Don't you love war threads?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Said it before Tasty, right things for the wrong reasons.  I don't care what shitty motives Bush had in the back of his head.  I didn't vote for him before, and I highly doubt I'd vote for him next time.  

Saying that they may have been in the back of his head doesn't change any of the real, hard facts.  It doesn't change many of the soft opinions either.

[tasty]

All I'm saying is that I hope people don't believe Bush is some great economy fixer when its election time in 2004, when he never really took any positive steps to fix it. His economics are fuxxored.

[Cossack]

Right Reasons wrong motives Bucc? So you are accepting "facts" from an adiminsrtation whose motives you question?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I accept some facts from them, not without question, but with.  Just because I can't stand Bush doesn't mean that everything the whole administration says or does is automatically a lie.  I have a lot of respect for Colin Powell, and I don't think he'd just go along with lies.

But, more importantly, I look at the UN's facts too.  And facts from other countries and sources.  Saddam should have been taken out long ago, long before it came to this.  I'm operating under the "better late then never" clause right now.  I think Saddam has still been violating the rules, and is still a threat, and I don't see any reason to wait until he's better armed, better prepared, or he kills more innocents.  He's already been convicted, he needs to now serve out his sentence.

[jn.loudnotes]

Bucc, I feel like he ought to get a little time off for "good behavior," to continue the jail reference.  These past 12 years, he's been relatively contained. . .only acting up now and then to assert his sovereignty.  I find it hard to blame him for violating a few rules.  It's not as if his weapons program comes even remotely close to the scope of the USs, and probably isn't even near to that of his neighbors in Pakistan, India, and Israel.

But for the most part, he hasn't done anything.  I suppose some might see foreboding in that, but I see someone who's been well beaten and punished after the Gulf War, and can finish out his tyranny to his death.  I don't really see any legitimate present-day reasons to have attacked Iraq again.  Lots of dictators are cruel to their people. . .This campaign seems like its based mostly in the past though.

[jn.loudnotes]

Also, to continue along economic lines:

Anyone else find it ironic that we'll be willing to spend $75 billion on the poor people of Iraq in a short amount of time?  That's great, but what about the poor here?  Wouldn't that money be enough to reform Medicare, bail out social security, or build subsidized housing for OUR people?

I'm all for helping Iraqis, but shouldn't Americans be the first priority?  Another big issue in this war, since it's one we initiated, is that we're sacrificing domestic issues to combat international ones.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I feel like he ought to get a little time off for "good behavior," to continue the jail reference.  These past 12 years, he's been relatively contained. . .only acting up now and then to assert his sovereignty.  

So, the chemical attacks reported in 1993 counts as contained?  Too bad the UN didn't follow through on those any better then they did the previous ones.  No way to know for sure about them now.

And I don't consider him never destroying his stockpiles, that he admitted to having as "good behavior".  Like a criminal on parole, if he has an illegal weapon, he should be punished.  Well, he's already proven to have them.  

So I don't feel there was any real "good behavior" or any reason to let him off the hook.  The guy is a mass murderer.  Killing his political rivals like a scene from a hollywood street gang movie.  Using chemical weapons many times in the past.  Burning the oil fields of Kuwait and releasing oil into the Gulf.  All crimes that there should not be a statute of limitations on.

It's not as if his weapons program comes even remotely close to the scope of the USs, and probably isn't even near to that of his neighbors in Pakistan, India, and Israel.

When have Pakistan, India or Israel used WMD's though?

but I see someone who's been well beaten and punished after the Gulf War, and can finish out his tyranny to his death.

No, not punished.  That is the heart of the problem.  He starves his people while living in opulence.  The punishments that were met out were not only week, they were never really enforced.  Until now.

I'm all for helping Iraqis, but shouldn't Americans be the first priority?  Another big issue in this war, since it's one we initiated, is that we're sacrificing domestic issues to combat international ones.

This has always been a balancing act, even without war.  Look how much aid we give to foreign countries every single year.  It's not just war, it's all the time.

Should we be isolationialists once again?  Or do it for a few years until our finances are all in order?  That's a conservative argument, and I only hear liberals pull it out in a time of war.  Well, I ask you, should we pull all aid from all the other countries in the world to?  Cancel the shipments of food throughout the world too, until we are sure that every American is in a subsidized home first?

