Quoting:
Here is something you should read. It is a transcript of a speech by Robert Byrd. You might find it interesting.
End Quote

I'm sorry, Cat.  But I can't give anything Robert Byrd says any credibility.

Quoting:
As for the peace rallies, it is the American people and other members of the world exersizing their right to free speech, free assembly, and other rights granted to us under the First Amendment of the Constitution (while we still have it).End Quote

You are certainly correct.  I'm not sying they shouldn't have the right to protest.  I am saying, they can protest all they want, I'm just not sure they are all prtesting the real problem, which is Hussein.

Quoting:If we decide to go into Iraq because they may or may not have weapons of mass distruction, what makes you think that other nations wouldn't want to attact the U.S. in the same way? WE DO IN FACT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION.
End Quote

sure we do, however, he was instructed, under UN rules, to give his up 12 years ago.  And he hasn't.  How many more years does he need to do it?

Quoting:
Wow, you read that quickly, Rice! I've only just started to read it and I'm a long way from deciding whether to give it credibility or not!End Quote

I'm a fast reader, but in all honesty, as soon as I saw "Robert Byrd" as the speaker I decided not to go in and look.  I don't think he represents something I can believe in.

Quoting:

If you only read the arguments on one side of a dispute, you'll end up with a very unbalanced view of what's going on. This applies to people who are antiwar as well (I'd be incredibly arrogant if I thought I had all the answers!)
End Quote

I don't have all the answers either, T ;)  I'm keeping an open mind though.  I'm glad you are too.

Quoting:
sure we do, however, we he was instructed, under UN rules, to give his up 12 years ago.  And he hasn't.  How many more years does he need to do it?
End Quote

You hit the problem on the head-he has violated UN RULES! Why does the U.S. have to be the big bully here? It should be the UN who takes care of it-or least gives the U.S. the go-ahead, which they have not. I say, this is a UN problem, not the U.S.




Cat

Quoting:
The creed of 'What will happen will happen, whether you protest it or not' is the mentality that let Hitler turn one of the purest democracies in the world at the time into a fascist dictatorship in a very short space of timeEnd Quote

you are right, but my point was:  do you honestly think standing in the street and marching in a parade with signs is going to change the minds of the president or prime minister?  I'm not promoting political apethy, I just think its a bit naive to think that the protests and parades are going to change their minds, especially at this point in time.

Quoting:Nope, what about North Korea? End Quote

what about them?  It seems like some people think we have just put NK on the back burner and forgot about them.  Thats not true.  NK is being dealt with by several different countries.  They have been talking with America and we are trying to work it out with them, diplomatically.

Quoting: How many countries in the world have weapons of mass destruction or are in the process of developing them?End Quote

Probably many.  But as I told Cat in my last post, Hussien has been under UN sanctions and part of that deal was for him to disarm and get rid of his weapons.  He has had 12 years to do it, and still refuses.  How many more years and how many more UN resolutions can we keep giving him?

Quoting:As for the 'We've tried the give peace a chance method, and Hussein has been laughing at us for it for the last 12+ years' comment, ...He's hardly been laughing!End Quote

Well, 12 years ago he was given the choice of either being removed from power, or giving up his weapons. And here we are 12 years later, and he has done neither.  And yes his country has been sanctioned, but he still lives in his palaces while his citizens are suffereng.  So yes, he's been laughing at the UN sanctions for the last 12 years while his people suffer.

Quoting:




You hit the problem on the head-he has violated UN RULES! Why does the U.S. have to be the big bully here? It should be the UN who takes care of it-or least gives the U.S. the go-ahead, which they have not. I say, this is a UN problem, not the U.S.




Cat
End Quote

Ok then, if the UN gave the US the "go-ahead", you would support it?  

And if the US wasn't involved, would you support another contry using their military to take out Saddam?

Quoting:


'you are right, but my point was:  do you honestly think standing in the street and marching in a parade with signs is going to change the minds of the president or prime minister?  I'm not promoting political apethy, I just think its a bit naive to think that the protests and parades are going to change their minds, especially at this point in time.'

End Quote

And as I said, that's not why people protest (or at least not why I protest) Your point misses the point!

Quoting:

'what about them?  It seems like some people think we have just put NK on the back burner and forgot about them.  Thats not true.  NK is being dealt with by several different countries.  They have been talking with America and we are trying to work it out with them, diplomatically.'

'Probably many.  But as I told Cat in my last post, Hussien has been under UN sanctions and part of that deal was for him to disarm and get rid of his weapons.  He has had 12 years to do it, and still refuses.  How many more years and how many more UN resolutions can we keep giving him?'

End Quote

Is there proof to that effect? Nope. That's one of my main issues with American policy towards Iraq at the moment, Bush is quite willing to go into war without UN backing over an issue that's between the UN and Iraq, and none of the proof he's mustered so far is actually proof. It worries me a lot that he tries to present it as proof, though - makes me think that he has an ulterior motive for wanting to invade. Also bear in mind what I said about invading Iraq working as a splendid recruitment campaign for Al-Quaida - an invasion will surely promote terrorism, not reduce it?

Quoting:

'Well, 12 years ago he was given the choice of either being removed from power, or giving up his weapons. And here we are 12 years later, and he has done neither.  And yes his country has been sanctioned, but he still lives in his palaces while his citizens are suffereng.  So yes, he's been laughing at the UN sanctions for the last 12 years while his people suffer.'

End Quote

No, that still doesn't present a case that he's laughing. He leads a crippled and impoverished country, no matter how many palaces he owns. If he only cared about the big palaces he'd have embezzled a load of money and gone into luxurious exile a long time ago. Also, palaces aren't the luxury homes that popular perception tells us they are - they're centres of government, just like the White House. If America was bombed tomorrow, the WH would be one of the first things to be rebuilt because it functions as a nexus for government. As far as I can see, the same thing applies. And a sad truth is, if you were leading a country and you had the opportunity to live well while others couldn't, would you be noble enough to live in a shack, recieve state visitors and diplomats in a shack, etc, etc, would you? Can you see Bush selling the White House, relocating to a small cabin in Idaho and transferring the WH funds to impoverished areas in the US? Nope!

Quoting:
...Bush is quite willing to go into war...and none of the proof he's mustered so far is actually proof.
End Quote

well, I don't know what to say to that.  What more proof could you possibly need?  Despite all the evidence presented so far, do you need to actually see the weapons in action before you are totally convinced?  

I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen.

Quoting:


well, I don't know what to say to that.  What more proof could you possibly need?  Despite all the evidence presented so far, do you need to actually see the weapons in action before you are totally convinced?  

I for one am not willing to wait for that to happen.
End Quote

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Iraq is HUGE.  There's no way the inspectors are ever going to be able to find anything unless they actually know where the Iraqis hid stuff.  But just because they can't find it doesn't mean it's not there.  Even Hans Blix admitted that.

Quoting:


Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Iraq is HUGE.  There's no way the inspectors are ever going to be able to find anything unless they actually know where the Iraqis hid stuff.  But just because they can't find it doesn't mean it's not there.  Even Hans Blix admitted that.
End Quote

Great point.  I beleive Bush pointed out in the Sate of the Union address that Iraq is roughly the same size as California.  And expecting a handful of "inspectors" to find weapons is, in my opinion, a total farce.

For all we know, Saddam could have moved them totally out of Iraq over the last few years.  Heck, he's had 12 years to prepare, who knows where they are.

I remember in early Jan. hearing about one of the daily inspections being halted because the Iraqi guard in charge of the facility didn't have the key to get in.  Seriously.  I thought to myself, how ridiculous is it that the only thing seperating war and peace is a stupid little "misplaced" key.  

The UN can give the inspectors all the time in the world, but that doesn't change the fact the whole inspections process is a joke.

Quoting:

For all we know, Saddam could have moved them totally out of Iraq over the last few years.  Heck, he's had 12 years to prepare, who knows where they are.

End Quote

A fine way of scuppering your own argument! If Saddam's WMDs are in another country, what on earth can be gained by invading Iraq?

More seriously, the point being made is that it's impossible to find proof, so it's OK to invade without it on the grounds that we're never going to be able to invade with it. And that argument can be applied to any country in the world, not just Iraq. I know you've said that Iraq is unique because it carries UN proscriptions against producing WMDs, but how relevant is that? Any country in the world has the potential to be a threat to others with WMDs, not just those carrying UN warnings. How many countries is America willing to bomb without proof before the world can feel completely secure? The answer to that is probably all of them.

Quoting:
As for the notion that world peace can be acheived through invading Iraq...can it? So America invades Iraq, then all's well with the world? Nope, what about North Korea? And after that, how about Zimbabwe, Syria, Pakistan, India, etc, etc. How many countries in the world have weapons of mass destruction or are in the process of developing them? How many world leaders are guilty of massive human rights abuses? Is America planning to invade all of them, one at a time? And when half the world's been bombed to rubble, will that produce world peace? Of course not. Brute force does not solve problems. Never has, never will.

End Quote

1.  Of course invading Iraq won't solve all the worlds problems, has anyone said it would?  Should we try to solve all the problems at once, or don't you think that one at a time would work better?

2.  No, brute force doesn't solve all problems, but when has peace, basically ignoring the problem hoping it will go away, solved any problems.  People tried to ignore Hitler and look what happened.

Quoting:
And if a man was tried for murder and everyone felt that he was almost certainly guilty but proof couldn't be found, would it be right to execute him anyway? It's the same question on a much larger scale. The policy of innocent until proven guilty is there for a reason - it's one of the central tenets of American and British justice.

I think it also sets a very nasty precedent; Bush seems to feel that he has the moral right to invade countries if they're a threat in his judgement alone - proof and UN backing don't seem strictly necessary to him. That creates a slippery slope - once Iraq has been invaded, which other country is probably a threat to global peace and should be pre-emptively invaded just to be safe?

End Quote

You make good points, but Bush is not the only person who perceives a threat.  Sure there is a loud anti-war cry here in America, but there are a lot of us that are not against invading Iraq.  We just aren't as vocal.  

I just hope that if we do invade that all the protesters rally and back up the troops, even if they don't agree with the war.

Quoting:
For all we know, Saddam could have moved them totally out of Iraq over the last few years.  End Quote

;D Well if he's moved done that, there's no need to invade at all, is there?

Quoting:

1.  Of course invading Iraq won't solve all the worlds problems, has anyone said it would?  Should we try to solve all the problems at once, or don't you think that one at a time would work better?
End Quote

I wrote that in response to the point that peace protesters should look to the real problem, which is Saddam. 80s later clarified that by saying that Saddam is the problem because he's ignoring UN proscriptions, and I've counterargued that in other places.

The line about solving the world's problems one at a time - does that relate to the notion of invading all the world's problem countries one at a time? I've also argued against that philosophy in previous posts.

Quoting:
2.  No, brute force doesn't solve all problems, but when has peace, basically ignoring the problem hoping it will go away, solved any problems.  People tried to ignore Hitler and look what happened.
End Quote

So neither war nor peace solve problems? Best go for peace, then!  :P It also reinforces my earlier point about why people should protest (peacefully!)

More seriously, you're right; there are times when force is the only option. But with Hitler and Nazism, concrete proof existed as far back as the mid-30s when the Jews were gassed and neighbouring countries were invaded. It's a different kettle of fish to today's issues, where there simply isn't proof of Saddam's WMDs (see earlier posts).

