Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The War That's Here

Iraq War Bush

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#21 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 01:58 PM

plus don't forget, the people of Iraq have been shown one interpretation of world events, much like peple who only watch one news channel,

they have seen news reports after reports decrying the imperialistic games of the US, how they will conquer the nation of Iraq and put down all that is good and proper

and it doesn't matter that it may not be true, many of them no doubt believe it to be true

and the first smart bomb that goes of target, or the first bunch of civilians that are shot by allied forces, will solidify that image of the invaders as being the correct one.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#22 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 04:26 PM

Godeskian, on Mar 18 2003, 03:11 AM, said:

But unlike the US goverment, i don't believe the US will be welcomed as liberators, i expect them to be attacked by the Iraqi civilians who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US is coming to conquer.

Actually, evidence is somewhat to the contrary. Sure some will feel that way. However, I saw Tom Brokaw on Letterman recently. He was over in Bahgdad. There were people who were doing what they were supposed to for the camera, denouncing the US. But on the side they were asking questions like "How soon will the Americans get here?" "Can they be here before Christmas, that would be great", etc, etc.  It was pretty clear they were waiting for us to come. I've heard other comments from journalists that pretty much go along with that sentiment. They are not at all happy with the way things are in Iraq. And, any one with any brains has no reason to fear us taking over their country. If anything, past history shows they'll benefit.

Quote

And i wonder what will happen if the troops start firing at the civilians firing at them, the media will tear them to shreds if they do, the bullets will tear them to shreds if they don't.

One of the joys of having the journalists part of the unit. If someone is firing at them, they aren't going to have any problem with the soldiers protecting them firing back :)  It's awful easy to be overly righteous when you aren't on the line. And I doubt anyone is going to fault someone for firing at someone firing at them, civilian or not. And once they pick up a gun, they aren't a civilian anymore.

Edited by StarDust, 18 March 2003 - 04:29 PM.


#23 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 04:50 PM

Lina, on Mar 18 2003, 05:41 AM, said:

Dictators always have a strong following, I think - some go after them because of ideas, or because of money, but many people follow because of fear to disappear at night and never come back again. It is not their fault, it is a survival mechanism. Like Stockholm syndrome, if you will. And people in that bank in Stockholm weren't all that happy to be libertated, or so I heard.
Many people prefer knowing exactly what is expected of them. A strong dictator can make people feel secure and stable (if only they can avoid doing the wrong thing, or being in the wrong place, etc). They're taken care of. It's like a grown up that still lets Mommy and Daddy take care of them. Some people prefer safety to freedom, even if it's only perceived safety and not real. We see that here in the US when some people are willing to sell their rights down the river because they think they'll end up safer. Thankfully there are enough people who know better.

Being in a democracy is very uncertain and takes a certain mindset.

Time after time, democracies over the world have failed quickly. In part because people had unrealistic expectations and believed their countries would be like the US overnight. But also in part because their cultures weren't ready. Their cultures teach them to do what they are told, so to speak. They've always had rulers, they are supposed to do what others tell them, etc. And they aren't used to the daily responsiblities that it takes to have a successful democracy. They either devolve into anarchy or quickly fall to a new dictator. I remember when I was a kid that the governments in S.America where changing almost monthly. It got hard to keep up in geography since some of them were even changing their names regularily :) The same in Africa.

True democracies in the world are still the minority, by far. It seems to work better in certain cultures than others. But that doesn't mean that people should give up. Eventually they'll figure it out.

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 05:27 PM

Kevin Street, on Mar 18 2003, 01:56 AM, said:

What right does the United States have to force the leader of another country to resign? UN Resolutions 678 and 687? That's crap. Those resolutions are intended to stop Iraq from becoming a military threat to other nations. They come into effect if there's proof that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, and is a demonstratable threat to other nations. They do not give America the right to threaten other countries and give arbitrary orders.
Actually these UN resolutions allow for the use of military action in Iraq if Iraq is found in violation of resolution 1441 (which was passed unanimously, even though France would now like to deny that they ever voted for it). So, yes, since Iraq has not disarmed, these UN resolutions allow for military action. Now, of course, the UN wants to pretend that it never passed these things, and that's why the UN has proven itself to be irrelevant. But the authorization to conduct military action against Iraq is there.

