[611811]

Everyone who seems to be against this war keeps reasoning why this war is unjust. Can any of you with this mindset please explain to me when you would feel "comfortable" with our trying to defend ourselves and the rest of the free world from terrorists? Please lay out what you consider a MINIMUM requirement for our taking military action.

Please don't fill this thread with what you think we should have done before attacking Iraq. Just answer the direct question please. I'm curious.

Go Troops!!!

Ralph

 

[Hipshot]

It should been done a long time ago-Bairut!

An eye for an eye-NO! TWO EYES FOR AN EYE! A tooth for a tooth-NO! TWO THEETH FOR A TOOTH!
Hipshot

 

[skatemaster]

We were taking military action. There are troops in Afganistan and Pakistan. At one point, hours behind Osama. Many of those troops have now been pulled and are being sent to Iraq.

(This post edited by skatemaster on 03/31/2003)

 

[616787]

If you take a little closer look at the people and the supporters of antiwar demonstrations, it becomes clearer.

The vast majority are a mix of society's rejects, opposers of capitalism and extremists. They don't think like we do, because they don't have what we have. They're druggies, punks, and outcasts. They are anti-ANYTHING the government does, or America stands for.

They don't enjoy what normal Americans enjoy - family life, being social, and contributing to common good....... for if they did, they would see the benefit of the need to fight to secure world order. And, even if they disagreed with waging war, they would respect the President's decision to declare it - not try to make a name for themselves by going into the streets and acting like morons.

Look at the sponsors and supporters - socialists and communists.

When the city's municipal workers, DC37, held thier rally in Battery Park many years back - to protest layoffs and cutbacks, I was there......and guess who was there to hand out leaflets? The socialists and communists! One of them gave me a leaflet - and when I saw what it was, I went over and knocked his whole armful of leaflets out of his hands and cursed him out.

You'll always see them at a constructive demonstration when people are in conflict with government policy, and they froth at the mouth at antiwar protests. They are the force behind the demonstrators, and without them, there would be no organized demonstrations.

 

[skatemaster]

I think that is the description of just about any demonstrator for any cause. Or anyone that watches a parade for that matter. Nothing better to do. Excuse to get drunk or high, with a shot at getting some. No family, or not one that they prioritize, no concerns about earning income or getting arrested, no TV to catch up on, or errands to run. Ie., not normal people. Your average citizen would rather sleep in. Or fish. If they are kissing up to their local politician, picketing for their union or blackmailing some construction site, that's different, then they have a financial incentive.

The President is a representative of the people no? Shouldn't the people have a right to let the President know what they want done? After all the President was sort of chosen by people by people who agreed with his agenda. If they disagree, are they supposed to keep quiet until the next election? If that were the case, why would any politician care about polls and approval numbers.

If you think that the general population should act like apathetic sheep or yes-men, well, I gotta disagree.

I read months ago that Colin Powell disagreed with the Bush agenda, aka armed conflict at this stage. He was given a choice, get with the program or find another job. Guess what he did?

(This post edited by skatemaster on 03/31/2003)

 

[621913]

Freaks and Geeks

Botumfedur you are exactly right, everytime I see these people at some anti something protest they remind me of the freaks and geeks from school days, you know those weird kids that everyone always picked on. Well it seems there all grown up now and have to lash out or something.

 

[611811]

MILITARY ACTION IN AFGHANISTAN

SKATEMASTER,

Weren't you listening when the President said that this war on terrorism would be a long battle and would entail rooting them out wherever they lived? Because Afhanistan was so weak they had no choice when Osama and Al Qaida decided to set up shop there.
The threat there was the training and sinister plots that resulted in Osama using his resources to execute 9/11.

Iraq on the other hand has a regime that has the money and weapons to destabilize the area and to assist people like Bin-Laden who share the goal of reaking havoc on the US.

My point is that the action in Afghanistan is not enough on it's own. To retaliate for each action against us after they occur would be like trying to put out a forest fire one tree at a time.

Ralph

 

[skatemaster]

Rhetoric aside, the US has finite resources. There were better places to go hunting than Iraq, with more ROI. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking away resources from the war on terrorism. Bush came up with every reason he could to sell the public on invading Iraq. When he could not sell the UN Security Council, after offering $$$ humanitarian aid to those who voted with us and threatening to retract $ humanitarian aid from those who didn't vote with us, he just ignored them. For me, I started to feel like I was getting the hard sell, and credibility went out the window.