And if we do all those things, what do you think the world will say about us then?

Spending money to rid the world of Saddam's rule in Iraq is just as important as the money we give Isreal, Egypt, or any other country out there.  As a world power, I think we have to do both, it's in our best interest.  It's good to show the world American generosity, since we really are very, and it's good to not ignore the threat that is Saddam.

[jn.loudnotes]

No, I don't think we should withdraw foreign aid or become isolationist.  But I do think we should focus on our own problems before we increase our aid abroad.  

Also, I got my dates a little off - 1993 was still 10 years ago.  To use an example though, the US used chemical weapons during the first world war, and a massive WMD in the second.  Obviously we justify it from our perspective, but it is the past and it's done with.  Likewise, Iraq hasn't shown any real intent to use WMD that I'm aware of for a decade.  Also, chemical weapons are bad, yes, but they aren't nearly as terrible as nuclear, which leave lasting effects for generations.  A chemical attack kills a lot very quickly.

I guess I feel like simply being a mean or evil dictator isn't enough to warrant removal by the US.  The UN, perhaps - if it wished - but not just the US.  And being evil and wanting to have enough weaponry to maintain power doesn't strike me as excessive.

Furthermore, the inspections monitored Iraq sufficiently to be sure than any "illegal" weapons Hussein has/had would need to be kept hidden, thus limiting their potential scope and buildup.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No, I don't think we should withdraw foreign aid or become isolationist.  But I do think we should focus on our own problems before we increase our aid abroad.

I can agree with that.  And I think the cost of the war should come out of the over $200 billion in financial aid we give out annually to other countries (that was being increased as well).

No, I don't think we should withdraw foreign aid or become isolationist.  But I do think we should focus on our own problems before we increase our aid abroad.  

Also, I got my dates a little off - 1993 was still 10 years ago.  

But still after the first Gulf War, and while the UN was supposedly keeping him in check.  The UN hasn't done a very good job dealing with him at all.

To use an example though, the US used chemical weapons during the first world war, and a massive WMD in the second.  Obviously we justify it from our perspective, but it is the past and it's done with.  

Huge differences though.  The USA didn't use mustard gas extensively in WW1, and sure as hell not exclusively.  It was already in use before the USA joined the war.  More, the geneva convention prohibiting it wasn't until 1925, long after WW1.  Germany still violated that in WW2, and Nippon tested many biological weapons on the Chinese in WW2 as well (also breaking the Geneva convention rules).

As for the A-Bomb, hindsight is 20/20.  Back then, it wasn't a WMD, it was just a huge freaking bomb.  The after effects of a nuclear blast were not really understood, just the destructive power of it.  And as for it's destructive power, and the targets chosen, it was well within the norms for that period (collateral damage was not avoided then like it is today, and most countries targeted civilian populations in their bombing).

Also, chemical weapons are bad, yes, but they aren't nearly as terrible as nuclear, which leave lasting effects for generations.  A chemical attack kills a lot very quickly.

Now that's subjective as hell.  It all depends on the chemical.  Chemical and Biological weapons are also known as the poor mans nuke.  Some chemical weapons don't kill at all, but leave people blind, or crippled for life.  Then talk about biological weapons.  Those scare me more then chemical or nuclear.  A bad bug could spread all over the USA, not just be confined to the battlefield.  

And being evil and wanting to have enough weaponry to maintain power doesn't strike me as excessive.

You don't need chemical and biological weapons to stay in power.  You don't need offensive weapons.  Those are what was prohibited.  Defensive weapons were not (or he wouldn't have all those SAMS, AA-guns or the rest of it).  

Furthermore, the inspections monitored Iraq sufficiently to be sure than any "illegal" weapons Hussein has/had would need to be kept hidden, thus limiting their potential scope and buildup.

And that's where I disagree with your conclusion.  He used chemical weapons after the UN took charge.  The inspections were a complete joke until the last few months, AFTER he started to cooperate some with them, which he didn't do until AFTER the USA started to threaten war.  The UN inspectors never had full access to many areas.  They were kicked out more then once.  They were told where and when they could go places.  They gave lists and schedules to Iraq of where it would inspect.  You really think that's effective?