We may not have a coalition of 40 countries as we did in the Gulf War . . . but we've got about 30. That's hardly "going it alone" as some would insist.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 Aurora335

Aurora335

    not a force to be reckoned with

  • Islander
  • 634 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:14 PM

In my opinon, the war is inevitable. I don't like it, but Bush has said we're going in if Saddam doesn't leave, and I doubt that he will.

To pull in Newton (at least I think it's Newton), "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." So the US goes in, bombs Iraq. What is the reaction? SCUDs flying to US friendly cities?

Aurora

#26 Kahoutek

Kahoutek

    Space Otter

  • Islander
  • 139 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:16 PM

Just a few BRIEF comments ...
a) I think invading Iraq is a mistake -- but it might just be a good mistake; it depends quite a bit on whether the Iraqi people really want a change.
b) Democracy in Iraq -- it would be like telling us Americans that it would be good to have a monarchy!  Our culture fights such an idea all the way.
c) Our "Policy towards the middle east" is putting the world in great risk.  I think we come across as supporting Isreal no matter what they do, and opposing most Islamic states no matter what they do.  Invading Iraq will be seen in this way -- especially if the Iraqi people do not show active support for a change.

We live in stressful times, and it is nice to have a 'safe' place to talk about issues like this!
Kahoutek

#27 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:34 PM

I find myself agreeing with THP a lot in this case.  She makes several good points.  As do a lot of people here, but I digress.

I have to admit, I'm torn on this issue in several ways.  Half of me thinks "its about time they do something about a corrupt, opressive regime that 'tested' its chemical weapns stock prior to the first Gulf War by exterminating villages of people who followed a different sect than the majority".  Certainly, I think such behaviour should be unilaterally condemned from the beginning.

But the other half of me replies "It's just a pity that it appears to be getting done for US interests, rather than the good of people living in fear, or the thousands upon thousands of refugees just inside the Iran border who want to return, but can't for fear of being executed."

Not that I'm terribly suprised.  From where I sit, the US has been a near rogue state in terms of foreign policy for years, waffling between the pre-WWII isolationist policy and the active player in an international community.  The dividing difference of course, seems to be what's in the US government's best interest.

Really, I can't blame them.  It's nearly win-win to go to war, if they're confident they can win it cleanly.  The increased government expenditure has the potential to jumpstart the economy, a friendly Iraqi regime will keep the oil flowing, and with the right spin, the US can make it look like it "liberated" the Iraqi people, earning them brownie points all over the place.

I'll grant I'm rather cynical on this point, but I have my doubts about that last part coming to fruition.  As I recall, most of the regimes the US has helped put in place after toppling an old one in recent history have turned out to be pretty nasty themselves.

I can't say I support this war, because I really don't.  But I also don't support the incredible rallying that is going on.  (Of course, that's partly due to my biased view of rallying, but I won't get into that.)

I think what we need now is just to support the people who are going to be sent there to fight.  They're the only people I can honestly say I give any real thought about.  I just hope they all come back alive...

#28 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:37 PM

I anticipate that once this is over, public perception will change.

Regardless of what you think the reasons for the invasion are, I think some good will come of this.

When we open the torture chambers and release those pour souls trapped inside, tell us that it was wrong to intervene. When we uncover a dazzling array of WMD's-- ones that could kill thousands in the hands of terrorists-- tell us it wasn't right to step up and defend ourselves.

We're not doing this for the Iraqi people. We're doing it for ourselves. But I do think the Iraqi people will benefit.

And I hope the UN is cast aside, as it deserves to be. Any organization that gives Libya control over human rights and Iraq control over disarmament is not worthy to exist.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#29 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:51 PM

Kahoutek, on Mar 18 2003, 09:13 AM, said:

b) Democracy in Iraq -- it would be like telling us Americans that it would be good to have a monarchy!  Our culture fights such an idea all the way.
At no time did Bush ever state that we would establish a democracy in Iraq. He has stated a number of times that we will help the Iraqi people establish a government of *their* choosing.

Edited by Drew, 18 March 2003 - 07:01 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#30 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:58 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 18 2003, 03:31 AM, said:

The world is filled with madmen.  The United States doesn't go after all of them.  They only interfere when it benefits (in the eyes of the government) THEM.
I have heard this argument a lot, but I don't think I can agree with it. The government of the United States may have allowed many horrible dictators to remain in power because it wasn't in the political, military, or economic interests of this country to remove them. But why should that give us pause when we have a chance to remove a dictator when it supposedly is in the national interest? Why should the government's inability -- or simple unwillingness -- to do good in one situation prohibit them from doing good in another?

My view is, Bush probably is pursuing this war for a lot of shaky reasons. But his ultimate goal -- to liberate a people from a ruthless, maniacal tyrant -- happens to be a very positive thing. When the political good and the moral good happen to align in this way, I see no reason to object.

(I do, however, see a lot to object to in the diplomatic efforts of the Bush administration. The government's command of international rhetoric, propaganda, and plain old tact is frighteningly awful, and if his people had half a lick of sense in this area we wouldn't have to go at this thing alone. "Old Europe," indeed.  :( )

--
Dev F

#31 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 06:59 PM

Double post. Erp.

Edited by Dev F, 18 March 2003 - 07:01 PM.


#32 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 07:08 PM

Dev F, on Mar 18 2003, 09:55 AM, said:

My view is, Bush probably is pursuing this war for a lot of shaky reasons. But his ultimate goal -- to liberate a people from a ruthless, maniacal tyrant -- happens to be a very positive thing.
I think "liberation" is going to be a side effect of the true ultimate goal--to take out a dictator who trains, finances, and equips terrorist organizations. If we do nothing, Saddam Hussein may not lob a missile at us (he hasn't the delivery capabilities . . . yet), but is quite likely to hand a suitcase nuke to someone with the will to set it off in downtown New York, or supply cannisters of poison gas to those willing to release it in a London tube station. So, yes, the liberation of the Iraqi people is a "good," but probably not what steeled our resolve. (Though reading accounts of what the Kurds have had to deal with certainly convinced me that Hussein must go.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#33 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 07:31 PM

Quote

Kevin Street: What right does the United States have to force the leader of another country to resign?

If Bush had just said we begin bombing in 24 hours every single person opposed to it instead would be yelling why did he demand Saddam to resign.  There is an saying that goes along the lines of International Relations is the one area where you don’t follow the rules your mom taught you because it gets the living daylights knocked out of you.  The right the US has is the fact that the UN has utterly failed to do anything to force Saddam to disarm.  Many of them in fact would be rather selling him technologies for WMDs at a healthy profit; who knows may still be.

Quote

Kevin Street: They come into effect if there's proof that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, and is a demonstratable threat to other nations.

What is proof do we need thousands of deaths in New York or Tel Aviv before the world wakes up to the reality of the situation?  Or would that to be written off by the UN as a bad case of air pollution.  It’s rather obvious that Saddam is hiding WMDS and not fully cooperating with the UN.  The Inspectors are not there to play hide and seek with Saddam rather he should be piling up those WMDs outside the inspectors home base.

Quote

Kevin Street: And the United States has failed to make the case that Iraq has suddenly become a serious threat. The weapons inspectors haven't found a smoking gun. Iraq is a corrupt, evil place, yes - but so is North Korea.

This is a guy who has killed more Muslims than anyone out there now.  He has used chemical weapons against his own people and invaded Kuwait.  Every time he gets strong enough he takes advantage of it to take one more aggressive step.  You know North Korea is an evil place but we have a slight problem there.  We have a maniac with nuclear tipped ICBMs and they are aimed at our West Coast so we can’t do much.  You know one really has to ask how North Korea ended up with those weapons since they were being contained and monitored by the very “successful” weapons inspectors.  North Korea is the legacy of success for Weapons Inspections against a regime that doesn’t want to disarm.  Now that legacy has nuclear weapons aimed at us looking for a reason.

Quote

Kevin Street: Damn it, I don't want to see the United States fall under the weight of its own stupidity! Can't they see what happens when countries begin to build empires?

I don’t hear anything about empire building but from peace protestors typically.  It makes a great tactic to scare people away and try to influence hearts and minds by using a “dirty word”.  Rather I hear of liberating Iraq and then occupying and rebuilding until we have a stable place for a new democratic government.  Though since the US occupied Germany and Japan after World War II we all ready no how that builds empires. No one can also continue to absorb blow after blow.  The sheriff who waits until 40 armed bandits are outside his house is indeed a person in deep trouble.  You knock off your threats as they appear before they can turn into another North Korea or worse another World War.    

Quote

Kevin Street: No one can take on the world alone.

I suspect our Allies would take offense to that.  Spain, Britain, Italy, Portugal, Australia, and most of the former Soviet Bloc stand with the United States.  I’m sure too I’ve neglected in my listing other allies and I apologize to any citizens of those countries.  


Quote

Godeskian  But unlike the US goverment, i don't believe the US will be welcomed as liberators, i expect them to be attacked by the Iraqi civilians who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US is coming to conquer.

The Iraqi military doesn’t even want to fight another war against the US.  Last week British Paras on maneuvers were greeted by a large group of Iraqi soldiers who defected and wanted to surrender.  It says something when the Army wants to surrender before the war even starts.  

Quote

Bizzy:Also no one really wants to go to war,it's just a matter of accepting the fact that we are going to war and getting over it and going on with your life instead of constantly worrying about it.

Total agreement here on all points you’ve said and especially this.

Quote

Lil: And who died and made the US government God?

Who died and gave Saddam the right to do what he has has done?  Well besides the countless numbers of people that he has slaughtered of course in his lust for power.  Who gave Saddam the right to invade and threaten his neighbors?  Who gave him and his cronies the right to murder, massacre, torture, and rape his own people and all who oppose him?  Who gave him the right to construct biological weapons that bring back the banes of human existence that so many fought so dearly to destroy?  Who gave him a madman the right to risk the lives of every human being and the work of countless generations of people who worked to eliminate those natural scourges from the world?  In biological warfare there is no borders and no combatant; every human being is a combatant and a victim to these diseases.      

Better to fight him now on a time of our choosing and a place of our choosing rather than let him slap the entire world or us in a time and place of his choice.  

Quote

Lil: Never mind that the self appointed "god" put the Taliban in power in the first place.

Back that one up please.  The Taliban came to power long after the US had pulled all our interests out of Afghanistan.  We had no place in their rise to power.  This has been goner over countless times by different people but it keeps cropping up.  The US aided the Mujahideen against the USSR and then got out of the region after it.  The Taliban then formed in the early 1990s and fought the Mujahideen for control of the country.  Then over time the Northern Alliance was formed; essentially from the remnants of the Mujahideen.      

Quote

Kevin Street: What if an incredibly powerful Iraq, equipped with the biggest, deadliest army in the world, was ordering George Bush and his family to leave the USA? What if Saddam Hussein wanted to invade America and change its government to one that he liked better? That wouldn't be fair at all, would it?

So I suppose the better option is to just appease those dictators so they don’t want to do that to you?  We’ve all ready had our experience with that and it didn’t work. Instead we had to defeat a country with the intention of doing that in the bloodiest war ever fought because we didn’t act sooner.
  

Quote

TrancesHuggyPillow: Big Daddy had a contract out on his head: that's kinda personal, but hey...

I sort of doubt that the US Congress, Military, or even Bush’s cabinet especially Powell would be keen on fight a war on such a stupid proposition. I agree though on one account that you make.  Bush is a lot smarter than people give him credit for and ultimately he’ll land on his feet again making the people who opposed him look a little silly.

Quote

Lil: Yeah just like what happened the last time with Iraq right? Oh wait. Bush Sr. LOST that re election didn't he.

That was a different Bush and a very different set of circumstances surrounding that election.  

Quote

Lil: The world is filled with madmen. The United States doesn't go after all of them.

Then maybe it is time to start holding them accountable for their actions.  

Quote

Lil: The problem with this is that it's no secret that Hussein has had weapons. Why NOW?

This has been an ongoing thing of UN failures since the Gulf War.  The real question should be why not sooner with Clinton.  Of course he was more interested in blowing up aspirin factories to distract people from his dirty deeds.  The answer is that 9-11 showed the world and the US that even the most lowly bunch of people can hurt the US badly if they want to and if we sit on our hands.  This situation did not come up with his slip in the polls but rather has been brewing since 9-11.  

Quote

Godeskian plus don't forget, the people of Iraq have been shown one interpretation of world events, much like peple who only watch one news channel,

I disagree on this one; the United States has long been conducting a psy-ops campaign against Saddam and getting information into the country. Iraqis may be oppressed but they aren’t stupid and many of them are going to have the capability to tune into the outside world or to those US broadcasts.  

Quote

Aurora335 : SCUDs flying to US friendly cities?

Special Forces are supposedly all ready in Iraq preparing to take out those weapons that can endanger regional allies.  Those sites are going to take the brunt of the early strikes along with command and control and air defenses.  In addition the Patriot Missile is much better suited after all most a decade of improvements to defend against Scuds than it was in the Gulf War.  

Quote

Rov: I anticipate that once this is over, public perception will change.

That shift is all ready occurring.  The latest polls after Bush’s speech show 68% of Americans supporting military action against Iraq.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#34 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 07:46 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 18 2003, 09:48 AM, said:

The problem with this is that it's no secret that Hussein has had weapons.  Why NOW?

Oh wait, Bush is slipping in the polls.  Let's have a nice little war to boost things.

Again, sickening to me.  Absolutely sickening.  He makes his father look like freaking Mother Theresa.
You think that Dubya Dumb*ss remembers Osama Bin Laden?  You know, that guy we STILL haven't caught?
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#35 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 08:30 PM

Call Me Robin, on Mar 18 2003, 11:43 AM, said:

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 18 2003, 09:48 AM, said:


The problem with this is that it's no secret that Hussein has had weapons.  Why NOW?

Oh wait, Bush is slipping in the polls.  Let's have a nice little war to boost things.

Again, sickening to me.  Absolutely sickening.  He makes his father look like freaking Mother Theresa.
You think that Dubya Dumb*ss remembers Osama Bin Laden?  You know, that guy we STILL haven't caught?
I suppose you haven't been paying much attention to the activity going on in Afgahnistan on that front, or you'd know better than to make such a comment.

Besides, it's my personal opinion that Laden is dead.  I think his organization is just using his name (and probably spiced together tapes or someone who sounds like him) to continue their cause. That is why we haven't seen video tapes since the bombing of the caves. Why else?  The man definitely had a preference for getting his image out there.

#36 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 08:44 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Mar 18 2003, 11:28 AM, said:

Quote

Lil: Yeah just like what happened the last time with Iraq right? Oh wait. Bush Sr. LOST that re election didn't he.

That was a different Bush and a very different set of circumstances surrounding that election.  
Agreed. That was about taxes and his christian right agenda. It wasn't about the war. If anything people were upset that we didn't finish the job then.

Quote

Quote

Lil: The world is filled with madmen. The United States doesn't go after all of them.

Then maybe it is time to start holding them accountable for their actions.  
We'll deal with the ones that are a threat that we can deal with. Not much we can do about N. Korea, for example, unless you want a nuclear war. A lot we can do about making sure Iraq doesn't become a N.Korea and doesn't provide weapons to terrorists. No their army isn't much of a threat, no one has ever said they were. It's the weapons and always has been about the weapons.

Quote

Quote

Lil: The problem with this is that it's no secret that Hussein has had weapons. Why NOW?

This has been an ongoing thing of UN failures since the Gulf War.  The real question should be why not sooner with Clinton.  Of course he was more interested in blowing up aspirin factories to distract people from his dirty deeds.  The answer is that 9-11 showed the world and the US that even the most lowly bunch of people can hurt the US badly if they want to and if we sit on our hands.  This situation did not come up with his slip in the polls but rather has been brewing since 9-11.  
Iraq was the logical next step. I remember quite clearly a year ago, when we were dealing with Afghanistan, long before Bush ever brought up Iraq, every one was speculating on what the next step in the 'war on terror' would be. The journalists, the experts, people in both parties, everyone in the news repeatedly stated that Iraq seemed the logical choice. Because of the weapons, because of the UN fiasco, etc. All the reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum.  I find it interesting that people now ascribe all this to personal motives of Bush, when the momentum didn't even come from him. I guess people have short memories, or maybe they don't pay attention to the news. I've certainly seen some funny things from protesters who obviously don't even know what they are talking about or have their facts straight.

#37 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 08:56 PM

Kahoutek, on Mar 18 2003, 07:13 AM, said:

Just a few BRIEF comments ...
a) I think invading Iraq is a mistake -- but it might just be a good mistake; it depends quite a bit on whether the Iraqi people really want a change.
b) Democracy in Iraq -- it would be like telling us Americans that it would be good to have a monarchy!  Our culture fights such an idea all the way.
c) Our "Policy towards the middle east" is putting the world in great risk.  I think we come across as supporting Isreal no matter what they do, and opposing most Islamic states no matter what they do.  Invading Iraq will be seen in this way -- especially if the Iraqi people do not show active support for a change.

We live in stressful times, and it is nice to have a 'safe' place to talk about issues like this!
Kahoutek
Well said.

During the Viet Nam war I was in nursing school, and I spent a lot of time at Letterman Hospital in San Francisco. To me, the war was about old eyes in young faces, broken bodies and broken minds. If you've never seen the aftermath of war on a larger scale than the immediately personal, you have no feeling for what's REALLY involved - or the ultimate cost, which goes way beyond the immediate.  Even now, after so many years, it literally makes me weep while I write this to think of the things I saw then. Pictures on a TV or movie screen simply can't convey it.

For me, I don't want anyone's son or husband or father or lover to go through that hell needlessly.

When we invaded Afghanistan, we had a clear purpose and the backing of the world. I just don't feel that clearness of purpose in terms of what we're about to do in Iraq. I'm particularly appalled by the fact that we do not have international law behind us, or the backing of the UN.

The bottom line is that old men wave flags and give out with the rhetoric and it's young men and women who die for their causes.

I suppose that we'll be judged by the success of our venture in Iraq. But my heart still goes out to the servicemen and women and their families, and to the loved ones of all the people who will die in this conflict.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#38 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 08:59 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Mar 18 2003, 12:58 AM, said:

And who died and made the US government God?

And where was "god" during the years the Taliban atrocities before 9-11?  Oh that's right, no oil or other economic/political reason to interfere so it was all hands off.  Never mind that the self appointed "god" put the Taliban in power in the first place.

And where was "god" during the Iran controversy?  Oh yeah that's right, accepting aid from IRAQ and GIVING them military equipment.  No problem with human rights there was there.  And then of course KUWAIT has *such* a great record on human rights but hey, it was the oil thing again so, down with Iraq back in 89.

The hypocrisy is sickening.
What Lil said.

:(

My understanding is that the reason they didn't go ahead and have a security council vote (and the reason they withdrew the resolution) is that it would have been defeated, and then it would have been glaringly apparent that we were flouting international law to suit ourselves. Without a vote we can claim vague if unsubstantiated legality. Hypocrisy is an understatement.

Edited by Rhea, 18 March 2003 - 09:02 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#39 Kahoutek

Kahoutek

    Space Otter

  • Islander
  • 139 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 09:00 PM

Rhea, on Mar 18 2003, 12:53 PM, said:

.... But my heart still goes out to the servicemen and women and their families, and to the loved ones of all the people who will die in this conflict.
Amen to that!!!!

Kahoutek

#40 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 18 March 2003 - 09:21 PM

War bites.

That's all I have to say.

:( :(
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, War, Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users