Maybe, Just Maybe, Good Was Done?

[johnc]

BTW... it looks like Syria/Lebannon will be the next flash point: http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/03/converging-us-navy-aircraft-carrier.html

[johnc]

And here's Kofi Anon's plan to stop terrorism:

 

http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm

 

126. The task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority but to make it work better. When considering whether to authorize or endorse the use of military force, the Council should come to a common view on how to weigh the seriousness of the threat; the proper purpose of the proposed military action; whether means short of the use of force might plausibly succeed in stopping the threat; whether the military option is proportional to the threat at hand; and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. By undertaking to make the case for military action in this way, the Council would add transparency to its deliberations and make its decisions more likely to be respected, by both Governments and world public opinion. I therefore recommend that the Security Council adopt a resolution setting out these principles and expressing its intention to be guided by them when deciding whether to authorize or mandate the use of force.

 

And, to fund all of this, Kofi basically wants the UN to get .7% of the Gross Domestic Product of ALL the developed nations:

 

They should, in honouring Article 23 of the Charter, increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically, specifically in terms of contributions to United Nations assessed budgets, participation in mandated peace operations, contributions to voluntary activities of the United Nations in the areas of security and development, and diplomatic activities in support of United Nations objectives and mandates. Among developed countries, achieving or making substantial progress towards the internationally agreed level of 0.7 per cent of GNP for ODA should be considered an important criterion of contribution;

 

It appears to me that the basis of Kofi's plan to prevent terrorism is to bribe undeveloped and terrorist supporting nations to keep them from exporting violence.

 

Let's look at what Kofi expects the US to contribute annually to the terrorist kickback fund (what I call the UN budget):

 

2004 US GDP (in chained 2000 dollars): $10,842,600,000,000.00

.7% of that figure: $75,898,200,000.00

 

That's $7.6 BILLION dollars Kofi expects the US to contribute to the UN each year. The UN's "claimed" operating budget is $1.5 billion but what they actually take in a spend through their various programs is almost impossible to figure out.

 

BTW... I'll add this from the report for those that think we should rely on the UN to help with our (or any country's) security:

 

74. While, in the development sphere, we suffer from weak implementation, on the security side, despite a heightened sense of threat among many we lack even a basic consensus and implementation, where it occurs, is all too often contested.

 

75. Unless we can agree on a shared assessment of these threats and a common understanding of our obligations in addressing them, the United Nations will lag in providing security to all of its members and all the world's people. Our ability to assist those who seek freedom from fear will then be partial at best.

 

Even the UN admits that its current programs and policies are futile in providing any form of security. It still can't (after 35 years) define the word "terrorism."

[pparaska]

Sounds like you guys have a personal vendetta with the "anti-war" movement, but you have GOT to stop confusing me with an anti-war activist or a pacifist. I'm not afraid to whoop some @ss- IF necessary. Sorry if I lost my temper earlier. Politics and religion (inextricably linked forever) are subjects I am very passionate about (probably the same for everyone reading this), and it can be hard to accept others' views.

 

IMO, from reading things you're written here, and the way you wrote them, your arguments are very much aligned with those of anti-war activists.

 

There's no vendetta against the anti-war types from me. We're having a debate about whether the anti-war people may have blown the protest horn too hard.

 

I must question the logic of arguments people present when they tell me that they are passionate about something, or get worked up over something and post stuff based on those feelings. It's impossible to have a decent debate if those things are not kept in check.

 

Pparaska' date='

I don't disagree with much of what you are trying to say. I think it all comes down to one difference though - I never saw any evidence proving that war was the only option left open for us to solve the situation in Iraq.[/quote']

 

We'll have to disagree on that point. As Mikelly pointed out, we gave Saddam so many chances for so long that he had plenty of time to hid the outward evidence of his WMD programs. What he couldn't completely hide was all the expensive dual use infrastructure he put in place for Chem and Bio WMD, hidden under the guise of peacetime facilities. Saddam is no fool and knows this was the only way he could keep any kind of WMD capability intact while being able to say on it's face that he was complying with the UN inspection sanctions and have no smoking gun for the inspectors to find.