It's worth mentioning that Hitler bought his rise to power with the notion of International Jewry, promoting the idea that there was a secret menace all around and invasion and the limitation of human rights were the only way of making Germany safe. Obviously there was no proof, but the German people didn't want to wait for proof - and, as you said, look what happened.

Quoting:


The line about solving the world's problems one at a time - does that relate to the notion of invading all the world's problem countries one at a time? I've also argued against that philosophy in previous posts.
End Quote

No, I don't mean invading each and every country one at a time.  What I mean is trying to solve the problems one at a time....solving things peacefully would be wonderful, but that isn't always an answer.

Quoting:

Obviously there was no proof, but the German people didn't want to wait for proof - and, as you said, look what happened.

End Quote

You do make valid points.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Quoting:


A fine way of scuppering your own argument! If Saddam's WMDs are in another country, what on earth can be gained by invading Iraq?

End Quote

obviously I was being hypothetical.  I was just trying to point out that the "inspectors" could "inspect" Iraq for months and months and would never know the difference between the WMD's being there or not.  You can't expect a handful of people to just be thrown into a country and fplay "hide and seek" with Saddam and his WMD's.  Its a waste of time.

Quoting:
You do make valid points.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
End Quote

Indeed we will, and no bad thing. I have a private theory that discussion isn't there to convert others to one's own point of view, it's to allow a person to examine his or her beliefs - defending them is the best way of examining them.

Quoting:

obviously I was being hypothetical.  I was just trying to point out that the "inspectors" could "inspect" Iraq for months and months and would never know the difference between the WMD's being there or not.  You can't expect a handful of people to just be thrown into a country and fplay "hide and seek" with Saddam and his WMD's.  Its a waste of time.

End Quote

Er, counterargument somewhere above... See innocent until proven guilty, morality of pre-emptive strikes etc

And you were being hypothetical and I was being facietious!

Quoting:
More seriously, the point being made is that it's impossible to find proof, so it's OK to invade without it on the grounds that we're never going to be able to invade with it. And that argument can be applied to any country in the world, not just Iraq. I know you've said that Iraq is unique because it carries UN proscriptions against producing WMDs, but how relevant is that? Any country in the world has the potential to be a threat to others with WMDs, not just those carrying UN warnings. End Quote

It was only after Iraq was perceived to be a threat to the West in the wake of the Gulf War that the Security Council pushed for disarmament. No one thought to do it before that, even though Iraq has been a rogue state since before it invaded Iran, and no one in the West cared about that, because Iran was allied to the Soviet Union and run by a religious freak who hated Americans. Why wasn't the push made for Iraq to disarm before they invaded Kuwait and tried to fire biological weapons at Israel? Didn't the US know Saddam had these weapons in the 1980s? Why wasn't he stopped then? Why now?

Quoting:


Indeed we will, and no bad thing. I have a private theory that discussion isn't there to convert others to one's own point of view, it's to allow a person to examine his or her beliefs - defending them is the best way of examining them.
End Quote

Sounds good to me. :)

Quoting:

- Al Qaeda-Iraq tie:I couldn't believe it when the administration floated this one. While it's remotely possible, bin Laden and Hussein are separated by sectarianismEnd Quote

This is true. bin Laden is a fundamentalist whose stated goal is the defence and propogation of Islam worldwide. The revolution which eventually brought Saddam to power in Iraq was a secular one. Saddam and bin Laden are ideologically opposed. Iraq didn't even recognise the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. Al Quaeda may well support Iraq in a war against the US, but only if it sees it (as it evidently does) as an attack on Islam, and not because of any friendly ties they might have to Saddam.

Quoting:
Well, when Jews and Arabs march through the streets of Tel Aviv side by side like they were yesterday, it's time to sit up and take notice of popular opinion. Imagine if protest meetings of this size happened in the major cities every day?
End Quote

It's too bad that the Jews and the Arabs can't do this every day..not protesting, just regular everyday living.

Quoting:


;D Well if he's moved done that, there's no need to invade at all, is there?
End Quote

Sure there is, Gore.  No matter what Saddam has done with the weapons, he has to account for them.  Hasn't done that for a dozen years,  wouldn't be kinda, sorta, in a way just barely cooperating with the UN inspectors now if there wasn't a large invading army leaning on his border.

Quoting:
But try for a moment.... and think how you would feel if Bill Clinton were President with a sagging economy and was up for reelection......and then suddenly Clinton decided to start a war against Iraq!?  How would you feel if Clinton wanted to bomb the h*ll out of Iraq? 
End Quote

well, this is hardly a partisan issue Paul.  Remember, we have been through this before with Clinton.  Recall 1998 when the UN "inspectors" were over in Iraq.  If Clinton had threatened military action to disarm Hussein, I would have been behind it 100%, just as I am now.  The only problem was, Clinton did not do anything about Hussein.  

So to answer your question, yes I would have supported it if it were under Clinton.  

This is hardly a partisan issue.  At least it shouldn't be.

Quoting:
   Simple reality is that the US has created the situation. We could have dealt differently, but we didn't. We still can, however, resolve the situation differently. The United States can stop being an insulting, heavy-handed bi*ch to everyone else in the world, can encourage education, can stop exploiting children and starving workers abroad to support home-grown extravagance. When we think we have credibility (e.g. post-9/11) don't squander it with talk of holy wars or threaten everybody in the world ("you're either wit'-us-or-again'-us").  

   I'm just glad that our peaceniks haven't rolled over and died. Hopping on the bandwagon is a very easy thing to do. It helps absolve one of their own inner sense of responsibility. Standing for an unpopular but beneficial idea generally is tougher; such a process typically invokes all manner of nagging conscience.
End Quote

Quoting:
Spoken just like a typical jealous Canadian who can't stand to see the US fight against those that attack us, namely other countries. Whether you like it or not, the US is the greatest country in the world. That is why people from other countries want to live here. Since when was the last time a US citizen desired to immigrate East? The governments in other countries would just love us to fall flat on our face so that they can take over our freedom and punish Christians and other freedom loving Americans. The US did not create anything but the desire for justice and freedom. Sorry, Dave, if that is foreign to you. :-X, which is what will happen to the world if Saddam, terrorists, and the so-called peaceniks have their way.

