I'm shifting positions

[oliveu2cm]

I have a few unresolved questions that make me support the President & the war "effort."

If Saddam really wanted to avoid a war, he would simply erase all doubt of having WMD from the minds of the investigators. I'm starting to feel like he's goading us into a war, esp. with his declaration he'd fight wherever there was "air, land or water." HE is the one person on earth who could stop this war from happening.

Also, let's say we let him go and he develops these WMD- this guy is a ruthless psycho. He'd sell them to whomever would pay the highest price. And no one can tell me Bin Laden's "religious differences" with Saddam would stop him from using him to buy these weapons.

It's scary, it's very scary. But I'm starting to think something DOES have to be done. In the meantime, pray for peace, but prepare for the worst.

 

[Screaming Flower]

It's scary, it's very scary. But I'm starting to think something DOES have to be done. In the meantime, pray for peace, but prepare for the worst.

i came to exact same conclusion a couple of weeks ago, and i, too, will continue to pray for peace and pray for the innocents.

 

[verte76]

I think that there are reasonable arguments for both sides, actually. Saddam could avert this war if he gave a damn about the Iraqi people. It's quite clear that he doesn't. The hell of it is that either way many lives will be tragically lost. I think it is the economic aspect of the anti-war argument that I agree with the most. How much will this cost? I'm not sure it's worth it. But of course I could be wrong. Perhaps this guy absolutely must be stopped.
What a mess.

 

[meegannie]

I just think that attacking him will give him (and other governments who think they might be the next country to be attacked) all the more incentive to arm terrorists.

 

[nbcrusader]

I just think that attacking him will give him (and other governments who think they might be the next country to be attacked) all the more incentive to arm terrorists.

They already have reason to arm terrorists - if we fail to take any action on the basis that it may inspire additional terrorism, then the terrorists have won.

 

[verte76]

I just think that attacking him will give him (and other governments who think they might be the next country to be attacked) all the more incentive to arm terrorists.

Yes, this scares me. The first war didn't take him out; that's why I'm sceptical that it can be done even with force. Geez, what kind of attack is in store for Baghdad??

 

[Klaus]

oliveu2cm:

It's not about if Saddam wants war or not, i really don't care what he wants, it's about:

Is it possible to take away his weapons without a war, it's about not raising unnecessary antiamericanism in the arabic world and giving Al Quaida the chance to recute them, it's about respectful, democratic behavour between countries to avoid that dictators copy US phrases to legitimize their wars (why shouldn't Inda preemptive attack Pakistan?) it's about avoiding killing innocent people.

If there was a simple right and a simple wrong way i'm sure all our politicans would choose the right one, but there are just 2 different flavors of wrong to choose and from my perspective war is the wronger one, because it will lead to new hate which will result in new terrorism.

Klaus

 

[Screaming Flower]

klaus i have an honest question/s for you: do you really, truly believe that it is possible to disarm saddam peacefully? do you believe that the inspectors would ever find something saddam didn't want them to find?

i don't mean to put you on the spot. i would love to truly believe, in my heart of hearts, that it's possible for saddam to comply but i just can't. i would love to believe that inspections would find everything but i can't. it just seems so unrealistic to me. and that makes me really sad. i wanted to believe in inspections and diplomacy but it just seems like this vicious cycle that never really gets anywhere. all i feel it does is buy saddam time.



and for the other point, like meggie, i, too, am scared of saddam and other governments arming terrorists. only i believe there are probably governments willing to do this regardless of how we decide to act in iraq. there is plenty of anti-american sentiment in the world already to lead to such an act. and i feel that if it's not the iraq situation, it could be another situation (i.e. palestine) that could lead to the same result. i believe that allowing saddam to stay in power because of what he might do later is more dangerous. and then there are countries like north korea who i see as more threatening in those regards anyway. and i believe they, more than anyone, have the potential to sell arms to terrorists. and this has nothing to do with iraq, rather it's their horrific poverty that would lead to such an act.

 

[deep]

The Bush Administration has framed this argument in way to get the answer that it wanted.

The better way to go would have been to built an irrefutable case against Saddam concerning crimes against humanity. It may have taken months, but with honest diplomacy, a lack of arrogance, and right on our side I believe a true coalition could have been built to remove Saddam and his regime. They could have been brought to justice in a proceeding similar to Milosivic hearings. France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions.

