UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately
POSTED BY: Haken
UPDATED: Monday, May 10, 2004 04:48
VIEWED: 25999
PAGE 3 of 11
What would you have us do? There are a lot of people who are against the war, but I have yet to hear a better course of action.
(P.s. no going back and changing the past, that's cheating).
-------------------------------------
Jayne: Hey, I didn't fight in no war. Best of luck, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That is a very good question. There is no easy answer to it. But I think that war creates more problems than it solves - just look at the Afghanistan war 20 years ago which started that whole mess... (and where US actually educated and supported Bin Laden - one of those short-sighted decisions I am afraid of now)
Also, everybody is talking about Saddam and how to stop him. But is anybody talking about the 22 million Iraqis? How many of them will have to die in this high-tech war? And how many of them would rather live under Saddam than die by an american soldier?
But back to your question: Instead of putting in sick amounts of money into the military, this money could be used to increase the life standard in those countries. As an example: Greece and Turkey are what you could call 'natural' enemies. They have a long past of very cruel wars, Greece was occupied by Turkey for over 500 years. They hate each other. A couple of years ago, they had a crisis again, with warships already being sent to the middle sea etc. But they didn't start it. Why? Because their main income is tourism. If they start a war, they can forget the money coming in. So the economic interest was greater than their hate.
Bottomline: If people are fed and see a future for their kids, its not that easy to make them into terrorists...
Merl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, off with the gloves-this ain't gonna go on by no kind of civilized rules.
Bin Laden didn't have to take our help and money, but he did. He didn't like us, but joined with us anyway. Then he turned on us.
That's OUR fault? He was a religious fella, from a good Saudi family, and was fighting the same guys we were. "Need help there, bud?" "I think you are evil, but sure, gimme some cash, guns, intelligence. Don't worry, you can trust me." He stabbed us in the back, very literally, and you think that's our fault?
And what the hell is with you and your wimpy fellow crybabies, like Nic, anyway? Why aren't you crying about the poor folks, your neighbors and friends, dying on our highways right now?? Why aren't you standing guard on our borders to protect us the socio-economic erosion of drugs, and illegal immigrants? I could go on, but SURELY you get my drift.
Fewer Americans will die in Iraq than will die this year on our highways. Throw in murders related to crime and substance abuse, and I'm betting you might see twice as many Americans killed by Americans as soldiers killed by Iraqis this year.
As for the poor Iraqi people...pfffffft. Many are starving, all are oppressed, they live in social and political conditions that would drive me (and I hope you) to violence or leaving. The ONLY reason they stand for it is that's how they were raised.
And, are you bashing our soldiers? You gonna be out there with Jane Fonda, calling them baby killers? Those men and women are your neighbors and friends--do you really think they'll be wandering the streets of Bagdad, slaughtering civilians, burning, looting, rioting? Do you care how stupid that sounds?
Get out Saddam! That's the message. No Saddam, no war, that's the message. Instead, he is preparing to use poison gasses, biological weapons, in the borders of his own country. Is that ok with you? He is preparing to attack neighboring countries, countries not involved, like Israel. Is that ok with you?
Oh my, well, if we just left him alone, he wouldn't feel so threatened, and he could be peaceful and happy and help his neighbors...
Like Kuwait, like Iran, like Israel.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
All evil needs to prosper is for good to do nothing
tanstaafl
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I figured I'd join in the fray. I will not judge other people's opinions but I agree with Nicola and Merlindrea. We as a nation should not be respected for our weaponry but rather for our wisdom and diplomacy. This war will be costly in terms of human lives, political alliances, economics. Support out troops! Bring them back before they die. Here are some interesting articles from liberal and conservative points of view. They address some of the issues raised in this forum. Everything below this line was culled from other sources.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Here is a list of the countries bombed by the US since the end of WWII.
>
> China 1945-46
> Korea 1950-53
> China 1950-53
> Guatemala 1954
> Indonesia 1958
> Cuba 1959-60
> Guatemala 1960
> Congo 1964
> Peru 1965
> Laos 1964-73
> Vietnam 1961-73
> Cambodia 1969-70
> Guatemala 1967-69
> Granada 1983
> Libya 1986
> El Salvador '80s
> Nicaragua '80s
> Panama 1989
> Iraq 1991-99
> Sudan 1998
> Afghanistan 1998
> Yugoslavia 1999
>
> Question: in how many of these countries did the bombing help to get a democracy respectful of human rights?
>
>
> Select an answer:
>
>
> (a) 0
> (b) zero
> (c) none
> (d) not even one
> (e) an integer between -1 and +1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congressman Speaks Out on Looming Iraq War
U.S. Representative John J. Duncan (R-TN)
March 6, 2003
"Conservatives Against a War with Iraq"
Most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.
A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come
out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following:
Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension - urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another - has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: "an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."
James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.
It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions, yet we have not threatened war against them.
It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would have us support the brave men and women in uniform who are over there right now, living through the longest 48 hours of their lives.
