War is required, unfortunate as it may be

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

>We just have to rember to help the people of Irak afther we have won the war..

I hope we do, but I have a feeling we wil forget them as quickly as we have forgotten the people of Afghanistan.

Where do you get your news Bill? We just lost four servicemen in Afghanistan. Our forces are protecting the leadership in Kabul. People are in school again. Radios are playing music again. We are reestablishing the Afghan currency. It was this new layer of somewhat-stability (I know, it's not stable) that allowed the plans for the oil pipeline to move forward (which by the way, Unocal is not a part of). This creates jobs, which fosters peace, fostering greater stability.

I am fully aware that life is not perfect. However based on the information us mere mortals have access to, where exactly have we forgotten?

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/07/1044579931896.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Saddam Hussein couldn't even win the Iran/Iraq war

Believe me.. At the rate he was building his weapons program he would have used WMD's more and won..
Rhino

Why should we believe you? Are you Saddam's therapist or something?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

You are self-appointed. The rest of the world didn't choose you as leader. That what the U-N is for. Now maybe you don't like the U-n ... but remember: the rest of the world doesn't necessarily like the USA directing global policy.

The UN is a joke.. Apparently the US doesn't give a fuck what the UN thinks because we are going in anyways. The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real..

What did the US do when the IRA was terrorizing Britain and N. Ireland? Sent guns and money to the terrorists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

The UN is weak since we won't support it.

Is it worth supporting? After all, it was the UN that voted Libya to head the Human Rights Committee.

Should the US contribute general dues which will support committees like that? I wouldn't want it to.

The US helped estabish the League of Nations in 1919, and then walked out of it. Had the US stayed in there's a real chance that WWII might not have occurred.

Why was Bush so concerned to get the UN resolutions passed last Fall, if the UN is irrelevant now?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Well said. The U.N. is about as effective as its ancestor the League of Nations. Great concept, but not effective due to the players involved are not gathered for a higher purpose but to voice their own countries ideals and agendas.

And don't forget that after Woodrow Wilson had helped design the League of Nations that the US withdrew from it, which almost guaranteed that WWII would occur.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

The US helped estabish the League of Nations in 1919, and then walked out of it. Had the US stayed in there's a real chance that WWII might not have occurred.

I am increasingly beoming concerned over the innefectivness of the UN. I fear that if it continues on its current course, it will become just as innefective as that League of Nations was prior to WWII.

I am the biggest supporter of the UN, but they MUST act. They've got to have the balls to stand up to dictators and tyrants as is their charter.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Why should we believe you? Are you Saddam's therapist or something?

If you have something other than childish personal slam/bickering please contribute..

[PhreeZone 20]

I would like to know how your intel is better then the reports that are coming in from around the world...

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,116]

>The US is being terrorized.. Not the UN.. Get real..

Wow, that's a bizarre statement. Israel not being terrorized? Pakistan? India? BTW, where do you think UN headquarters is?

It's statements like that, I think, that make other countries think that the US simply has no idea what's going on in the rest of the world.

[billvon 3,116]

>The goal of a war is to win. Not to kill as many as possible.

No. Politicians decide when we've won; then the war stops. In the meantime it means killing as many people as possible, and destroying as much of the country as possible.

>The only time that your concept of war holds true is when nukes are used.

Well, since we've used them once and now have a strategic plan that calls for their use in conventional military conflicts, that's not much reassurance.

> Trying all the other options is fine. But waiting another 10 years is
>s stupid. If it takes him.them 10 years to comply, they are only stalling
> for time to relocate their power base and fortify their positions.

I think you're contradicting yourself. If it takes him 10 years to comply, and he eventually does, he will not _have_ that power base of WMD's. That's what the resolutions are all about.

>The majority of their population sides with him, not against.

Are you disagreeing with our president? "America is a friend to the people of Iraq", remember.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Do you see a solution that will really work that does not require violence?