 

[611811]

SKATEMASTER

I must respectfully disagree. Of course all we can do is speculate on why this administration decided to invade Iraq right now. After all Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions for 12 years.

To my mind though it makes perfect sense due to the circumstances of 9/11 and the continuing action in Afghanistan. Get rid of Sadaam. Cut off his ability to harbor and aid terrorism. Stabilize the region. Resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Diplomatically move on to the next threat, probaly North Korea.

Please explain where you feel we could gain a better return than that. Thanks.

Ralph

 

[skatemaster]

I believe that this war destabilizes the region, costs American lives, adds to Arab unrest, increases the likelihood of terrorism directed against Americans, and adds to the recruitment of terrorists in the world. Even if we broke even moneywise, it would not be a good call. But I also believe that in between aid packages, cost of war, cost of occupation and cost of rebuilding, we will be spending $300+ billion over the next couple years. We will eventually recoup some of that from the new regime, but in the meantime, this is money not being spent fighting terrorists in areas where they are more concentrated, where we have local government support, and where they are more active. I know that a lot of people see an Iraq-9/11 connection. I don't and that makes this war a huge waste of $ in my opinion. I don't think that we ever cared that much about enforcing UN Security Council resolutions (I believe that Israel has violated over 30 of them, do we care), and we have never been attacked with WMD by any Arab state. I think that Saddam wanted to stay in power until he died, at which point his sons would rule. He was in it for the long term. Therefore I don't think that he would be so stupid as to pre-emptively strike the US. Now that we have opened the door, I think that we are far more likely to be struck by Iraq in any number of ways. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, or at least exhaust diplomacy, rather than impose arbitrary deadlines. The inspection process could have continued for a very long time. Was there a fear that little or nothing would be found? Once something was found, it would have been easier or cheaper to get Council votes on our side. Of course, by then, Bush may not have been re-elected. It is ironic that Iraq was the most westernized of all the Arab states.

(This post edited by skatemaster on 04/01/2003)

 

[616787]

SKATEMASTER - So much of what you wrote, I have to ask. Is this just a negative viewpoint of American governmental decisionmaking? It seems your opinion in general would fit nicely into an antiwar activists' rally. Any debatable issues you have an opinion on concerning this war favor the Iraqis.

"I think that is the description of just about any demonstrator for any cause. Or anyone that watches a parade for that matter."

I realize your just being facetious, but I think you know where my opinions were directed. Looking at the films of the antiwar demonstators, do you disgree?

"There were better places to go hunting than Iraq, with more ROI. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking away resources from the war on terrorism."

and....

"this is money not being spent fighting terrorists in areas where they are more concentrated, where we have local government support, and where they are more active."

Please tell us where you believe that country is.

Also, please elaborate concerning return on investment, and how it figures into which country we should declare war on.

"Sometimes it is best to let sleeping dogs lie, or at least exhaust diplomacy, rather than impose arbitrary deadlines. The inspection process could have continued for a very long time. Was there a fear that little or nothing would be found?"

By what you saw, you didn't think that Iraq was hiding their WMD's? Please, give us a yes or no on that.

Diplomacy wasn't exhausted?

The inspection process could have gone on forever.

Simple question that seems to be overlooked. If there was nothing to hide, why were the inspections hindered, and the inspectors refused access to suspicious areas?

"Once something was found, it would have been easier or cheaper to get Council votes on our side."

Once something was found, even Saddam knows he is a dead man. Is there a more perfect reason to hide the stuff?

"For me, I started to feel like I was getting the hard sell, and credibility went out the window."

I can understand a disagreement with the decision. To state that credibility *went out the window* - if you really mean that (and in consideration of all your other negative assumptions) - suggests disagreement with all the initiatives this war is based on. I hope you at least support the fighting men and women.

I do agree with your comment on conflict of interest concerning violations of U.N resolutions in the Mideast.

 

[MakoMike]

Guys,
Just to try to keep things on track here, the Geneva conventions on war have nothing to do with the U.N. and were signed prior to the U.N. even coming into being.