The way this has played out is very disappointing. I believe the administrations main concern is a timetable to effect the US economy and election cycle. The majority of the world populations believe this, too. Only the people of the US and Israel support this without UN approval. To believe the rest of the world is for Saddam or just stupid or hate us because we are free is an argument that no reasonable person should believe. Losing lives for domestic political reasons is immoral.

It did not have to be like this. Colin Powell was capable of building a coalition to bring Saddam to justice. It may have taken more time and involved considering other countries? opinions. Bush listened to the wrong advisors.

 

[Screaming Flower]

The better way to go would have been to built an irrefutable case against Saddam concerning crimes against humanity. It may have taken months, but with honest diplomacy, a lack of arrogance, and right on our side I believe a true coalition could have been built to remove Saddam and his regime. They could have been brought to justice in a proceeding similar to Milosivic hearings. France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions.

i agree with this completely. despite that i support this regime change, there is no doubt in my mind that the administration went about it in a terrible way. i guess at this point, i support the end rather than the means.

 

[meegannie]

They already have reason to arm terrorists - if we fail to take any action on the basis that it may inspire additional terrorism, then the terrorists have won.

If we attack another country without thinking of the repurcusions and without broad international support, they've already won anyway.

 

[verte76]

The Bush Administration has framed this argument in way to get the answer that it wanted.

The better way to go would have been to built an irrefutable case against Saddam concerning crimes against humanity. It may have taken months, but with honest diplomacy, a lack of arrogance, and right on our side I believe a true coalition could have been built to remove Saddam and his regime. They could have been brought to justice in a proceeding similar to Milosivic hearings. France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions.

The way this has played out is very disappointing. I believe the administrations main concern is a timetable to effect the US economy and election cycle. The majority of the world populations believe this, too. Only the people of the US and Israel support this without UN approval. To believe the rest of the world is for Saddam or just stupid or hate us because we are free is an argument that no reasonable person should believe. Losing lives for domestic political reasons is immoral.


It did not have to be like this. Colin Powell was capable of building a coalition to bring Saddam to justice. It may have taken more time and involved considering other countries? opinions. Bush listened to the wrong advisors.

I agree. I'm not happy about this situation at all. This guy is as bad as Slobadan Milosevic, but they didn't make a convincing argument about Saddam at all, and now there's going to hell to pay.

 

[Klaus]

Screaming Flower:

It won't work without presure but if the US would be willing to listen to the UN and leave their armies where they are under UN control, yes, i guess it would work.
Of course the UN Inspectors need help from national governments, they need all the informations they can get. But as long as the most important member of the UN, the United States aren't willing to support - yes prefer to destroy the UN it can't work as good as it should.
Of course they will find some more weapons when they invade, and if they don't find them they bring them into the country and "find" them. I really don't like conspricacy stuff, but (not only) US government has shown that they give a *** about the truth. G.W. has a "vision", let's hope he knows what he's doing. Let's hope his democratic promise is worth more than the promise that he will get the new resolution in the UN, no matter if he wins or looses.

Al Quaida dosn't need Saddam to arm herself. There are lots more (current US alies) who sell so called Weapons of Mass destruciton) to Terrorists. Lots of Weapons were given to terrorists to fight evil communism, we see the flower of fire which grew from former bad ideas of "rescuing" the world, in 10 years we will see if G.W. was right and all Weapons of Mass destruction are unter his and its allies control or if i was right and his politics raised new hate against america, lots of new terrorists and even other countries are developing a-bombs fast enough to have a proper "response" when the US of America wants to invade them.

Anyway, Ossama's glad that Saddam will be wiped away, he never liked Saddam because of his lack of relig. fundamentalism and Saddam killed some of his guys because he wanted no oposition in his country.

Klaus

 

[cass]

As always olive, someone here wrote something about how I'm also feel today. Last night ( here we go , me and my precious TV, but it was powerful stuff) An Iraqi woman, who is a refugee in Australia told her story and it was harrowing. Her husband worked in the Iraq Foreign Affairs Department. A few years ago, he was taken away , brought back and dumped at their house several days later, looking very ill. He went into a coma and died 3 weeks later and his last words to her were , "take the children and leave Iraq". She was beaten and put under house arrest , but with the aid of a friend, she managed to cross the border. She said 20 million people in Iraq would be happy to see Saddam dead.
Two wrongs indeed, which one is wronger? I sure don't know.
I think there are so many imbalances and injustices in this world that need addressing. I wish all the intellegence and technology and capabilities could be used more constructively.
God and Allah must be very disappointed right about now.