I would have us pray that casualties are as minimal as possible, both for the innocent and for those carrying out the orders of our President.
I would pray for the impossible--that somehow that cold dead husk in the place where Saddam's heart is supposed to be suddenly experiences a tiny spark of warmth that inspires him to leave Bagdad.
I would pray that when history looks back on what's about to happen, there will be more lessons learned. Looking back on what I wrote, Wulf's response, and the events of last night, I take back the "careening out of control" bit written yesterday.
Everything that could be done has been. Somebody's got to take care of Saddam Hussein. If that Somebody has to be the U.S., then so be it.
still walkin and talkin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
wow, Randy...that's...quite a tome.
still walkin and talkin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Channain, I think you were right in your original message. Things ARE careening out of control. I too re-read Wulf's response. Unfortunately, the issues of causality and subsequent ramifications are not quite so simple. Yes, Saddam is bad. But war is not the only option. As the articles I attached above mention, containment is another option that is less costly on all fronts. The urgency we feel on this issue is an artificial one imposed on us by the government. A year ago, it was not a hot issue. The decisions people are making are based on information from the government whom has already proved to be an unreliable source on multiple occasions. Evidence that never turned up. Terrorist threats that were rescinded because they were based on incorrect information. Remember that true democracy requires some skepticism of government propaganda and the ability to think on your own. To blindly follow is to be like "cattle for the slaugher" (Bushwhacked). Many political experts around the world agree that waiting a few months and allowing the inspections to continue would have cost the U.S. nothing. And what of North Korea? While the U.S. has yet to prove Iraq has any WMDs, North Korea is blantantly displaying them. Why are they not a higher priority? You have to ask yourself these questions. As far as the terrorist issue, by alienating the world and acting as the global police without any overseeing body, it will only make terrorists more determined to fight this superpower imposing its rules and regulations on the world. Which comes first? The chicken or the egg? Are we attacking a symptom or creating the disease? On the high moral road, we say we want to free the Iraqi people from oppression. That's all good and well and we all want that. But isn't it ironic that in order to give the Iraqi people a voice, we won't listen to any other country's voice? Well, only those that agree with us. Anyone notice this siimilarity to "the Alliance?" This is an extremely complex and delicate issue and should be handled as such. But MOAB bombs are hardly delicate. Imagine the innocent Iraqis who will be burned from the inside out.
There are a couple of things I don't understand about Wulf's message. He talks about "socio-economic erosion" and murders in the U.S. to justify war. That seems sorta backward. Yes, those are huge problems here. And it seems a perfect argument to an anti-war stance. Instead of spending billions (isn't it estimated at $6 billion?) in Iraq, why not spend that money here where we need it to fight the "socio-economic erosion" and "American [being] killed by Americans". And don't for a second think that once we kill Saddam that Iraq won't turn into a huge money pit. That is taking food out of the mouths of our own hungry children, education from our own struggling schools.
Another thing that Wulf seems to assume is that if you do not support the war, you do not support the troops. While a neat and easy conclusion, it is quite simplistic as they are NOT mutually exclusive. Though I may not support this war (I would certainly reconsider if it were UN sanctioned), you cannot say I do not support the troops. I don't believe Merlindrea said that either. I support them 100%. They are doing a difficult and admirable service for all Americans. But I would rather they were brought home safe and sound without a one of them dying especially in a war that has yet to be proven as unavoidable. How can that be taken as NOT supporting the troops? Seeing families wrenched apart makes this war seem even less compelling.
So that's my take.
"...morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with" - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Randy, thanks so much! I didn't want to reply to Wulf right away, because I wanted to cool down first 
I just wanted to say that I admire America and its history of democracy. Gosh, I am German and where would I be today if America hadn't stepped in? I love to live here and I found wonderful friends here. The city I am living in has an Airforce academy and several bases, a lot of military personnel. My best friend's husband here is in the military. And I can go shopping on Sunday's! 
But that does not mean that I have to like and agree with everything what's going on, does it? There is a german phrase, which I really like:
"Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden."
Rough translation:
"Freedom is always the freedom of the person disagreeing with you, too."
So, Wulf, I accept you have a different opinion, but I would appreciate a less aggressive tone 
Merl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
Channain, I think you were right in your original message. Things ARE careening out of control. I too re-read Wulf's response. Unfortunately, the issues of causality and subsequent ramifications are not quite so simple.
actually Babylon 5 has been coming to mind a lot lately. I do keep thinking there's some seruptitious political issue here that we're missing. oil is just way too obvious.
here's a question. could last night's ultimatum have been issued with the hope or even some vague information that someone inside Saddam's circle would take care of him? the Iraqi's have to be ten times as concerned as we are about what impact a war will have on their people. will someone take the initiative, declare it the greater good and sacrifice themselves to deal with him? am I being naive for even thinking such a thing?
side bar: my step-nephew is in the Navy. we used to be close, but haven't spoken in awhile so I'm not sure where he's posted.
"Still walkin and talkin." ~ Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME