Arguments for war

[rhino 0]

Quote

This is earth shattering. I hope that very soon the US takes the opportunity to reflect upon the opnions of its former closest alies.

Agreed....

[billvon 3,006]

>I have heard no direct "blame" against Iraq for 9/11.

There is none; it is cleverly implied. Just take one line from Bush's SOTU address: "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained." He does not say there is a direct link, but he readily implies it. And it's working - more than 50% of people in a CNN poll thought that at least one of the 9/11 terrorists was Iraqi, and more than 60% thought Hussein had a link to what happened. Even here in this forum we've seen half a dozen people say that Hussein must be toppled so we don't have another 9/11.

I have to give him credit on this one for a good PR campaign.

>Why? If Iraq has no ties to Al Qaeda or isn't linked to 9/11, why would
> Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian or Syrians mind about Hussein?

Because Iraqi war refugees in Syria who have seen their families killed by US bombs will likely be somewhat mad at the US; these are the people who will become Al Quaeda's next wave of suicide bombers.

>But the switch you are talking about would cost 100x more if the current
> oil supply is not stabalized.

No, it will cost about the same, it will just be more painful if it has to happen during an emergency rather than over 10 years. Of course, without an emergency (i.e with a stable source of oil) nothing will ever happen. AggieDave will keep his big gas-powered truck and drive huge distances in it lugging only himself and his rig; people all over LA will buy ever-larger SUV's because they're "safer."

Alternatives are available now. The Honda natural gas car costs about 25% more than the equivalent gas-powered car; biodiesel costs around $3/gallon. Hardly "100x the price." If we push for the change now it will be relatively painless. If we wait until gas is $10 a gallon it will be incredibly painful.

>Where do you get 100,000 from?

We killed between 100,000 and 200,000 in the last war; this time we're using a "shock and awe" campaign to saturation-bomb Baghdad into compliance early on in the war. It's a pretty safe bet that we'll see at least the same number of casualties, given the larger amounts of ordnance we will be throwing at a populous city rather than at troops in a desert.

>Bill, you contradict yourself, you say in one thread that DPRK doesn't
> have the means to reach us and then you speculate on another about
> untested missiles . . .

They are untested. However, Baghdad does not even have untested missiles that could reach the US. They have less ability to harm us both now and in the immediate future. Surely you do not claim that an aggressive ICBM and nuclear-weapons program poses no threat to the US?

>Where is Pakistan's weapons proliferation activity documented?

"Frank Pallone, Congressman and New Jersey Democrat, has slammed the United States administration for ignoring Pakistan's involvement in supplying North Korea critical equipment that was used to start a covert nuclear programme by Pyongyang."

http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/oct/26us.htm

>That is why the policy is "regime" change. That means Saddam, his
>family, his deputies, aids, maids, janitors, bodyguards, body-doubles...

Unfortunately, most proposals for post-war governments intend to keep most of the government intact, just essentially "decapitate" it.

>34 dismantled Al Samoud missiles is hardly disarming, especially if
>Saddam still has blueprints.

Heck, _I_ could get blueprints for ancient soviet missiles! In any case, I am going to have to go with Blix's take on this one. He considers the disarmament significant - in his words, those missiles "were not toothpicks."

> Unfortunately, the hatred is not stemmed from our policy, it is
>stemmed by the policies that others would have their citizens believe.

Ordinarily I would agree. However, there's a big difference between hating someone you've never met over their politics, and hating them because they killed your family. One will inspire far more people willing to die in the name of revenge than the other.

[base698 19]

Quote

We treat other countries much better than we are treated Bill. The gov. sends tons of money and aid all over the planet and doesn't stop even when those same countries shit on us.

Governments... not necessarily the people. In many cases its because we want something they can provide. The money is also quite frequently in the form of military aid that is used to keep dictatorships in powerthe people are not at all for. See Saudi Arabia, Israel (in the case of the Palestinians), Iran (until the people revolted) and Venezuela.

We do not have a crystal clear image in the world and especially the Middle East and I believe this crucial to understanding the concerns of war. Ironically, one of the worst oppressors of the region was France. I seriously think their main problem with war is that they aren't getting a cut of the pie...

[MC208B 0]

Step away from the bong Bill, repeat, step away from the bong

Bill, this will be the last post from me on this stuff, honest!

I'm not aware of the US supporting cutting any womens throats anywhere. Can you be specific about what you are talking about?

The US will survive because we are not seeking "empire" status. Last time I checked we don't have any ambitions on having "the sun never sets on the United States"

And as for the benevelent USSR (had they won the cold war), didn't Stalin murder about 10 million of his own citizens? And before you write back and say Stalin didn't do it, I didn't mean it that way, be a lot of fucking reloading to waste 10 million people huh?