The UN was turning a blind eye toward Iraq, just like the League of Nations and rest of the world, fucked up with Hitler.

All those tanks, planes, warships and u-boats Germany made were all in the name of defense too, until they were turned against other countries.  People really need to learn from their mistakes.  Saddam has proven himself to be just as evil as Hitler was, just without as much military might (proportionally) or brains.  The same mistakes were being made.  The UN was at the heart of the mistakes.

Tell me this.  If the USA, or England, or Russia had gone in and kicked Germany's ass in 1938, even though the rest of the world didn't see the threat back then.  Wouldn't it have been better?  Use that hindsight not to blame someone for past actions, but to map out future actions.

[jn.loudnotes]

The UN may not have been effective, but I still feel like it's an organization that needs to be supported - if Iraq is important - the UN should really be the organization to impose force on it.  Not the US alone.

Also, I'm not sure the US and England could have kicked Germany in '38 at all.  Russia was it's ally up until Germany attacked them too. . .and as far as I can tell from history, Germany might well have won if they hadn't tried to invade Russia.

Saddam on the other hand probably feels a need for at least some offensive weaponry - I don't really fault him for that even though it's against the armistice and UN regulations.  National security is about more than just defense, as the US is demonstrating at the moment.  If it turns out after this war that we uncover huge stockpiles of WMD, maybe I'll feel differently - but his limited rule breaking still seems just that.  Limited enough not to be a huge threat.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The UN may not have been effective, but I still feel like it's an organization that needs to be supported - if Iraq is important - the UN should really be the organization to impose force on it.  Not the US alone.

Point was, if the UN doesn't, someone should.  And the US isn't alone.  There are three countries actively fighting against Iraq, plus many others that support it.  (why does everyone forget the Aussie troops?)

But again, if the UN fucks up, someone has to cover for them.

Also, I'm not sure the US and England could have kicked Germany in '38 at all.  Russia was it's ally up until Germany attacked them too. . .and as far as I can tell from history, Germany might well have won if they hadn't tried to invade Russia.

Could you miss the point any further?  Or are you trying to drag it off point?  The question was, wouldn't it have been the good and right thing to do?  Wouldn't it have been better?  Not if you think they would have won or lost.

Saddam on the other hand probably feels a need for at least some offensive weaponry - I don't really fault him for that even though it's against the armistice and UN regulations.  

He already was a huge threat.  He shouldn't be allowed to break the rules, even in a limited way.  You seem to be ignoring that he used chemical weapons AFTER the UN was supposed to be watching him.  How is that not a threat?

You think mass murders should be allowed out of prison after 10 years as time off for the good behavior of not killing more then 3 other people while they were serving time, and only being caught with knives, not guns, while in prison?  Because that's what you are talking about here.

So you don't fault him, good, I and many others do.  And for good reason that I think you are not even looking too hard at.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I think the war situation has really hidden from view exactly how fucked up the US is right now.  About half the states no longer have dental as part of medicaid, same goes for vision and hearing care in many as well.  Nearly all the states are having huge budget crises and are cutting back loads of programs, not the least of which is education.  Less teachers are being hired so classes are bigger, making them less productive which isn't helped by shorter school years and days to further reduce costs.

The US has so many problems, even compared to two years ago...a point at which I personally think there was much to do on the home front.  But no one in their right mind can deny that we are falling short of even the minimum social services we should have.  And yet the goverment is cutting taxes and paying hundreds of billions of dollars to fight wars and give humanitarian aid (the latter actually being of significant importance).  What is worse is that the US is making a stink about letting the UN help after the war is over.  This think-headed position will possibly prevent other countries from easing our burden.

Anyway, Bush just has no idea about economics apparently and is too obsessed with fighting wars that he isn't doing anything to help Americans (why bother saving us from terrorist attacks if we are just going to starve (figeratively) in preventing them).

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Bondo, we want the UN to help GOVERN Iraq after the war, not REBUILD it. The way our administration sees it, the contracts for rebuilding should be given to American and British companies and that in turn would help our economy and increase the taxes that are paid.