The only one I have heard is:

Let's talk some more, do some more inspections, and get the world to pressure Iraq.

What everyone seems to forget is we've been talking for 10 years. We've gotten no where with Iraq. As for insepctions, hell, we can't find all of the WMD's in our own country with the support of the government. What makes you think it can happen in a foreign country with a government that is trying to hide them? Why doesn't Iraq show us proof that they destroyed the WMD's that we know they had in 1998? This is like the biggest Easter Egg Hunt of the 21st century.

As far as international support is concerned, the Europeans could give a crap less what threats there are against the US. They are only worried about their security and their financial well being. That is fine by me.

I'm not saying we should go to war at the drop of a hat but when is enough going to be enough. When are some of you guys going to realize that Iraq is playing the US and the international community like a bunch of fools. You talk like we should go on with this crap indefinitely. The threat of violence is the only thing making Iraq comply as much as they have. You can't string a threat out forever. It will eventually lose its effect. We have to follow through with it eventually. What is the point where we follow though? Do we just finally say, "Awww, we were just kiddin. You know we would never really attack ya."

I understand if you don't agree 100% with everything the current administration is doing. I know that I don't. But when you sit around complaining about everything that they do........that is plain old whining. Get over it. If you can do it better, the job will be coming open in a couple of years. Get on it. If you are not willing to do something about it then shut up. Sometimes it sounds like a litter of puppies in here with all of the whining.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 3,116]

>Why was Bush so concerned to get the UN resolutions passed last Fall, if the UN is irrelevant now?

As much as I've been critical of the administration for beating the war drums so loudly that you can't hear anyone working for peace, I have been impressed that Bush has, for the most part, heeded the UN's decisions on Iraq. I hope he continues to do so.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Yeah ... it attitudes like yours that earn a great deal of disrespect for your country from others around the world.

Are you referring to the British woman who said "it's about time something like this happened to the US" when you refer to "others around the world". I'm not sure I want her respect.

Are we not allowed to determine how to defend ourselves now? We have to let the UN decide that for us? Would your country do that? I doubt it.

Your country is a haven for numerous businesses(legal and illegal) that allow terrorists to funnel money and illegal immigrants into our country. The attitude of a large portion of your population seems to be "as long as it doesn't hurt us then let it be". Maybe it is time we stopped worrying so much about how much our "friends" respect us.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Then you come down to the situation where one of its members feels one way but a lot of others feel another way. Just since that one person/state is not getting the resullts that they want does that mean the process is flawed, or does it mean that that person/country needs to accept that they are in the minority on that issue and deal with the choices of others?

The US is not in the minority of this position of Iraq. Read the letter put forth by several other significant European leaders, published in The Times or London (attached below, pdf file). The last security resolution was unanimous, and did not require further resolutions for punitive action against Iraq.

Quote

Americans are acting like this is the first terrorist attack ever, guess what.. the rest of the world has been livign with this for years. France used to be attacked by North African terrorist groups all the time. Did they just insist on invading places? No, the listened to why people were mad and what they government could do to deal with that issue. For America there are a lot of options in dealing with the Middle East. One option (not that this is my choice) is just to pull completely out. No more bases in Saudi, Kuwait, Isreal, Egypt... any of them.

I disagree with this viewpoint. American's are not acting that way. We've had previous attacks on the WTC, we had Oklahoma City, the Unibomber, et al. France too, particularly Paris suffered numerous smaller attacks.

After the first WTC bombing, the US used the French model: Do nothing. It failed. France may have listened to the poor bastards and why they were mad (a great deal of Africa was a French colony mind you). It still got them nowhere, fast (because they realized there was no practical solution, as they claim there is for Iraq). If you think otherwise, read BBC updates on Frances involvement in Cote d'Ivoire, I predict that conflict will intensify. I can't wait to hear the rationale from Chirac then.