I do agree with you that the US government isn't "pure". Air America supplied the heroin to us in the Nam to finance their "secret" war in Laos and Cambodia and I'm sure that they have a lot of other cards they aren't showing.

However, any of those fucks that were involved in murdering 3,000 Americans for the crime of getting out of bed and going to work, deserve to go see Allah as soon as possible with our assistance.

I don't apologize for my views Bill. I support the President (even tho I don't agree with Iraq as a target). And I don't apologize for being an American (not that it matters but my family is back to 1809 in the US).

WE will win against ANY of our enimies Bill, anywhere, anytime cause we have people that are willing to defend your right to spout your socialist horseshit. As I did 31 yeas ago.

Anyway, that's enuf of this. If you're in the Pacific NW or I'm down in So Cal, maybe we can do a 2 way sometime, we're all skydivers here

[JJohnson 0]

Of the appoximate 100,000 Iraq casulties in the Gulf War, 85,000 of them were actual combatants......After BillVon's numerous references to this I did some digging and thats what I found. Every time Bill mentions it, it sounds like we killed 100K of women and preschool kids.

Anyway all of this war shit is the same BS that has been being thrown around for the last few months.....the reasons and arguements are the same, just rehashed. Either Iraq complies and soon or there is going to be death and destruction, followed by further death and destruction.

JJ

"Call me Darth Balls"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

I was sorry to see the other thread (where do you stand?) decay to its usual impasse.......

An argument for war, Bill?

UN sanctioned action is the only valid argument. Anything less and this is a lynch mob. Its imperialism at its very worst, and its seen by many around the world as illegal.

I fully agree that a can of whoop ass needs to be opened on Saddam, but the label on that can must read "Made in the UN", not "Produce of Texas".
And this "Secret Intel" doesn't cut it with me, show me the truth. In fact, don't show it to me, show it to the UN security council. I'll let them decide it's validity, as they are much wiser and better informed than I am.

After 12 years of sanction busting, you'd think there would be a better "case for the prosecution" than the one I, or the members of the security council, haven't seen yet.

I fail to see the logic of the coalition leaders. If you are going to use the enforcement of a UN resolution for the rationale behind armed conflict, you really should have the 'approval' of the UN to act in their name.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I fail to see the logic of the coalition leaders. If you are going to use the enforcement of a UN resolution for the rationale behind armed conflict, you really should have the 'approval' of the UN to act in their name.

If you don't enforce your resolutions then your group is both ineffective and worthless. The Un has slipped to the point where they should replace the name to league of nations

[wmw999 2,457]

We have to be a significant contributor to the UN. By not paying our dues, and by saying it doesn't count if they don't agree with us, the US significantly contributes to its weakness. Really.

This seems to be in part a "who's stronger politically, the UN or the US" kind of pissing match. That's childish and dangerous.

I pretty much agree across the line with what Nacmac posted about war and Saddam.

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)

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

the US significantly contributes to its weakness.

IT'S weakness is it's unwillingness to act on it's own resolution. It's is now and it more than likely always will be a anti-american, anti-semitic (sp?) group. I for one am tired of whiny a$$ 3rd world piss ants who take MY tax money in the form of aid and bad mouth the US. The USA gives more relief both as a government and privately than any other Nation in the world, possibly all other nations in total. You hate us, good go to the Germans and French for your aid. Europe needs to remember we rebuilt the area with US Tax money.

[rhino 0]

Quote

IT'S weakness is it's unwillingness to act on it's own resolution. It's is now and it more than likely always will be a anti-american, anti-semitic (sp?) group. I for one am tired of whiny a$$ 3rd world piss ants who take MY tax money in the form of aid and bad mouth the US. The USA gives more relief both as a government and privately than any other Nation in the world, possibly all other nations in total. You hate us, good go to the Germans and French for your aid. Europe needs to remember we rebuilt the area with US Tax money.
The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."

Well said!!

[billvon 3,006]

> Of the appoximate 100,000 Iraq casulties in the Gulf War, 85,000 of
> them were actual combatants....

Correct, since we were bombing troops in the desert, we could keep civilian fatalities relatively low. This time, we're unleashing a "shock and awe" campaign that will send ~400 cruise missiles primarily to Baghdad on the first day of the conflict (we used less than that during the entire first Gulf War.) To hope that there will be less than 100,000 deaths, and that the deaths will be primarily military, is dreaming. During the last war we targeted the military - this time we are targeting the people of Baghdad.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said a Pentagon official recently. Unfortunately that applies to troops, Hussein sympathizers, women, and 13 year old girls.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

During the last war we targeted the military - this time we are targeting the people of Baghdad.

We are not targeting civilians with weapons. Where did you get this from? Maybe you can say that we are targeting their will to fight but we are not attempting to kill civilians.

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

[MC208B 0]

Remember those really cool pictures of the cruise missles flying down the streets in Bagdad in 91? Yeah, it was Bagdad. Them darn things are accurate to about 10 yards of their target I think.