The major stink comes from the thought of France or Russia being able to profit off of something which they wanted no part of.

[tasty]

If we are truly going to believe the altruistic arguments of most war supporters, than the only people that should be profiting from this war are Iraqis. Why not give the rebuilding contract to Iraqis... they should know what's good for Iraq better than Halliburton would anyway. The Iraqi economy will need building too, at least if you want it to be the democracy you say it will be.

[[V] Silverblade]

well of course this war is only for the good and freedom of iraq, it has  nothing to do with profit interests or whatsoever.

its just that bush couldnt sleep anymore witht the thought of the poor iraqis on his mind... he is such a good and honest person, who only acts because he fights for human rights.

yeah and france and russia suck bc they want a piece of the pie too... well, what pie? remember, its all just for the good of the poor iraqis.

oh and yes, this war is going to be short...no doubt...

and the iraqis cheer when they see americans... only here and then they pull out an ak... but thats just a little minority, has nothing to say...

dont u believe?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The Iraqi's would rebuild Iraq if they had the means to. But the fact of the matter is that they have nowhere close to the necessary means to rebuild their own country - their equipment is dilapidated and they wouldn't know where to start.

Silverblade, cut it with your crap, honestly. I really doubt most of the Iraqi regulars would be fighting if they knew that Saddam was going down and if some Fedayeen didn't have a gun pointed at their families heads. Also, this war is about the Liberation of Iraq - if we were aftr their oil like many anti-war retards say we are, we would have attacked Iraq as soon as Bush took office.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Oil a reason?  No.
Oil an incentive?  Most definately.

While the war isn't BECAUSE of oil, the prospects of having control over that much oil sure makes it that much more attractive an option for Bush doesn't it.  You don't think that is at all part of his consideration.  To not have it be part would be to have an incorrect benefit cost analysis of the war.  Then again, I suspect the analysis they did use was flawed (subjectively) on account that Bush has some real fucked up values.

[Cossack]

What Silverbane said was not crap, try awnsering that without saying it is crap. How can you say that oil has nothing to do with it? Condolezza Rice is an Oil Executive from Exxon, she even has a tanker named after her, Rumsfeld was also an oil executive, he was never even in the military, what is he doing as Secratary of Defence? Penis Cheney was CEO of Halliburton! Bush himself ran an unsuccessful oil company (no big suprise there). The whole war council with the exception of Colin are ex-oil execs! They have no intrest in oil, that is bougous!
As I have said many times before, Iraqis according to interviews from a few newspapers (I dont use Iraqi, British or US sources on this) see this as an invasion by a foreign army.

[[V] Silverblade]

The Iraqi's would rebuild Iraq if they had the means to. But the fact of the matter is that they have nowhere close to the necessary means to rebuild their own country - their equipment is dilapidated and they wouldn't know where to start.

Silverblade, cut it with your crap, honestly. I really doubt most of the Iraqi regulars would be fighting if they knew that Saddam was going down and if some Fedayeen didn't have a gun pointed at their families heads. Also, this war is about the Liberation of Iraq - if we were aftr their oil like many anti-war retards say we are, we would have attacked Iraq as soon as Bush took office.

sure, and how u know that? right, u only assume it. but is that enough to send some b-52s over? and i say what ever the fuck i want, so su and go play with ur gi-joe dolls...

[[V] Silverblade]

Let's be realistic here...inspectors would have never found anything because Saddam has had over four years to hide items in a country with the land mass of California. Anyone with any intellect could hide anything from anyone given four years and that much land space.

well iraq is like 80 % desert, i dont think they shoved it down the ground there while being watched by 1000 espionage sattelites. sure he could have hid his wmd somewhere in some bunker 200 meters under the surface. but u cannot just assume and launch a war.

the proof mr. powell presented us was more or less a joke.

and saddam is with his back to the wall, why shouldnt he use his wmd now? if he is the crazy bastard u say he is, he would have launched everything he has got in the direction of israel by now, wouldnt he? mb he will, lets not hope that, my point is just that i havent seen proof that he has wmd, have u?

btw, evil rumsfeld himself said this war was already planned 6 months ago, if not longer. i dont think the usa ever intended to solve this conflict peacefully...