Sorry, I am no longer an American that feels the years of European diplomatic experience in the field has any significant benefit. It has caused major strife in Africa, compromises too heavily in the middle east, didn't deal with Hitler, the Kaiser, or the Balkans.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

EU_Unity_US_Iraq.PDF

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

The world is probably a better place with the UN than it is without it.

So true ... just think what a great place the world could be if there was an more equal form of distribution of wealth... and people born in poor parts of the world didn't have to suffer as much, and tyrants were prevented from seizing power in any nation... and people like Saddam Hussein control the armaments of a nation... it would be better. The U-N is necessary. It's a start.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

(from PhreeZone)For America there are a lot of options in dealing with the Middle East. One option (not that this is my choice) is just to pull completely out. No more bases in Saudi, Kuwait, Isreal, Egypt... any of them.

Quote

(from Gawain)I disagree with this viewpoint. American's are not acting that way. We've had previous attacks on the WTC, we had Oklahoma City, the Unibomber, et al. France too, particularly Paris suffered numerous smaller attacks.

One fairly notable difference about Oklahoma City and the Unabomber is that they were Americans. Should we have bombed Michigan or Montana???

The WTC was attacked twice, yes. Of course, as long as we just bomb people into the stone age, whoever is left is going to reproduce like mad and do whatever they can to get back at us. That's what terrorism is all about most of the time. People who feel powerless otherwise.

Al Qaeda exploits that. I honestly think they are evil. But there's no real link between them and Iraq, other than that there are some Iraqi members probably. Of course, there are some American members, too.

It's no surprise that some Iraqis hate us. We went to war with them 10 years ago (in response to their invasion of Kuwait), many of their children are starving, and we're dissing their country all the time.

We got kind of pissed when Tariq Aziz made a bad comment about the shuttle explosion, and I can imagine there would be a lot of joy among some people in the US if there were to be an earthquake in Iraq. That goes both ways.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The US helped estabish the League of Nations in 1919, and then walked out of it. Had the US stayed in there's a real chance that WWII might not have occurred.

Why was Bush so concerned to get the UN resolutions passed last Fall, if the UN is irrelevant now?

Woodrow Wilson fought tooth-and-nail for the League, as part of the treaty of Versailles. Congress beat it to death. In the end, its convenants were not very binding to those that would join and participate. Hell, Germany withdrew from the League in 1933. Not a lot of good to be done by the League there. Check out a chronology here: http://worldatwar.net/timeline/other/league18-46.html

Bush got a resolution simply to keep the Democrats in Congress at bay, and to announce to the world that the UN was in danger of becoming as impotent as the League if people didn't pick up their feet and walk the talk.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It's no surprise that some Iraqis hate us. We went to war with them 10 years ago (in response to their invasion of Kuwait), many of their children are starving, and we're dissing their country all the time.

Here's the wonderful work of the UN in action:

http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5811&Cr=iraq&Cr1=oil

$5,000,000,000 -- that's BILLION dollars.

Read the key sentences, "...which allows Baghdad to use a portion of the revenue generated by oil sales to purchase food and other relief supplies." and "The plan submitted Monday by the Government of Iraq contains a humanitarian budget of $4.93 billion..."

A PORTION? WTF? Why should I support a UN program which is not feeding these starving children? Why should any of us? $5B is lot of f**k**g money for food, relief and basic medical supplies (i.e. treating malnourishment etc.).

Saddam's been playing the UN like a Stratavarious for a decade. Why would anyone, any organization, any group, put up with that?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,116]

>A PORTION? WTF? Why should I support a UN program which is not feeding these starving children?

It's not a UN program. It's an Iraqi program. We are simply allowing the Iraqis to sell oil to buy food, fix their water supply, supply basic medicines, fix their generators etc. Don't worry; your money is not going to Iraq (other than the money you use to pay for gas, of course.) You can choose to not buy gas and therefore not support Iraq; sadly, most Americans would much rather support Iraq than give up their beloved SUV's.

>Why should any of us? $5B is lot of f**k**g money for food, relief and
> basic medical supplies (i.e. treating malnourishment etc.).

You think that's a lot for a whole country to run on? We GIVE more than that to american oil companies over the course of a few years. There are 22 million people in Iraq. That's about $250 per person per year to feed them. Could you feed yourself all year for $250?

[JJohnson 0]

Stop contradicting trivial points and warping my words. The goal of a war is to win. Who decides when we have won is not the point. The fact that politicians decide stupidly when battle begins and ceases is not the point. Victory is the goal of war. Sometimes the battle strategy requires high losses. But if a cleaner method of victory is open, any commander will take it, as it reduces possible losses to his own side.
It is also common knowledge that a sure way to cause major disruption in a chain of command is to remove the command. Why else would snipers take out the guys with the shiny shit on their collars?
Destroying a country is NEVER the goal of a war. If you destroy it, you can never claim any of the benefits of it. I know you are an intelligent person, but how fluent are you on military thinking?
If destruction were the only goal, we would have used nukes in Viet Nam, Korea and any other place we pitched battle. It kills lots of them and none of our guys, cool!!! What a great way to win!! Wrong. Any country that has ever invaded another did so to achieve something...be it a seaport, land wealth whatever. To destroy the country kind of defeats that purpose. Show me one example of a countries SOLE purpose was the utter destruction of another land.
And killing as many people as possible being the point?? Not even. Were that true there would be no Germans left, because the Allied and Russian forces would have slaughtered them on the way to Berlin. If the point of war were to kill as many as possible there would a lot less Iraq citizens as well because we certainly could have killed more by indiscriminately bombing whole neighborhoods.
Yes we used nukes once...and never again since. I think that says something about us. That to do so again is crossing a line that the rest of world might never forgive. If we had not used them, somebody else would have, you can be sure. We were just cursed to have them made before anyone else. If Japan would have had them first, we would have had a few craters here.
Even though there is a plan for the use of nukes (and there has ALWAYS been a plan for their use ever since they were first made) that does not means that IF they are used it will be to level Iraq to nothingness. So again the purpose for war is not the utter destruction of land and people. AND I am not advocating the use of nukes.
As for contradicting myself, no I am not. Perhaps I was not clear. If it takes somebody 10 years to not comply and you give him another 10 to comply...are they really complying at all? My point was that Saddam is stalling and trying to see just how far he can go. Try it with your mortgage payment and see what kind of resolution the bank will give you. I think its called foreclosure.
As for disagreeing with our President? Again you bicker fine points and apply small things to prove them. I do not seem to recall overwhelming coverage of Iraq people out in the street waving U.S. flags. We may be friends to the people of Iraq, but the majority of them would not exactly welcome us to lunch. I think the Presdents words were more intended to say that we are not against the people of Iraq, only their leader.
I am trying to deal with principles here and they are pretty clear. What is not clear is the information you and I base our logic on. Both you and I and everybody else is at the mercy of our governments and media for information. We know what they tell us. Obviously what they tell us is intended to prove their points. But the principles as I see them remain:
1) Iraq is not complying.
2) The U.N. remains a great concept
3) The U.N. remains a force that nobody seems afraid to reckon with.
4) The U.S. is not the bad guy here.
5) Unless Iraq does an about face, we are going in. People are going to die and that is a sad fact.

I respect your attitude for achieving peace, but I don't think its realistic in practice in this situation. And I do not profess to have the answers either.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[JJohnson 0]

Bravo dear Bill. You do give credit where it is due, even when it is to those you disagree with. You are a gentlemen and a scholar.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[billvon 3,116]

> If destruction were the only goal, we would have used nukes in Viet Nam,
> Korea and any other place we pitched battle. It kills lots of them and
>none of our guys, cool!!!

You might want to re-examine that statement in the context of a ground war.