If Saddam puts civilians in military targets, it's his bad, not ours.

I would suggest that the folks in Bagdad get hold of U Haul (or their brand movers) and get the hell out

I do agree with you Bill that this Iraq deal is a crock as is all of our dealings in the middle east.

But I also agree that if their is any evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the evnents of Sept 11th or aided those involved, they're fair game.

Of course, it would be nice to see the evidence first.

Mike

[billvon 3,006]

> Step away from the bong Bill, repeat, step away from the bong!

No problem! Just please, pick up a single history textbook. Or even just get on the web and spend five minutes looking stuff up. You'll see that there's more to history than what you hear on FOX news.

>I'm not aware of the US supporting cutting any womens throats
>anywhere. Can you be specific about what you are talking about?

Easy. Just do a google search on the following:

"contras nicaragua human rights"

We created the contras to oppose a new regime in nicaragua. They were illegally financed by the US, and killed aid workers, doctors and families in their fight against the Sandanistas. A quote from a US marine who saw this firsthand:

"I don’t mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your Government and its agents are doing.

“They go into villages. They haul out families. With the children forced to watch, they castrate the father. They peel the skin off his face. They put a grenade in his mouth, and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch, they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes, for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children."

Or try "reagan CIA mujahideen." We financed the Mujahideen, islamic terrorists who attacked the USSR forces in Afghanistan for us. Or did that not count because the people's throats they slit were Russian?

>The US will survive because we are not seeking "empire" status.

Really? I even see people here saying we should be the world's cop, that we should ignore what other countries are saying and instead establish a US version of international justice and impose democracy wherever we desire. Other countries may well see this as a country with empire ambitions. We can prove them wrong by dealing through the UN rather than unilaterally. We have done a good job of this so far; let's not ignore them at the most critical juncture.

>And as for the benevelent USSR (had they won the cold war), didn't
> Stalin murder about 10 million of his own citizens?

Agreed. Stalin was far from benevolent. But Kruschev wanted nothing more than to spread communism throughout the world; his stated and apparent goal was to see communist governments rise througout the world. You might remember a war or two over this ambition. If we'd become a communist country he would have "won." Why attack a country you've just beaten?

And if you think that the USSR was an evil empire dedicated to the death and torture of everyone outside its borders, you have once again fallen prey to our version of propaganda. Take off those flag-colored glasses!

[billvon 3,006]

>We are not targeting civilians with weapons. Where did you get this from?

We are targeting a civilian city; we are not targeting civilians directly. In other words, we're firing into a crowd to try to kill a mugger who is somewhere in the crowd. We're not trying to hit the innocents in the crowd but chances are we will, and we'll kill a lot more innocents than muggers.

Even the pentagon admits it's going to be bad. From the NYT:
---------
General Myers gave a stark warning that the American attack would result in Iraqi civilian casualties despite the military's best efforts to prevent them.

"We need to condition people that that is war. People get the idea this is going to be antiseptic. Well, it's not going to be."
--------------

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

If you don't enforce your resolutions then your group is both ineffective and worthless. The Un has slipped to the point where they should replace the name to league of nations

That is the popular opinion in the US media.

Oddly, when you start reading the foreign press, including England, you see a very different idea, that the UN is playing exactly the role it was created to do - discourage war. In the rest of the world, the current "crisis" is largely seen as the UN's greatest triumph.

It's also seen as playing a critical role in balancing the empirical power of the US. No surprise that this doesn't make the current administration happy.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[kmcguffee 0]

Well this is what you said

Quote

this time we are targeting the people of Baghdad.

We are targeting military command and control, factories that build military equipment, residences of gov't leaders, transportation infrastructure, etc. All of these are valid military targets. They are a far cry from "targeting the people of Baghdad".

This

Quote

despite the military's best efforts to prevent them.

would seem to indicate that we are not trying to kill civilians.

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

[andybr6 0]

"Remember those really cool pictures of the cruise missles flying down the streets in Bagdad in 91? Yeah, it was Bagdad. Them darn things are accurate to about 10 yards of their target I think."***

-----------------------------------------------

Missiles can and frequently do miss. The USA or any military using these so called smart weapons have not got a great track record. Also even if one does hit dead on target a missile cannot tell the difference between a munitions factory and a hospital, they are merely supposed to fly to the target which is programmed into them, this relies soley on the quality of the inteligence.

------------------------------------------------

"All men can fly, but sadly, only in one direction"

[MC208B 0]

Hi Bill,

Sorry, it's me again.

I remember a Krushev quote quite well "We will bury you!" As in the USSR vs the US. Hey, maybe they will....financially with all those Ruskies over here on welfare and SSI!

That's some scary shit down there in Central America in the 80's huh? Wonder why the Sandanistas are no longer in power there?

