddam] has chemical,and probably biological weapons."

Even fewer should now that they've found all those chemical suits and gas masks in Iraqi troop positions and "hospitals".


"Could he "hand-off" to terrorists who could use them here at home. Seems unlikely."

Why does it seem unlikely? The Iraqis got this stuff from the decomposing USSR in the 90s. It was 'handed off', or more precisely, sold off. Let's hope our post-9/11 intelligence makes it much more difficult for notorious miscreants/"axis of evil" members to distribute this stuff, but Saudis crashing planes into U.S. buildings seemed 'unlikely' too, apparently, despite the World Trade Center bombing of 1993. It only takes our complacence to let this stuff happen. That's already been proven. So, based on recent history, you still want to proffer a guess that it "seems unlikely", and deal with the possible ramifications of being wrong? Not me.

"Whatever he has, he has presumably had for a long time. Why
hasn't it happened already?"

We have adequate evidence that this guy is an Arab-world megalomaniac who collects chemical and biological weapons as a hobby. But we should wait until something happens? WHY? This has been stated ad nauseum, but I'll repeat it: The gun doesn't smoke until it's already been fired. We've already been there (see that big gaping hole in Manhattan - it's unforgettable - the original 'shock and awe').

"Not even the administration really believes in the handoff theory."

State your source. The administration did itself a grave disservice by trying to create a hard link between Iraq and Al Quaeda where one didn't exist. They didn't need to do that - people who don't want to believe that this is dangerous stuff and this is a dangerous man aren't going to be swayed by mere evidence. It appears most of the American public accepts the argument that there wasn't going to be another solution to this problem other than removing the cancer. You can only negotiate with and contain the cancer for so long.

Now, I'll ask Rockford the same question I asked Jim, who originated this thread:

Why is war at this point a mistake, and what would you do to solve the Saddam Hussein problem instead of going to war?

The problem isn't going away, no matter how much you complain about the war. This is why most don't take so-called 'peace' protestors seriously: they offer no answers.


[ 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.