End Quote

Very well said Indy.



Davester, take notes. ;)

Quoting:
Spoken just like a typical jealous Canadian who can't stand to see the US fight against those that attack us, namely other countries.End Quote

But Iraq has not attacked the US, nor has the US conclusively proved that Iraq has any plans to do so. When was the last open attack on the US by a sovereign nation compared to the last open attack on a sovereign nation by the US? My main beef with US policy is that it tries to convince the rest of the world that a problem that may have some effect on the US is, be definition, also a problem for the whole world. That's not always the case. American policy after 9/11 WAS "if you're not with us, you're against us". If that's not forcing other nations to go along with whatever you decide to do, nothing is, and that's exactly the sort of arrogance that these "other countries" despise.

Quoting:
How many of you will agree that if Saddam Hussein were ousted from power, the world as a whole would be better off?
End Quote

Hold on a sec, there - I wouldn't mind betting if you rephrased that question as "George Bush", and passed it on the world at large, you'd get a stronger response than for Saddam Hussein.

By and large, I'd second what Davester and Goreripper have said.  This argument has been skewed by the suggestion "OK, so you don't want war, what alternative is there?" - there doesn't need to be an alternative, there has to be an overwhelming need to go to war before any war is justifiable.  

In answer to the "why now" question - because, after 9/11 the US has started to perceive itself as a victim, and countries (like people) who see themselves as victimised will do stupid, irrational things based on this conviction.  And the invasion of Iraq is both stupid and irrational, whatever the pro-war pundits may say.

Phil

Quoting:
By and large, I'd second what Davester and Goreripper have said.  This argument has been skewed by the suggestion "OK, so you don't want war, what alternative is there?" - there doesn't need to be an alternative, there has to be an overwhelming need to go to war before any war is justifiable.  
End Quote

I agree. Even countries opposed to the US stand have agreed that if military action can be justified, they'll support it. The point about Iraq is that a madman is oppressing his country and committing acts of genocide against the people there. There is also a very remote possibility that he is developing hideous weapons to one day launch an attack against another country. Certainly these things cannot be condoned. Saddam is an evil, unconscionable man who should be removed from power or killed. There's no denying that. But if we were to go in and invade every country that has an oppressive regime that might just one day pose a threat to another country, we'd be invading places all over the place, all the time. It would be endless. Iraq isn't the only country in the world with an evil despot who might just have a thing against the West.

Quoting:
Hold on a sec, there - I wouldn't mind betting if you rephrased that question as "George Bush", and passed it on the world at large, you'd get a stronger response than for Saddam Hussein.
End Quote

Hi Phil :)

The difference is that "Dubya" isn't trying to kill you or poison your water supply.  So put it back into perspective.

Quoting:


Hi Phil :)

The difference is that "Dubya" isn't trying to kill you or poison your water supply.  So put it back into perspective.
End Quote

Actually, he is allowing our water and air to get poisoned (pulluted) by his big business buddies.  He is also willing to get our sons and daughters killed in the line of fire-not to mention the killing of Iraqi civilians.



Cat

Quoting:
Actually, he is allowing our water and air to get poisoned (pulluted) by his big business buddies.  He is also willing to get our sons and daughters killed in the line of fire-not to mention the killing of Iraqi civilians.
End Quote

oh give me a break.

Cat, that comment is absurd, even you know that. ::)

Quoting:



oh give me a break.

Cat, that comment is absurd, even you know that. ::)


End Quote

Be nice, good sir.

Unless he's blowing smoke (which I'm fairly certain he's not) Bush did cover pollution in his state of the union address, and however impractical his ideas, he is doing something to deal with pollution.  

Quoting:
Be nice, good sir.
End Quote

...I am.  I attacked the comment, not the person.

PS-I still think her comment is absurd. :)

Quoting:


I agree. Even countries opposed to the US stand have agreed that if military action can be justified, they'll support it. The point about Iraq is that a madman is oppressing his country and committing acts of genocide against the people there. There is also a very remote possibility that he is developing hideous weapons to one day launch an attack against another country. End Quote

I think this is one of the main points of contention.  What about the weapons Saddam is on record as possessing that are unaccounted for?  Anthrax spores can be carried about in a test-tube and delivered anywhere.

The following is from http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/meafrica.html#iraq


Iraq claims that all biological agents and munitions were unilaterally destroyed after the Gulf War. However, Iraq’s record of misrepresentation and the lack of documentation to support these claims leave the status of Iraqi biological warfare stockpile in doubt. Iraq may still retain some biological agents and weapons. It also has a number of medical, veterinary, and university facilities where biotechnical research and development can be carried out. Some of these facilities likely are staffed by former members of Iraq’s biological warfare program. Much of the laboratory equipment is dual-use and could be used for biological agent development.

Like its other programs, Iraq clearly intends to reestablish its biological warfare effort. It is well positioned to do this because of the assets it retains and could resume limited agent production fairly quickly, if UN sanctions and monitoring end.

Quoting:
Peace protests have lost focus? What?! The focus is to verbally oppose war, to demonstrate to rest of the world that they do not stand for irrational violence, that they don't just sit back and let themselves be spoonfed by bloody, inept tyrants. That is the focus. I actually believe many have lost the focus on what is to be patriotic moreso than the  protesting of needless wars.
End Quote

Yes, they have lost focus.  Don't you agree that if Bush and the administration wanted to go to war a month ago, they would have done it?  Instead, they are giving the UN time to do their so-called "inspections", and are not jumping into war.  So who is the "bloody tryrant" you referred to?  

My whole point with this thread was to address the fact that the protestors aren't protesting the right thing.  They are protesting Bush while he is the one allowing the UN to do their "inspections", while Saddam continues to undermine the UN effort.

So why protest Bush and our military?  Why not protest the real person keeping us from ending this peacefully, Saddam Hussien?  That is the focus I was referring to that seems to have been forgotten by the peace protestors.  Saddam knows excatly what needs to be done to prevent war.  Its up to him to do it.  And its not like the administrations and UN aren't giving him enough time to do it.  He's had 12+ years.

Quoting:



oh give me a break.

Cat, that comment is absurd, even you know that. ::)

End Quote

So, which comment do you think is absurd? The fact that Bush is allowing big business to pollute. That can be seen in Dubya's Fresh Air Act that has set back air pollution standards that have come a long way in the last 20 years. It is like having the fox guard the hen house.
Or do you think the comment about people getting killed is absurd because that is what will happen if we go to war. You can't deny the fact that during war, people die-usually civilians.




Cat

Quoting:
So, which comment do you think is absurd? End Quote

Again, I stand behind my statement.

Quoting:


Yes, they have lost focus.  Don't you agree that if Bush and the administration wanted to go to war a month ago, they would have done it?  Instead, they are giving the UN time to do their so-called "inspections", and are not jumping into war.  So who is the "bloody tryrant" you referred to?End Quote

Okay. Saddam is a bloody tyrant too. Helped into power and kept in place by... We can't forget who our friends are, right?  

Quoting:My whole point with this thread was to address the fact that the protestors aren't protesting the right thing.End Quote

War protesters protest war. Peace marches are about peace. How is this not the "right thing"? The USA had plenty of time to protest Iraq back in the 80s and even had a really good chance of booting Saddam Hussein with the help and support of the entire world and the US did not do it (thank Reagan and Bush Sr. for that). This time around, at present, Saddam Hussein is doing the same or less than what he was doing back in the 80s, but suddenly US diplomats have found a heart and now they care about the welfare of the world's population? I don't buy it. If US foreign policy had a heart, we'd be fighting all over the world. We'd be in Liberia, Pakistan and India (Kashmir), in the Congo, in Sudan, in Venezuela, et cetera.

They all had plenty of time to take care of him when it was the right time to take care of him, but they sat idly by. Now when all these things are happening to the US, they decide to push for a campaign that many around the world, and even at home, see as suspicious (and I don't blame them. It does seem suspicious).

Quoting:They are protesting Bush while he is the one allowing the UN to do their "inspections", while Saddam continues to undermine the UN effort.End Quote

Sure. I'll protest against Saddam Hussein as well as Bush and all the previous govts. that sat on their hands or aided Saddam in keeping his post (and it does come back to nail the US). I'd also like to protest against the Iranian govt. (wasn't the Shah Of Iran planning to socialize the country? Guess who was against this move and did nothing when the revolution came about?).

Quoting:So why protest Bush and our military?  Why not protest the real person keeping us from ending this peacefully, Saddam Hussien?End Quote

We should protest against both.

Quoting:That is the focus I was referring to that seems to have been forgotten by the peace protestors.End Quote

I see where you're coming from. Okay. I don't see a lot of people speaking loudly against Saddam's regime, but Saddam is not the one with the needle ready to poke the balloon. If he's such a nuisance, I'm sure Israel and the other countries around Iraq would be pushing for this move more than anybody else. Heck! They should be the ones who are more concerned and with their respective armies at the helm. Saddam did nothing to prove his intentions towards the US, but he has done it with his neighbors. A direct attack from Iraq here and you'll have me supporting Bush Jr. all the way.

Quoting:And its not like the administrations and UN aren't giving him enough time to do it.  He's had 12+ years.
End Quote

Oh, he's had more than 12 years, but, back then, Noriega, Pinochet, The Taliban, and all those other guys were US "allies." It's so Orwellian. One moment the govt. is telling its citizens they're our friends and the next that they're our enemies.

But, I'll sit here and see what happens. I don't think war is a good idea in this instance and I don't think our govt. knows best (they seldom do). They have a lot of information, but they cannot work well with it - and usually are looking after their immediate best interests and that of their friends. It's like that in every country, except we have the strongest army of them all. People don't protest Bush Jr. and the US per se. I mean, if Canada or Mexico was the one pushing for this and they were the ones with the biggest army, I'd protest against them and their leaders. I'm also against the British govt. who (as the news present them here) blindly support the US on any action. What did Iraq do to Great Britain that would warrant their govt. calling out for their blood (I missed that part)? Their support is weird. Spain too. Their citizens think otherwise, naturally. And they protest too!

There's no loss of focus. They seem to be the only ones who are more sharply focused as to what happened, what is happening, and what might happen.

Quoting:
Spoken just like a typical jealous Canadian...

End Quote

  Canadian?!  Sheesh...now you're gettin' personal! ;)

Quoting:


Okay. Saddam is a bloody tyrant too. Helped into power and kept in place by... We can't forget who our friends are, right?End Quote

And we traded with Hitler's Germany prior to WWII and were allies with a bloodier tyrant, Josep Stalin, during the war.  We allied ourself with Hussein during the cold war, he fought Iran and Iran had kidnapped our people.  Alliances shift.    

Quoting:War protesters protest war. Peace marches are about peace. How is this not the "right thing"? The USA had plenty of time to protest Iraq back in the 80s and even had a really good chance of booting Saddam Hussein with the help and support of the entire world and the US did not do it (thank Reagan and Bush Sr. for that). This time around, at present, Saddam Hussein is doing the same or less than what he was doing back in the 80s, but suddenly US diplomats have found a heart and now they care about the welfare of the world's population? I don't buy it. If US foreign policy had a heart, we'd be fighting all over the world. We'd be in Liberia, Pakistan and India (Kashmir), in the Congo, in Sudan, in Venezuela, et cetera. End Quote

Imposing our will in all those countries?  That sounds a little imperialistic.
Even in disagreement with their intent, I think the peace demonstrations are a healthy show of popular feeling.

Quoting:They all had plenty of time to take care of him when it was the right time to take care of him, but they sat idly by. Now when all these things are happening to the US, they decide to push for a campaign that many around the world, and even at home, see as suspicious (and I don't blame them. It does seem suspicious).End Quote

When had they the chance to "take care of him?"  And who are "they?"  Prior to the invasion of Kuwait?  Hussein was a bulwark against the Soviet-backed Iranians.  After the Gulf War?  The mandate of that war was to oust Hussein from Kuwait, not to occupy Iraq.  After Iraq kicked the weapons inspectors out in the 1990s?  Maybe, but that would have been less well received then than now.  
Doesn't the chemical, biological and ballistic weapons missing and unaccounted for trouble you?

Quoting:Sure. I'll protest against Saddam Hussein as well as Bush and all the previous govts. that sat on their hands or aided Saddam in keeping his post (and it does come back to nail the US). I'd also like to protest against the Iranian govt. (wasn't the Shah Of Iran planning to socialize the country? Guess who was against this move and did nothing when the revolution came about?). End Quote

Uh... Jimmy Carter?   ;)

Quoting:I see where you're coming from. Okay. I don't see a lot of people speaking loudly against Saddam's regime, but Saddam is not the one with the needle ready to poke the balloon. If he's such a nuisance, I'm sure Israel and the other countries around Iraq would be pushing for this move more than anybody else.End Quote

I believe Israel has again, as in 1991, been asked to keep their mouths shut and their powder dry.

Quoting: Heck! They should be the ones who are more concerned and with their respective armies at the helm. Saddam did nothing to prove his intentions towards the US, but he has done it with his neighbors. A direct attack from Iraq here and you'll have me supporting Bush Jr. all the way.End Quote

You don't need to directly attack someone with biological and chemical weapons.  A couple of vials of anthrax or smallpox spores is all it takes.  Saddam has plenty of each he's failed to account for.  What do you get when you combine a rogue nation with a deep animus towards the West, an extensive terrorist network and a theology that glorifies suicide killers?

Quoting:Oh, he's had more than 12 years, but, back then, Noriega, Pinochet, The Taliban, and all those other guys were US "allies." It's so Orwellian. One moment the govt. is telling its citizens they're our friends and the next that they're our enemies.End Quote

You forgot Hitler and Stalin again!  >:(

Quoting:

 Imposing our will in all those countries?End Quote

It's been known to happen :)

Quoting:When had they the chance to "take care of him?" End Quote

During the Clinton era, actually.

http://www.globalengagement.org/issues/2002/11/baath-2.htm

 

Quoting:Doesn't the chemical, biological and ballistic weapons missing and unaccounted for trouble you?End Quote

Yes, it does. When the USA decides by itself to invade Iraq, it will give terrorits plenty of reason to use these weapons on us and then they'll think it's justifiable since they can misconstrue it as an attack on the Arab world.

I'm also worried about the nukes that N. Korea keeps boasting about and how they have taken it upon themselves to launch that program again. Their propaganda is also filled with hatred for the US...

Quoting: Uh... Jimmy Carter?   ;)End Quote

That's right :)

Quoting: I believe Israel has again, as in 1991, been asked to keep their mouths shut and their powder dry.End Quote

By...?

Quoting:You don't need to directly attack someone with biological and chemical weapons.  A couple of vials of anthrax or smallpox spores is all it takes.End Quote

But he hasn't used them on us. Plenty of nations have these weapons. Are we going after every one of them as well or do we pick and choose at random (especially those that are sitting on a goldmine of natural resources)? We have chemical weapons stockpiled too. The US and the Russian stock would put all the rest to shame.

Quoting:Saddam has plenty of each he's failed to account for.  What do you get when you combine a rogue nation with a deep animus towards the West, an extensive terrorist network and a theology that glorifies suicide killers?End Quote

They're not a theocracy. Muslim dogma and Saddam's dictatorship have nothing to do with each other. Think: Turkey and Iran under the Shah. You're better off looking for these people in Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Rogue nations that have a deep hatred for the West? We can sit here all night and list them and their grievances ;D

Unlike the peace protesters, I'm bastard enough to think of a possibility for war and I am genuinely curious to see the results from it. In an optimistic point of view this could turn out to be a good nation-building project for the US, but it'd have to be an extensive and expensive pet project - a kind of Marshall Plan for Iraq (we'd also have to depend on help from Iraqis who are honest enough to want to make a better nation). Do I think this will actually happen? No. I think gasoline will be a lot cheaper and we'd also be under constant threat from terrorist groups directly linked to Iraq yelling, "Remember Iraq!"


PS- I hate my typos, but I also don't like how after the link, it all goes into bold-type.

Quoting:

But he hasn't used them on us. Plenty of nations have these weapons. Are we going after every one of them as well or do we pick and choose at random (especially those that are sitting on a goldmine of natural resources)? We have chemical weapons stockpiled too. The US and the Russian stock would put all the rest to shame.
End Quote

::)

Seems many have forgotten, despite the millions and millions of times it has been posted here, that YES, other nations probably have the weapons.  BUT, those other nations are NOT under sanctions that prohibit them from having them like Iraq is.  

Why do some people fail to acknowledge this fact? ::)  

Quoting:


::)

Seems many have forgotten, despite the millions and millions of times it has been posted here, that YES, other nations probably have the weapons.  BUT, those other nations are NOT under sanctions that prohibit them from having them like Iraq is.  

Why do some people fail to acknowledge this fact? ::)  


End Quote

You're right. It seems that way, but it's not true. I knew this fact b-e-f-o-r-e it was posted here "millions and millions of times." Do you believe this actually makes rogue nations like N. Korea and Pakistan less dangerous than Iraq? Right. And US foreign-policy makers walk on water. These sanctions are UN sanctions, am I not right? So why is the US acting alone on this one? Seems some posters have forgotten or just completely fail to acknowledge that the UN is a separate entity from the US (unless I have it wrong and these are only US sanctions... then I'll take it back as something thoughtless I wrote again). This was written and posted millions and millions of times in newspapers, websites, and magazines around the world. While the US is still a member of the UN, it should act like one no matter how irritating and non-compliant other members are.

Still, I'd like to see the results and repercussions from an invasion of Iraq.

Quoting:
While the US is still a member of the UN, it should act like one no matter how irritating and non-compliant other members are.
End Quote

This is a good point, and one I tried to make elsewhere. Yes, Iraq is a member of the UN and is breaking the rules set by the UN for its conduct. Other countries are going against their obligations to various treaties and conventions as well, but that doesn't give the US the right to do it. In fact, as the major power in the world today, the US should be setting an example to others by not playing things their own way. Hence, this threat they're waving about of going to war against Iraq regardless of whether the UN allows it should be dropped. The US, as the world's major power and the self-appointed protector of the Free World, should abide by the UN at all times, at all costs, and show the rest of the world how the game is supposed to be played.

Quoting:
The difference is that "Dubya" isn't trying to kill you or poison your water supply.  So put it back into perspective.
End Quote

Neither is Saddam.  I don't think invasion "because he might" is valid reason for war.  You obviously do, so we will have to agree to differ.  Though I notice that you, and the pro-war lobby in general, have not managed to rebut the proposal that a war in Iraq will make terrorism in general and Iraqi use of any chemical or biological weapons they have in particular much more probable.

Bearing in mind the propaganda prevalent in the Middle East, and the vast numbers of the Muslim population who see Saddam as some kind of Muslim hero (yes, I know they're wrong, but they won't believe me about that, let alone any American), this invasion is going to stir up an anti-west fever (especially anti-americanism) of unprecendented proportions.  I think that the Bush/Blair axis is being unbelievably dense if they don't see this coming.

Phil

Quoting:

Neither is Saddam.  I don't think invasion "because he might" is valid reason for war.  You obviously do, so we will have to agree to differ.  Though I notice that you, and the pro-war lobby in general, have not managed to rebut the proposal that a war in Iraq will make terrorism in general and Iraqi use of any chemical or biological weapons they have in particular much more probable.

Bearing in mind the propaganda prevalent in the Middle East, and the vast numbers of the Muslim population who see Saddam as some kind of Muslim hero (yes, I know they're wrong, but they won't believe me about that, let alone any American), this invasion is going to stir up an anti-west fever (especially anti-americanism) of unprecendented proportions.  I think that the Bush/Blair axis is being unbelievably dense if they don't see this coming.

Phil
End Quote

Peace in our time?  
Nobody knows what effect a war will have on terrorism.  A short war followed by a just peace may have the opposite effect.  

Quoting:
Peace in our time?  
Nobody knows what effect a war will have on terrorism.  A short war followed by a just peace may have the opposite effect.  
End Quote

Why does the pro-war lobby insist on comparing the military peanut that is what's left of Iraq's army to Hitler?  So the same "we should have attacked him then" logic can be applied?  Sorry, but it's another red herring designed to make us accept war (like the Iraq/bin Laden terrorism tie-in).

Do you honestly think the majority of the Arab world will ever see any post-war settlement in Iraq as a "just peace"?

Phil

Quoting:

Why does the pro-war lobby insist on comparing the military peanut that is what's left of Iraq's army to Hitler?  So the same "we should have attacked him then" logic can be applied?  Sorry, but it's another red herring designed to make us accept war (like the Iraq/bin Laden terrorism tie-in).

Do you honestly think the majority of the Arab world will ever see any post-war settlement in Iraq as a "just peace"?

Phil
End Quote

I'm sorry if you misunderstood, I was likening Hussein less to Hitler than the peace mongers of today to the appeasers of the past.  
While England and the world slept in the 1930s Hitler created the greatest military in the world.  Iraq has a third-rate conventional army.  
What the peace mongers seem to ignore is the agents of death (anthrax, botulinum toxin, etc.)  Hussein has hoarded and hidden.  When the choice was severe economic sanctions or disclosing what became of these agents of death, Hussein chose sanctions.
If Hussein has retained a fraction of these biological and chemical agents, his ability to strike his enemies, in their home far from the battlefield, is greater than Hitler's.  
   

Quoting:

You obviously do, so we will have to agree to differ.  
End Quote

Fair enough :)  No hard feelings.

Quoting:
Guess what, people? The radical Arabs/Muslims are going to hate the US regardless of what we do. They will hate us if we rip Iraq a new *sshole and they will hate us if we sit around and wring our hands.  
End Quote

Agreed, but the majority of Muslims are not radical, hate-filled types.  Yet.

Phil

Quoting:

Agreed, but the majority of Muslims are not radical, hate-filled types.  Yet.

Phil
End Quote

Nor do I believe the majority will become so.  There is an element prone to become militant, and I think they will reach that stage regardless of our actions.  Or inactions.

Quoting:

Agreed, but the majority of Muslims are not radical, hate-filled types.  Yet.

Phil
End Quote

Quoting:


Nor do I believe the majority will become so.  There is an element prone to become militant, and I think they will reach that stage regardless of our actions.  Or inactions.
End Quote

Point: the war (I guess I could call it that since it hasn't technically been officially declared) is against terrorism, not Islam.  The Bush administration has been very careful to clarify that.

Another point: Muslims aren't the only "faction" who can become militant.  It just happens that the terrorists we're dealing with right now practice a form of fascist Islam.  One wonders if you'd be crying bloody murder if the terrorists were fundamentalist Christians (i.e. Nazis).

Quoting:



Point: the war (I guess I could call it that since it hasn't technically been officially declared) is against terrorism, not Islam.  The Bush administration has been very careful to clarify that.End Quote

Where did Phil or I say it was a war on Islam?

Quoting:Another point: Muslims aren't the only "faction" who can become militant.  It just happens that the terrorists we're dealing with right now practice a form of fascist Islam.  One wonders if you'd be crying bloody murder if the terrorists were fundamentalist Christians (i.e. Nazis).
End Quote

You're damned right I would. Any more questions?

Quoting:
Where did Phil or I say it was a war on Islam?End Quote

You didn't.  I just intercepted whoever would've replied in kind, because that seemed to be where the conversation was leading ;)

Quoting:
You're damned right I would. Any more questions?
End Quote

None at all.  Sorry you took this as an attack on your character, my apologies.

Quoting:


None at all.  Sorry you took this as an attack on your character, my apologies.
End Quote

I don't think I took it as an attack on my character, but I was surprised that you would ask such a question.  In answering, I wanted to leave no room for doubt regarding my stance.

Quoting:


I don't think I took it as an attack on my character, but I was surprised that you would ask such a question.  In answering, I wanted to leave no room for doubt regarding my stance.
End Quote

No problem :)  No hard feelings from me.

Quoting:
What really gets me is the fact that "Rummy" is talking about using nukes against Iraq because they MAY have weapons of mass distrustion, so therefore we have to use ours on them. That does not make any sense to me.



Cat
End Quote

I agree with you there.  Nukes = bad.  They better have a damned good reason to use them or else heads are gonna roll.

Quoting:
International conventions have outlawed the use of many weapons the administration believes to be in Iraq's possession.  End Quote

Correct, and good point.

Quoting:
The warning, in my opinion, isn't that unusual or alarming.End Quote

I agree.   "Rummy"'s warning, to me, is no more than his way of saying, "if you decide to try anything stupid against us, you'll regret it".

Using nukes is the ultimate last resort.  And any administration, no matter who they are, knows that.  I wouldn't look to deep into this comment by "Rummy", as some people are.

Quoting:
Point: the war (I guess I could call it that since it hasn't technically been officially declared) is against terrorism, not Islam.  The Bush administration has been very careful to clarify that.End Quote

What I said was:

Quoting:
Bearing in mind the propaganda prevalent in the Middle East, and the vast numbers of the Muslim population who see Saddam as some kind of Muslim hero (yes, I know they're wrong, but they won't believe me about that, let alone any American), this invasion is going to stir up an anti-west fever (especially anti-americanism) of unprecendented proportions.  I think that the Bush/Blair axis is being unbelievably dense if they don't see this coming.
End Quote

I know it's not a war against Islam, you know that it's not a war against Islam, but the secular hypocrite in charge of Iraq is trying (with the aid of some of the more excitable imams) to portray it as such.  The problem you (we? seeing as we're involved here whether we like it or not) have is that the majority of people in the ME are more likely to believe their imams than Western reporting.

Phil

Quoting:


What I said was:

I know it's not a war against Islam, you know that it's not a war against Islam, but the secular hypocrite in charge of Iraq is trying (with the aid of some of the more excitable imams) to portray it as such.  The problem you (we? seeing as we're involved here whether we like it or not) have is that the majority of people in the ME are more likely to believe their imams than Western reporting.

Phil
End Quote

As far as Al Quaeda and the Islamic extremists are concerned, any attack on a Muslim country, no matter how secular and no matter what the reason, is an attgack on Islam. That's their ideology. Bush could write "This is a war against terror, not Islam" in letters a mile high and it wouldn't make any difference. Islamic extremists don't care what the real reasons are. To them, an attack on a Muslim country is an attack against Islam.

Quoting:
As far as Al Quaeda and the Islamic extremists are concerned, any attack on a Muslim country, no matter how secular and no matter what the reason, is an attack on Islam.End Quote

After 9/11 didn't Bush claim 'This was an attack against democracy'?
I guess the religious nutters on both sides are pretty much the same  on this score ::)

This is actually a common ploy for support - appeal to a larger group.  As far back as 1066, William of Normandy tried to present his invasion of England as a religious crusade and won the backing of the Catholic church.  The troubles in Northern Ireland are often presented as Catholic against Protestant but in reality, they are actually English against Irish. The list goes on...

Quoting:
As far as Al Quaeda and the Islamic extremists are concerned, any attack on a Muslim country, no matter how secular and no matter what the reason, is an attgack on Islam.
End Quote

As has been pointed out earlier, the extremists will always be, well, extreme - it's the majority of non-extreme muslims I'm concerned about: the ones whose heads may well be turned by any attack on what they perceive to be an Islamic country.

Quoting:
This is actually a common ploy for support - appeal to a larger group.  As far back as 1066, William of Normandy tried to present his invasion of England as a religious crusade and won the backing of the Catholic church.  The troubles in Northern Ireland are often presented as Catholic against Protestant but in reality, they are actually English against Irish. The list goes on...
End Quote

The Catholic church throughout history hasn't minded how dreadful the atrocities have been... providing it's against someone they don't like (be it Muslims, Jews or even Christians of a slightly different flavour).  Certainly it exacerbated the situation in Northern Ireland by failing to condemn (or excommunicate) IRA bombers.

The only problem is I'm fast running out of places to which I can emigrate ;-)

Phil

Quoting:
For all we know, Saddam could have moved them totally out of Iraq over the last few years.  Heck, he's had 12 years to prepare, who knows where they are.

End Quote

As contradictory as this suggestion seemed at the time, it now appears there's a trio of suspicious Iraqi freighters steaming about the Indian Ocean.