 

Obviously you thought it was the only option, and I don't doubt it has to do with your party affiliation, and you taking the Administrations' word for it, just like Congress did. Fair enough.

 

I resent that statement. You're in essence saying that I back the president's DOING SOMETHING about Saddam's regime because you think I'm a republican, and you think that is why I write the things I do. Yes, I'm registered republican, only so I can have a say in the republican primaries in my state (Maryland) to get the far right old boys out of the republican game - so that the rabid bleeding heart liberal democrats in this state can be put out of office a bit easier.

 

You're making an accusation that I say what I do because I'm a Republican. I say you don't know me well enough to make that accusation. And it's false on top of that. Read on.

 

However, Hans Blix (sp?) gave an interview shortly after the war broke out, talking alot about how the inspectors were having a hard time in years past, but were beginning to make progress in the months/years before the war. He said if they were given just a few more months they could have gathered the evidence they needed to show that there were no weapons/weapons programs (which we eventually found out the hard way anyhow).

 

I will not take Hans Blix's report or quotes for a statement of the truth, because I work in a closely related part of the business that he does and my sources do not jive with what he said and wrote - I can only assume he did what he did to serve a purpose other than telling the truth.

 

This Administration did exactly what every other Administration would have done: make excuses until the evidence is too great against them' date=' then change their mind, justifying the war as freeing the Iraqis. Great, they needed to be freed anyhow.

 

Yes' date=' but the anti-war protesters, etc. in this country and around the world make Dubya and the administration (and the Congress, by their votes) look like evil devils. I wonder if Bush's administration did not go to war, how many of those we see protesting now would be in the streets protesting that we hadn't gone to war to put him out because of his horrible atrocities.

 

I also wonder how many protesters ARE sore losers from the 2000 election.

And now from the 2004 election. Would the same set of people be so vocal if Gore had won (oops, been sworn in as president - many think he DID win) in 2000? A question we'll never know the answer to, but one I think that is an important one to understand the motives of US citizens that protest "the war in Iraq" and some of the anti-war arguments in this thread.

 

But like you said so yourself, we could have used covert action to drop Saddam's regime and avoid most of this mess.

 

I also said that the repurcussions of the way it WAS done non-covertly may have actually had a more positive effect on the middle east tyrannies. In other words, I'm questioning whether my desire to have done the Iraq regime change covertly would have had a less positive effect than the method that I was against.

 

If you justify going to war in this case, and you blame anyone who would have been "inactive", then you cannot justify NOT going to war with every other country/situation similar to Iraq in the world at this very moment. You would be contradicting yourself. For example, Iran actually DOES have WMD's, and a weapons program, DOES sponsor terror openly (including AL QUAIDA), and IS a perpetrator of human rights violations. So shouldn't you gear-up and go fight Iran? What about North Korea? What about the slaughter in Sudan? What about Fidel Castro? What about the AIDS epidemic? What about Gaza Strip? etc, etc, etc.....

 

Isn't this exactly the point of view I was pronouncing? In other words, no, I didn't contradict myself.

 

I don't think I'm that hard to understand, but maybe I wasn't clear about my opinions on this topic. Let me quote myself (http://forums.hybridz.org/showpost.php?p=528525&postcount=110) :

 

Does that mean that I condone just jumping in to every country that commits gross human rights violations or WMD programs? No. Diplomacy is a great tool and many times works. But with people like Saddam' date=' forget it, you have to take him out to get rid of the evil.

 

Does it mean that I feel that the US and the rest of the world powers waited too long to take out Saddam's regime, so that 100s of thousands (if not the 1.3 million I've quoted elsewhere) of people wouldn't have been killed by it? YES. If the UN were worth ANYTHING they'd worry about gross human rights violations and WMD programs by countries bent on empire building (sorry, talking about Saddam's Iraq, not us), they'd make this their priority instead of standing in the way of a few of the superpowers to do something about it. That and getting food, medicine, other necessities to people in those countries.[/quote']

 

Let me be more clear about that, since you misunderstood it and others might have as well - as well as take all your points one at a time.

