I'm shifting positions - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-17-2003, 08:11 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 04:11 AM
I'm shifting positions

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.
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 11:50 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm

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.

__________________

__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 12:04 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:11 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 12:55 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 08:11 AM
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.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 01:01 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 01:02 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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??
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 01:05 PM   #7
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:11 AM
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
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 01:29 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 03:11 AM
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.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 02:54 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:11 AM
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 countriesí opinions. Bush listened to the wrong advisors.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 03:13 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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.
__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 03:28 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 03:43 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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 countriesí 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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 03:45 PM   #13
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 09:11 AM
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
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 04:39 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia.
Posts: 6,117
Local Time: 06:11 PM
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.
__________________
cass is offline  
Old 03-17-2003, 05:56 PM   #15
Refugee
 
follower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Porto Alegre/Brasil
Posts: 2,302
Local Time: 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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 countriesí 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.
__________________

__________________
follower is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com