 

[skatemaster]

It isn't that I favor the Iraqis as much as I don't favor some of the decisions of the current administration. I don't support Saddam. I just don't think that we should have gone to war against him at this stage.

Demonstrators, against war, for war, for or against anything, are mostly people with nothing better to do, though I reserve a special place for anyone using monster trucks to crush Dixie Chick CD's?

We think that there are some high ranking terrorists in Afghanistan, Philippines, and Pakistan. These governments are cooperating. By not applying all the pressure that we could, we do a disservice to any stated goal of pursuing terrorism, give them opportunity to further their cause and impact future relations with these governments. In addition, there are countries that are somewhat hostile to us, like Yemen, that would be unable to put up the resistance that Iraq could, while hosting many terrorist groups. It is even possible that we could buy back Yemen's support in hunting terrorists, simply by restoring aid that was withdrawn in 1990 after voting against the US on a UN Security Council resolution.

We should spend our resources in regions where the threat is greater and the effort less.

I don't know if Iraq was hiding WMD's. If they were, so far it doesn't appear that they were of a quantity to create a legitimate threat to the US. Do you know what the coalition will find in 3 months? I don't. All I know that they haven't found enough thus far to make me lose any sleep or go to war. The inspection process would keep things at that level. The UN was satisfied with the progress of their inspections. Bush second guessed them. By not supporting the UN, Bush undid all of their efforts.

Diplomacy can take a long time. Why shouldn't it so long as things aren't getting bad fast? The trade embargo combined with the "oil for food" welfare could not have been better designed to piss off the Iraqis. They are sitting on a fortune, yet they have to subsist off handoffs. It wasn't a real friendly environment for diplomacy. That said, Saddam has a lot of enemies, even among his own people. On any given day, you can dig up a bunch or Iraqis to cheer the ousting of Saddam. What's odder, is that he is now finding support from among his enemies (Iran).

Bush wanted to be taken on faith. Blind, unconditional faith IMHO. Credibility is key in that scenario.

I support the troops. As a matter of fact, it looks like a family member is going over there. I support him, wish him success, and want him to return in one piece.

(This post edited by skatemaster on 04/01/2003)

 

[616787]

Thank you, SKATEMASTER. Only speaking for myself, I come away with a better understanding after you clarified your feelings.

I sometimes get an eerie and uncomfortable feeling about the transpirations of the war - but as it is with war, there will be negative turns of events.

Whatever happens as a result, as I've said in another post - we cannot magnify in hindsight. It is a result of our country's actions, the most knowledgeable and intelligent people we have, deciding what is best for us.......and because I am not nearly as knowledgeable as they - YES, I will blindly and ignorantly support them.

Conversely, the same would apply for the possible regrettable results of our INACTION. I would not twist that into being a mistake by our government.

I trust the decisions of the people in power of this country. As stated before - they have all the information. I am positive they weighed it carefully, and thoroughly. And THEN decided to do what is best for this country, whether I agree with it or not.

And God forbid, even if doomsday is brought down upon us as a result of all of this, you'd better believe I will stand tall as a free man, respecting what my country tried to achieve for me and my family, RIGHT OR WRONG.......and I would be proud to pick up a weapon and face death for what my country believes in.

 

[Billy40]

Triet - You Anti-American!!!!

I hope you "get" that.

 

[ronzo]

NOW

I've seen cars with "peace is patriotic"
on them. All I can say is "appeasement is not peace". Appeasement is giving the bully your lunch money and hoping he doesn't get you after school! I just wish George I had done it 12 years ago and we'd be 12 years into a democratic Iraq! heck I knew we'd be back there!

(This post edited by MakoMike on 04/02/2003)

 

[611811]

SADAMM <-----> TERRORISM

It seems that the difference between the fors and againsts, at least among the reasonable among us, is whether or not you buy the connection between Sadaam and terrorists.

My opinion is that there is definitely a connection. If Sadaam's goal was to stay in power wouldn't it make sense for him to form an alliance with terrorists? That way he can supply them with weapons, training and whatever else to help their cause. This way he inflicts damage against the US and never has to take the blame for it.

In my opinion this administration understood that he was a threat that could not stand after 9/11.

Go Troops!

Ralph