I don't believe much of the stuff I get off the net, same as I don't believe most of the stuff the media and Seann Penn say.

We (Americans) are not a terrorist state. We have no designs on world domination. Actually, we did the work and paid for rebuilding Europe and Japan after WW2.

We could have taken over the world then Bill.

[billvon 3,006]

>I remember a Krushev quote quite well "We will bury you!"

Yep. And if there had been a revolution that replaced capitalism with communism in the US - they would have.

>That's some scary shit down there in Central America in the 80's huh?
>Wonder why the Sandanistas are no longer in power there?

Partly because we financed terrorists to help overthrow them. Among other means, they did this (in the words of another poster) by "slitting women's throats." If you believe in "the ends always justify the means" then that works - but it's also a great argument to defend the next terrorist attack on the US.

>We (Americans) are not a terrorist state.

Fortunately, that is true. We should act like we're not.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

We treat other countries much better than we are treated Bill. The gov. sends tons of money and aid all over the planet and doesn't stop even when those same countries shit on us.

Governments... not necessarily the people. In many cases its because we want something they can provide. The money is also quite frequently in the form of military aid that is used to keep dictatorships in powerthe people are not at all for. See Saudi Arabia, Israel (in the case of the Palestinians), Iran (until the people revolted) and Venezuela.

We do not have a crystal clear image in the world and especially the Middle East and I believe this crucial to understanding the concerns of war. Ironically, one of the worst oppressors of the region was France. I seriously think their main problem with war is that they aren't getting a cut of the pie...

Ummm - that quote was incorrectly attributed to me.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

the US significantly contributes to its weakness.

IT'S weakness is it's unwillingness to act on it's own resolution. It's is now and it more than likely always will be a anti-american, anti-semitic (sp?) group. I for one am tired of whiny a$$ 3rd world piss ants who take MY tax money in the form of aid and bad mouth the US. The USA gives more relief both as a government and privately than any other Nation in the world, possibly all other nations in total.

Do you have a reference for that "fact"? I recall the last two quotes you printed turned out to be bogus.

...

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

[VectorBoy 0]

>As for when we are no longer THE superpower, that's not going to
> happen Bill. The United States will never stoop to any other nation
> ever.

Now that's funny! We'll last longer than the Greek, Roman and British empires? Empires have risen and fallen, but that won't happen to us because we're different? I suggest you read up on your history. Even now, the best students in our colleges are foreigners, and they are returning to their countries with that knowledge and those skills. They are the future.
__________________________________________________
Some are also staying in this country to be part of this country, we are all foreigners.
__________________________________________________
Wrong, wrong wrong. Nothing against college grads but that is not why our country is great. Since you missed that class in college I'll explain that it also involves the working person: who can think as brilliantly as his lucky college brethren and is willing to DO what it takes to keep his country on top. An environment that contains certain freedoms that allow people to suceed at their challenges. Many counties have brilliant people but few also have a system that allows them the freedoms to have a positive effect. Many of these things we take for granted.
We will be a model for a long time


>Perhaps you should head on down to the beach, assume the lotus
> position and chant to your higher power.

That was mean guy, Its not true is it Bill? Glen

[billvon 3,006]

> Nothing against college grads but that is not why our country is great.
> Since you missed that class in college I'll explain that it also involves the
>working person: who can think as brilliantly as his lucky college brethren
>and is willing to DO what it takes to keep his country on top. An
>environment that contains certain freedoms that allow people to suceed
>at their challenges. Many counties have brilliant people but few also have
>a system that allows them the freedoms to have a positive effect.

Absolutely; that's why we have been a leader for so long. That leadership is having an effect. Other countries are beginning to follow suit. Their people are mortgaging everything they have to come to the US to go to college, then return to their country and set up IC foundries, software companies and medical labs. Often they are doing that in countries that do not have the same restrictions the US does against research (i.e. stem cell use, cloning.) That's where some of the next breakthroughs in treatment of Alzheimer's will come from, for example.

We've done a great job as a leader. Other countries are following our lead. We will be a leader for a while yet, but that won't go on forever. We've been a world power for about 100 years now. Do you honestly think that we will continue exactly as we are now for 1000 years? Do you think that Caesar could forsee the day when the mighty Roman empire would fall? Yet fall it did, because the one constant is change. That applies to us as well.

[SpeedRacer 1]

My Dad emailed this to me. I'm not sure of the source:
------------------------------------------
As one savvy official observed, occupying Baghdad comes at an
"unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional
relationships."

Another expert put it this way: "We should not march
into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our
coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken
tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a
fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them
to
fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only
plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

Those comments may overemphasize the risks, but they are from top-notch
analysts whose judgments I respect. The first comment was made by Colin
Powell in a Foreign Affairs essay in 1992; the second is in "A World
Transformed," a 1998 book by the first President Bush.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------