 

This is the preamble to the UN's Charter:

"PREAMBLE

 

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

 

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

 

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

 

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

 

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

 

 

AND FOR THESE ENDS

 

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

 

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

 

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

 

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

 

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

 

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

 

If the UN (and of course, that means the US, since we pay for most of what they do either in armed forces or money) is to uphold this charter, I believe it should be doing the following:

 

- putting the screws to those governments who are committing huge human rights violations like those going on in Iraq before Feb 2003. If, after all diplomatic and other non-violent efforts have been exhausted, they don't stop, then the UN should go in and take out the government responsible, if feasible.

 

- putting the screws to hostile governments who insist on going after WMDs. Again, If, after all diplomatic and other non-violent efforts have been exhausted, they don't stop, then the UN should go in and take out the government responsible (if feasible), or at least have UNANNOUNCED, FREE FOR ALL inspections of the country.

 

- putting the screws to governments who insist on allowing, harboring, helping terrorists. Again, If, after all diplomatic and other non-violent efforts have been exhausted, they don't stop, then the UN should go in and take out the government responsible, if feasible.

 

- paying close attention to Iran, Syria, and NK. They all need to be dealt with severely for the WMD, Terroist, and human rights issues, along with several countries in Africa (Sudan). That means exhaust all reasonable diplomatic avenues, consider sanctions (that hurt the government and not the people - very difficult to do), and if all else fails, deal with the problem militarily.

 

- doing everyting possible to let the people of Cuba know that there is a much better alternative to their communist paths, and help them in what ever way we can to get to that place of democracy, after Fidel finally kicks the bucket. Military Action is not a valid option in my opinion.

 

- doing things for AIDs in Africa. But they are doing things, although surely more would be good. The problems of AIDs are ones of culture, education, research and treatments. We can help with the last three, but changing the culture is not our business, and making individuals follow the education you offer is not practical. This is a much different problem than simply taking out a inhumane, hostile regime.

 

- holding Isreal's leaders to the same standards as they (and we) do the rest of the world - staying within you own countries boundaries with settelments, totally abstaining from terrorism (which they have not done for the last 30+ years), etc. I hold the US's and UN's double standard for Isreal vs the rest of the world as a large part of the middle east problem, as well as the terrorist situation the world is in now. Believe me, I'd love to see US funding for Isreal cut to the bone and to have every attack on Palestinians dealt with as we did with Saddam in Kuwait.

 

In essence, I agree with the UN charter. I just think it has little resemblance to the UN's ACTIONS.

 

You see, you painted me as a blind republican, but if you read the above, I sound alot more like a liberal democrat. That's because my party affiliation has nothing to do with my politics. It's merely a voting card that allows me to vote in the republican primaries to help get a moderate republican population in Maryland's state and US legislatures. I'm a moderate who neither likes many of GWB's stances on things, or the far left democrats who ran for president. However, my upbringing has had a profound effect upon my opinions as well - to do what's right, even if it's uncomfortable to do so. I think independently, not with emotions tied up in the rhetoric of one party or another.

 

In my oppinion, we should have stuck to the original plan and focused on BIN LADEN, who murdered 3000 of our people, not to mention the countless other acts of terror his group is responsible for.

 

We DID and STILL CONTINUE to go after Bin Laden, even though the MSM likes to say otherwise. We don't need 150,000 troops to look for and find Osama - THAT would be a waste.

 

I don't buy for one second that we are as devoted to finding him as we could be when 400 billion dollars and *how many* troops are going to Iraq becuase of the insurgency we excited.

 

Throwing 400 billion dollars at finding Bin Laden would have been the most gross misuse of funds I can think of. There are many fronts on the war on terror, and Bin Laden is just one, and one that some terrorism experts say is less important than he used to be. The fundamentalist muslim terrorist are becomeing more indepent of Bin Laden, so taking him out is not as a decisive move as it once might have been.

 

I think Al Quaida was/is slightly more of a priority than Iraq, since they actually attacked us. I am in no way invalidating the lives we saved in Iraq by removing Saddam, the Iraqi people are just as important as anyone else. You keep acting as though I don't care about the murders Saddam's regime committed (even though I keep mentioning them). These were horrible attrocities, and needed to be stopped. However, Saddam's threat to the world was not as great as Al Quaida (remember: no weapons).