 

[follower]

The Bush Administration has framed this argument in way to get the answer that it wanted.

The better way to go would have been to built an irrefutable case against Saddam concerning crimes against humanity. It may have taken months, but with honest diplomacy, a lack of arrogance, and right on our side I believe a true coalition could have been built to remove Saddam and his regime. They could have been brought to justice in a proceeding similar to Milosivic hearings. France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions.

The way this has played out is very disappointing. I believe the administrations main concern is a timetable to effect the US economy and election cycle. The majority of the world populations believe this, too. Only the people of the US and Israel support this without UN approval. To believe the rest of the world is for Saddam or just stupid or hate us because we are free is an argument that no reasonable person should believe. Losing lives for domestic political reasons is immoral.

It did not have to be like this. Colin Powell was capable of building a coalition to bring Saddam to justice. It may have taken more time and involved considering other countries? opinions. Bush listened to the wrong advisors.

This post is the best one I have read here in weeks and summarizes what I think about this situation very well. Thanks deep, you rule.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

The Bush Administration has framed this argument in way to get the answer that it wanted.

The better way to go would have been to built an irrefutable case against Saddam concerning crimes against humanity. It may have taken months, but with honest diplomacy, a lack of arrogance, and right on our side I believe a true coalition could have been built to remove Saddam and his regime. They could have been brought to justice in a proceeding similar to Milosivic hearings. France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions.

The way this has played out is very disappointing. I believe the administrations main concern is a timetable to effect the US economy and election cycle. The majority of the world populations believe this, too. Only the people of the US and Israel support this without UN approval. To believe the rest of the world is for Saddam or just stupid or hate us because we are free is an argument that no reasonable person should believe. Losing lives for domestic political reasons is immoral.

It did not have to be like this. Colin Powell was capable of building a coalition to bring Saddam to justice. It may have taken more time and involved considering other countries? opinions. Bush listened to the wrong advisors.

precisely.

but to go further, if saddam did have womd, it wouldnt change my mind on whether or not to go to war.

 

[verte76]

As always olive, someone here wrote something about how I'm also feel today. Last night ( here we go , me and my precious TV, but it was powerful stuff) An Iraqi woman, who is a refugee in Australia told her story and it was harrowing. Her husband worked in the Iraq Foreign Affairs Department. A few years ago, he was taken away , brought back and dumped at their house several days later, looking very ill. He went into a coma and died 3 weeks later and his last words to her were , "take the children and leave Iraq". She was beaten and put under house arrest , but with the aid of a friend, she managed to cross the border. She said 20 million people in Iraq would be happy to see Saddam dead.
Two wrongs indeed, which one is wronger? I sure don't know.
I think there are so many imbalances and injustices in this world that need addressing. I wish all the intellegence and technology and capabilities could be used more constructively.
God and Allah must be very disappointed right about now.

Damn. This illustrates how complex this problem is, and how there aren't going to be any easy solutions. Indeed, is there really a solution at all? Does one exist? I have my doubts.

 

[cass]

well it doesn't illustrate much except...that lady was scared and sad and I felt helpless and scared and sad too.
wrong-wronger-wrongest.
I feel sickened.

 

[womanfish]

Originally posted by deep:
"France would not have been able to derail a sustained, rational, multi lateral call for justice without serious international repercussions."

I definitely agree with your take on much of the situation and I would have agreed with your above statement about France a couple of weeks ago (maybe). But it has become glaringly obvious with new evidence that keeps popping up that puts France in bed with Iraq, as Iraq is lining their pockets and there's a lot more money to come to France (and Russia and China) if Saddam stays in power and sanctions are lifted. It seems as though they would do anything even risk international ridicule to stop anything happening to Saddam.

 

[ALEXRUS]

I have a few unresolved questions that make me support the President & the war "effort."

If Saddam really wanted to avoid a war, he would simply erase all doubt of having WMD from the minds of the investigators. I'm starting to feel like he's goading us into a war, esp. with his declaration he'd fight wherever there was "air, land or water." HE is the one person on earth who could stop this war from happening.

WORD IN EDGEWAYS
No, it is the US that can stop this war from happening.
I agree with deep & Klaus that it would be possible to disarm Iraq peacefully. We all must thank the US for the unprecedented military pressure on Hussein. Only if there is "credible threat of war" (like Jack Straw refers to it) Saddam will continue to disarm. And he started cooperating, he destroyed dozens of his As-Samud 2 missiles. "It's not toothpicks, it's lethal weapons", Blix said in UN. It would have never been possible without the US military fist hanging over SH. It would be perfect if US continued balancing on the brink of war, imitating war, threatening war...but never starting it. In 2 or 3 months inspectors would complete their job then. Chem and bio weapons CAN be found. But it's too late. After Bush's ultimatum it is clear US wants to remove Saddam. That's the first goal, not disarmament. Hussein deserves that of course but what a clumsy, awkward, BLOODY way of doing that. U don't have CIA or what? After all u spend 1bln$ DAILY only to keep your military machine there. U will get paid. U will get oil. That's short-term result. But what will be the long-term?

 

[oliveu2cm]

Re: Re: I'm shifting positions

Only if there is "credible threat of war" (like Jack Straw refers to it) Saddam will continue to disarm. And he started cooperating, he destroyed dozens of his As-Samud 2 missiles.

Haven't we been giving him this option for years? (Not being cheeky, I really don't know.)

This "thing" (for lack of better word) has shown me how people can manipulate fear into a HUGE motivating factor- supports of presidents/prime ministers seem to be all hindering on fear, the "what if we don't".. but then again, look at the first attack on the world trade center; what if we had acted against al queda then?





Another question I thought of: what is it going to take for a U.S. victory?? I mean, when, after the bombings & the war, does the U.S. say "okay we win"? Do we have to just take out Saddam for that to happen? Do you think the U.S. has the means to win this war? Do you think Saddam will retaliate with attacks on U.S. soil?

Maybe I should have started a new thread for all those questions but there are so many discussions anyway. Thanks for everyone's opinions/thoughts.

 

[ALEXRUS]

Re: Re: Re: I'm shifting positions

Another question I thought of: what is it going to take for a U.S. victory?? I mean, when, after the bombings & the war, does the U.S. say "okay we win"? Do we have to just take out Saddam for that to happen? Do you think the U.S. has the means to win this war? Do you think Saddam will retaliate with attacks on U.S. soil?

U will win the war. It will take lives of your servicemen... How many? God knows. I am only sure there will be no relatives of Mr.Rumsfeld or Mr.Cheney among them. Saddam will not retaliate (others will), he's got no means for that, too debilitated after the Gulf War.

 

[deep]

Sometimes I think we live in the ?United States of Amnesia?


All these attempts to link Iraq to 911.

Some of you are repeating false information.
Our own CIA has said there is no credible link.


And?.

If linkage to 911 is relevant and reason for regime change?

Were not 15 of the 19 hi-jackers Saudi. 9-11 was financed by Saudi funds.


This logic suggests that after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we should have attacked China.

 

[Screaming Flower]

deep i'm confused as to who, in this thread, you think is linking al qaeda to iraq?

 

[nbcrusader]

Are we suggesting that Saddam's hands are clean with respect to terrorism?

 

[Dreadsox]

I just reread the entire thread too...

Who is arguing there is an Al-Qaeda link?

 

[deep]

sorry guys,

i read too fast

i thought olive suggested a link here



"what if we don't".. but then again, look at the first attack on the world trade center; what if we had acted against al queda then?




I was born in the USA*

*Amnnesia

 

[ALEXRUS]

Are we suggesting that Saddam's hands are clean with respect to terrorism?

Not a single intelligence service has evidence that there is a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Never heard of that.
Everybody knows (intelligence, diplomats, media) that Saddam has been sponsoring Palestinian terrorists or at least paid money to the families of Palestinian kamikazes. That's it.

 

[deep]

Are we suggesting that Saddam's hands are clean with respect to terrorism?

are you referring to monies paid to palastinian families?

i understand how isralies consider this aiding terrorism.

but, this does not constitude an attack on america.

 

[nbcrusader]

Not a single intelligence service has evidence that there is a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Never heard of that.

Interesting. President Bush just made a statement to the contrary this evening. If it is an obvious lie, I would expect every Democrat considering the office in 2004 to call him on it. If it is an obvious lie, the silence is deafening.