>Show me one example of a countries SOLE purpose was the utter
> destruction of another land.

North's destruction of the South during the civil war. Do a google search on the phrase "make the south howl." Maximum damage in minimum time.

I am not arguing that there are many different ways to 'win' a war, nor am I arguing that you can't win without killing everyone. But we are currently bombing Iraq, essentially blockading them and using sanctions against them. Once we start "war" the only thing that will change is that we'll kill a lot more people and destroy a lot more of the country. Hence the definition. Once we stop the war we will stop killing all those people and bombing as many buildings, although we may continue sanctions and/or have a presence there; again, that definition.

You can define war to yourself any way you want. What worries me are the people who think we will be waging a nice clean war with bombs taking out only evildoers, and ground troops only shooting bad guys. In reality it will be as horrible as war always is. We should decide beforehand that we are willing to visit that horror upon the people our president claims to be friends with.

> As for contradicting myself, no I am not. Perhaps I was not clear. If it
> takes somebody 10 years to not comply and you give him another 10
> to comply...are they really complying at all?

Is that a serious question? If it takes you 10 years to finally achieve the 300-way, did you really achieve it?

So as a serious answer, yes, if he complies that means he complies, whether it's in ten minutes, a year or ten years. If there is a way to make that happen, even if it takes a long time, then it's worth the effort. If it can never happen even after you exhaust all avenues towards disarmament, then you would have a good argument for war. We have not yet exhausted all avenues.

>Try it with your mortgage payment and see what kind of resolution the
> bank will give you. I think its called foreclosure.

A better example might be if I required you to give me say $100 a month, and then threatened to burn down your house if you didn't comply. Same result perhaps but not really defensible.

>Both you and I and everybody else is at the mercy of our governments
> and media for information.

If that's the case, it's just as likely that there is no evidence whatsoever that he has any WMD's, and he never did. While we can speculate about that it's not really useful.

1) Iraq is not complying.

They're complying about halfway, as far as I can tell. Could be worse, could be better (of course.)

2) The U.N. remains a great concept
3) The U.N. remains a force that nobody seems afraid to reckon with.

Primarily due to our unwillingness to support it when it does not serve our needs.

4) The U.S. is not the bad guy here.

Not yet.

5) Unless Iraq does an about face, we are going in. People are going to die and that is a sad fact.

I don't buy that. That's like saying "thousands more americans will die the next time Al Quaeda hijacks a few planes, and that's a sad fact." We can prevent that if we choose to.

Is avoiding war worth it to us? That's the $64,000 question. If most Americans see war as a pretty clean, fun video game, sort of a "kick Saddam's ass" TV special, avoiding it will not be worth it. I have a feeling that if more americans had a better idea of what a war would involve it would not enjoy the support it currently has.

[Skyrad 0]

Congratulations you win the prize for red neck Troll of the year.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

The U-N is necessary. It's a start.

That's about all it is. The UN is the exact form of government that failed in the US in the 18th century. The government was defined by the Articles of Confederation. There was just a congress from the states that had very little power, no taxation ability, no ability to field an army, and the majority of the power was kept at the state level. The government couldn't get anything done. The UN is the same type of government. It is not an exact comparison so don't start doing google searches and coming up with little BS differences.

You said earlier that the US was the "self-proclaimed world leader" or something to that effect. I think it is more correct to say that we are the de-facto leader of the free world. No one else is willing to step up to the plate. The UK handed the torch to us in the early 20th century. We were isolationist at the beginning of the 20th century and were being begged to get involved in foreign matters. As soon as we got involved people got mad at how we were handling things. This isn't a new phenomenon like many on here are saying. It has been going on since WWII.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Why should we believe you? Are you Saddam's therapist or something?

If you have something other than childish personal slam/bickering please contribute..

You claim to know Hussein's mind and say that we should believe you. My question is, WHY should we believe you. Do you have some direct link to his thoughts?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.