 

Since when does retaliation become more important than defending ourselves and innocent people from another country from a ruthless regime? Catching Bin Ladin won't bring back one of the 3000 or so people killed in the 9/11 terrorist strike. Catching him may help us to root out more Al Quaida terrorists and shut down training camps and infrastructure, if we can get him alive. But what else would it do, besides give us a feeling of vindication?

 

We could have made Bin Laden an example of how we deal with terrorists, and then moved on to Saddam. To this day Al Quaida has still been active, and that outrages me just as much as when Saddam was in power. But I don't hear any Republicans speaking out about it.

 

Even if you put the 400 billion dollars into finding Bin Laden, how sure are you we could find him, find him alive, and have any kind of positive impact on other terrorists? Al Quaida would still be active and have sleeper cells around the world.

 

This registered republican is speaking about it, and telling you that having Bin Laden in jail or dead would not gaurentee things would be any better for us or the world, from a terrorism standpoint. Yes, that's opinion, based on no real facts, just the ramblings of terrorism experts.

 

The thing is, I understand that this is a complex world, and that sacrifices must be made, just as Christ gave his life for our sins. Even though its hard to accept, I also know that in some cases, war is the only thing that can save lives in the long run. But I also know that some people in this world are very gung-ho and make brash decisions to go to war, leading to inevitable loss of life, such as this current war started by our government. Notice I said "government". I'm not just blaming GWB (even though I can't stand him), I'm blaming all the leaders who voted for the war, Republican and Democrat alike. Now that we're there, all I can hope is that the new Iraqi government will keep getting stronger, and we can slowly withdraw our troops in place of their own, so they are standing on their own two feet, allowing us to go find Al Quaida with full force. I'm praying for success in Iraq, but I still despise the leadership in Washington.

 

And some people resist war action no matter what the consequence of not going to war are. How do you know that the part of US government (the Bush administration) did this brashly and was gung-ho? Were you part of the strategy meetings, the decisions to do this? Do you really believe that they did not weigh the negatives in loss of human lives of coalition soldiers, innocent Iraqi's? I for one have more faith in the people who make up the administration, the government and the world in general to believe they did not, and that the tried to be intelligent about what they are doing and weigh these things out.

[crazy280]

Man.... Pete, Mike, John, you're gonna have to slow down a minute. It took me 20 minutes just to read the newest posts, where do you find the time for all this? I don't know about you guys, but I have a life outside of hybridz LOL.

I WILL get back to you though, have patience

[pparaska]

Man.... Pete' date=' Mike, John, you're gonna have to slow down a minute. It took me 20 minutes just to read the newest posts, where do you find the time for all this? I don't know about you guys, but I have a life outside of hybridz LOL.

I WILL get back to you though, have patience [/quote']

 

I've been on vacation alot lately, and trying to do taxes - but that gets boring REALLY quickly.

[Mikelly]

Pete, Pete, Pete... Careful, Crazy280 might compare you to Hitler and Bin Laden, as he did me...

 

It is almost, and I stress almost laughable how you have been pinned this ultra conservative republican... as I once was... Kills some to believe I'm pretty friggin' liberal and that I'm a registered independant voter... With GOOD reason.

 

Bottom line is most people weighing in on political subjects on this board are either TO CLOSE to the issues because of the WORK WE DO, or to FAR AWAY from washington and blinded by the Bullshit the media is shoveling down their throats...

 

As I've said many many times... Lots of real valid reasons I can get on board for bashing GWB and Donald Rumsfeld... Not a single one gets mentioned... I'd have donated money and actively campaigned for John Edwards as President... But that didn't happen. As usual the Democratic National Comedy routine brought Teresa Heins and her lacky Mr. Kerry to the party instead... What a shame...

 

Pete and John, Thanks to both of you for bringing it up a notch. I'm simply WAY TO CLOSE to this issue to not take it to a personal level...

 

Oh well, Back to fun stuff...

Mike

[Pop N Wood]

Bottom line is most people weighing in on political subjects on this board are either TO CLOSE to the issues because of the WORK WE DO' date=' or to FAR AWAY from washington and blinded by the Bullshit the media is shoveling down their throats...

 

[/quote']

 

I understand where you are coming from but this has to be the first time I have ever heard anyone say the view gets clearer the closer you get to Washington.

[pparaska]

I guess that's because all of Washington is not a big bureacracy like some people think. Over the past 16 years working either in or with US government people (DoD), I've known very few clueless people. What I usually find are people that are very thoughtful and intelligent, as well as people who try very hard to do the right thing with the taxpayer's money. Now if you want to talk about DC city government, it's a totally different thing! I won't go there.

 

What Mike means is that just listening to the media and much of what is out on the Internet about how things work in Washington is many times far from the truth. On matters such as WMDs, etc., you need to have security clearances or be involved with those that do to find out the truth about things.

 

That's what really chaps my hide - when I see those totally out of the circles where this stuff is going on making broad statements about what is and isn't the truth. Arm chair politicing on WMD issues from the college campus is about as far from the center of the facts as you can get. But that's what gets the press (just go read ucsusa.org or fas.org). Talk about aiding and abetting!

[Mikelly]

Pop, and everyone else for that matter, I prefer to refer to it as peeling the layers of an onion. Bottom line is some of us can pick up the phone and say "Turn on CNN in 2 hours and just watch, that's all I can say..." with good reason... Some of us can't... There are truths about our government that most people will never understand, and therefore will have to rely on other (Less credible) sources for... That's where your left leaning media giants come into play... THEY get denied access just like anyone else without the clearance...You think that makes them happy? SOOOO they splash whatever muck they see fit to print across their rags for two purposes... Selling copy and supporting THEIR agenda... Has nothing to do with truth and honor... Media and print journalism have simply gone to the bottom of the professional barrel and will forever have a black stain against the profession.

 

From my vantage point, I can say with a great deal of certainty that we are in a stronger position now than we have been in the past decade. We will move foreward, will not become embroiled in yet another conflict until we are done with Irag, and will be just fine... We'll see a slight increase in cost of living, inflation will rise, and we will see something close to what we experienced in the late 80s and early 90s... And then it will turn around again... The media will pump it and hype it and make mothers and fathers across this land tremble with fear of a financial collapse, and link it directly to the fallout after 9/11 and GWB's need for war drums... and so the song will go until they find another Bill Clinton they can get behind... It is cyclic and nothing will change... Sit back and watch... It will be down right disgusting.

 

We'll blame it all on Bush because this country and our culture have a need to pin "IT" on someone... If we can't get Bin Ladden, then GWB will do. Afterall, he was the guy at the helm when the attacks occured... Even if only for 8 months... STILL HE SHOULD BE HELD accountable... Nevermind the fact that he was voted into office TWICE... Yes TWICE. The "Recount" in Flordia proved that Ole' Wooden Al Gore would have lost anyway... Stings, doesn't it? Anyway, bottom line is we'll need a rope and a tree, but since that is illegal, we'll hammer him in our liberal press... People from both sides of the fence will eventually come out against Bush, especially once the tide turns on the financial market and we lose even more money in the stock market, and interest rates continue to climb. Heaven forbid someone lose another 600K from a MULTI-Million dollar retirement... Nevermind the fact that the "average" guy doesn't even HAVE a HOPE of that kind of retirement... We'll all pick up our sticks and take a whack at ole' GWB... After all, it is the american way... The blame game that is...

 

Mike

[johnc]

Looks like China is playing ball with us regarding North Korea:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=606203

[johnc]

Yeah!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1269147600&en=4fab5dc83f59b0ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 22 - Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.

 

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.

 

"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."

[JMortensen]

I wonder what China wants in return:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=10&u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_re_eu/eu_china

[tannji]

I wonder what China wants in return:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=10&u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_re_eu/eu_china

 

 

The EU considers the embargo unfair for the same reasons that our treatment of Saddam's regime was unfair: they are losing trade dollars. China, on the other hand, has always had the inside track in this race. They know full well that any pressure we put on them to improve human rights or "encourage" allies like N. Korea to play nice will always be softened by the fact that everyone wants a piece of China's HUGE consumer base and developement opportunities.

[pparaska]

http://www.enotalone.com/books/1400053153.html

 

Let's not forget how mainly France, and also Germany and Russia send critical weapons technology to China and other parts of the Eastern Communist Block without a second thought as to the impact other than the $$$$$$.

 

Another reason I could give a $hit about what France and Germany think of what we do.

 

As one of my favorite philosophers once said, while standing on a street corner in London:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1363329/posts

"England Show, Part 1 (0624)

Al at Speakers Corner: "Am I alone in hating the French?"

Crowd: "No!"

Al: "I thought not." "

 

And it's not because they are socialist, stuck up Aholes either. There are good reasons for us to hold the French government in contempt.

[crazy280]

Okay, I'm back.

 

Mikelly,

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but you have been so sensitive in the past, I don't think I could say anything without you taking it personally and exploding at me (no offense meant bro, but you jumped to conclusions WAY too soon last time we debated). I'd rather not get banned from this site. If you tell me its okay and you won't go postal, then I will gladly respond to you in a civilized way, deal? Otherwise, please don't mention me in your posts, as I haven't been mentioning you in mine.

 

Moving on, this is a general response here, its the dillema with evidence: I've noticed a certain pattern emerge in the thought process of those who agree with the war. If evidence comes out against the war, then the source must have a liberal agenda, damn those cowardly, peace-nick, socialist bastards! If evidence comes out in favor of the war, well then by golly it must be God's word! LOL All theatrics aside, I'm not saying that I'm innocent of these types of thoughts, its human nature. Even though I'm fairly liberal, I try to stay independant thinking (case in point: I blame both political parties, for this war, not just GWB). Anyhow, the point is, I'll take the head weapons inspector's word over some unnamed "insiders" that you guys apparently must know. When all's said and done, there were no weapons. There's even a US government WMD report out that confirms this (they will "continue the search" but officially do not believe there are any to find). So obviously old Hans was a credible source.

 

Pparaska,

We may disagree, but at least I'm saving you from the boredom of taxes, right?

Okay, after some of your posts calling the UN "blind pacifists" and calling those who oppose the war "hand wringer", I got the impression that you have a grudge with these people. Sorry if I pegged you wrong, but it sure sounded that way. I also said I was passionate about politics and religion, but obviously so are you. This is where you say "but I don't let it cloud my logic", right? My problem is not my logic, its my "use of lanuage" if you know what I mean. I said "lost my temper" referring to my response to JMortensen's post earlier, sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Now, I want to get to the core of this debate, because we're all just running in circles here, my self included. You mentioned "dual-use" weapons/infrastructure. This is the stuff American contractors sold Saddam in the '80s to take on the Iranians. We didn't need weapons inspectors to tell us he had it. And we know today that the inspectors were right, no WMD's. So you see, Saddam lacked the capability to do any more damage than any other "evil regime". Less than many, actually. And meanwhile Al Quaida was tearing it up worldwide. So my point is, if Saddam was a horrible threat, then Iran was worse, etc, and why did we go to war with Iraq? Ok, we've established it wasn't to get the WMD's. So, lets say we did it to free the Iraqis. This is a noble cause, after all. So should we have invaded the country to save them? IMO, no. There were other ways. We've all read a Tom Clancy novel or two (its just a joke, don't start ) But seriously we should have done covert ops. We could have accomplished the same task without as much slaughter; there wouldn't be such a terrorist insurgency in Iraq, responsible for the current bloodshed. Ok, since we didn't need to resort to war to free the people, now you might say the war was part of GW's "master plan" of sending a message to other nations and "spreading democracy" in the middle-east. But I say we could have sent the same message without invading Iraq. Taking down the Taliban was an excellent opening to our "message", and we should have followed up with a swift boot to Al Quaida (don't put words in my mouth- this is not for "retaliation" any more than attacking Iraq was "retaliation" for Bush's daddy), follow this by a careful bullet in Saddam's forehead (j/k, this is not nessecarily how we'd get him LOL ), and top it all off by telling Isreal to straighten up and fly right (you'd like that anyhow). That would have been a great message. And you could even throw in threatening to cut off the UN funding if they don't grow some balls (I agree that they haven't been doing enough). What makes you think sending 150,000 troops after Bin Laden would have been a waste? How many did it take to find Saddam? About the 400 billion - if it would be a waste on Al Quaida then its a waste on Iraq. We should have kept the money and sent in the assassins. GW's so busy filling his contributors' pockets with tax breaks that we're making record deficits, lacking healthcare and losing dollar value worldwide. We could use that money right now. But no, instead, Bush's "attack terrorism on all fronts" has become "bring a bunch of terrorists to Iraq and then create a bunch more terrorists". Great plan...

 

See, there's no way this war was our only option, which brings it all back to my original idea that my values, the values I learned from Jesus Christ, are to preserve human life. I can't find any way around it. If you disagree with my religious views, that's fine- this is a free country. But from reading your posts I doubt you disagree with saving lives. (you mentioned "caffeteria christian", which is funny becuase I call GWB an "amway christian" LOL for example, how can he be "pro-life" but hold the record for most death penalties? not to mention how he takes from the poor and gives to the rich. that fake BASTARD! but I digress ...).

 

Like I said it all comes down to the fact that you thought the war was unavoidable, and I didn't. I'm glad to know you believe in diplomacy, honestly. But I don't get what made Iraq any more of a war cause (in your eyes) than North Korea, Iran, Syria or China. We have put in just as much time/effort in exhausting diplomacy with them as in Iraq. But we aren't at war with them, and we shouldn't have declared war on Iraq. Oh well, I'm getting tired of saying it, but now that we're in this mess we have to clean it up.

BTW, I never said for sure that you were a Republican. What I was trying to say is I wouldn't be surprised if you were, since all I hear you complaining about is the far-left. But if you're a moderate that's great. Lets hear some outrage over the looney-right once in a while too, man

[pparaska]

crazy, I'm done debating you on this. By my count, before I gave up, you just rebutted everything I said with your own opinions, basing it on things you believe from what you've read from a few sources from what I can tell, but won't consider that some of us with connections and security clearances that can see the intell might have a different story, for one matter.

 

Believe what you want, I can see you'll take some media response or Hans Blix complicit word for things before looking any deeper, on just that one point.

 

Read this, if you want some CORRECT info on dual use technology in Iraq.http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0

 

On the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree.

 

What I'd love to see happen in an alternate universe where time travel exists is take you and put you in pre 2003 Iraq, put a turban on your head and make you a Shiite or Kurd. I wonder what song you'd be singing then about we should have waited for MORE diplomacy with Saddam, or that 150,000 soldiers were a waste.

 

Calling GWB names (BASTARD) does seriously take away from your argument - again, you can't seem to hide your emotions even when you're trying to.

 

I've got better to do things than continue this any longer.

[crazy280]

FWIW, I'd be all ears if you gave me some of that inside info. I think you're right, we should just agree to disagree. As for calling GWB a bastard- that was meant to be funny, not serious

[Guest tony78_280z]

I'm going to jump in and say what I tell everyone whenever a political discussion develops based upon the current war (or any in history), and that is "Do not be a critic of any war, skirmish, or political military action without reading and understanding Sun Tzu's The Art of War." Thousands of years old, and still sound tactics.

 

And now for something completely different

 

Yeah!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1269147600&en=4fab5dc83f59b0ae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

BAGHDAD' date=' Iraq, March 22 - Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.

 

As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.

 

"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them." [/quote']

What were those honest law abiding citizens doing with assault weapons? Defending their homes, country and loved ones? Don't they have gun control?

[johnc]

It appears to me that most anti-war arguements have degraded (after the fact) into one or both of these logical fallacies:

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000664.php

 

When the arguments for and against courses of action are assessed, it is important to remember that the choice has to be made from the available alternatives. All of them might be criticized for their imperfections, as might the status quo. Unless one of the options is perfect, the imperfections of the others are insufficient grounds for rejection. The fallacy of unobtainable perfection is committed when lack of perfection is urged as a basis for rejection, even though none of the alternatives is perfect either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

 

The historian's fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that decision makers in the past saw things from the same perspective and with the same information known when later discussing the decision.

[pparaska]

FWIW, I'd be all ears if you gave me some of that inside info.

 

Sorry, I'd be fined, imprisoned, shunned, and lose my job and the chance of getting others in my field. Sorry I can't accomodate you

 

As for calling GWB a bastard- that was meant to be funny, not serious

 

Oops, I guess that smilie was too far away for me to understand you were joking. I'm a bit comedy challenged during these kinds of debates - apologies.