We should not attack Iraq

Hey CC, I have a Bio test on Tuesday. Think you can stop by tomorrow evening and help me study?

Hahahaha, looks like CC made a new friend. :wink:

sure EG - love to help. Trouble is, you’re nowhere near Winnipeg, and i have cardiology rounds for the next few weeks.
Any questions feel free to private message me.
what kind of biology?

yes, i’m really that stupid.
come on. We are supposed to support sending a bunch of young men (and women) to their deaths so that they might kill a bunch of other young men and women because a bunch of people who no one trusts any way says so?
i understand classified. I deal with it on a daily basis. I’m privy to stuff that no one else in the world is. This isn’t about curiousity. This is life and death stuff.

I absolutely agree with you. This IS life and death stuff, therefore I don’t think we need to be releasing every single shread of evidence to the general public. Bush has told us is reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and has laid out the evidence. They’ve even gone as far as to show satellite photographs. Now, some people will not choose to believe him, and I don’t really have a problem with that. No president is going to get 100% for his actions, no matter the cause. There’s not much more this administration can do before they start compromising American lives.

Of course we are not at war.

How do you define war?

We do not treat those captured as prisoners of war.

I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass how the al-Qaeda prisoners are treated. Have you seen the sh*t that our military police have to put up with on a daily basis? It’s appalling.

We have not declared war.

Yes we have.
“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there.” - George W. Bush

Didn’t declare war in Korea or Nam, those must not have been wars either.

@Deviant:Scripter:

I hate to break it to you, but there are peaceful nations out there that are victims of terrorism also.

Does that mean the US of A are not a peaceful nation?

@Deviant:Scripter:

Bush has told us is reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and has laid out the evidence. They’ve even gone as far as to show satellite photographs.

Well, first you talk of the classifed evidence, which we have to trust… so these pics shown were not, supposedly. What does that mean? Old evidence, false data, faked pics… why are they not classified, and when they are not, why do you believe them ;)?
Seriously now: Does the “classified” include other nations leaders (except T.Blair), or have they been permitted to see that evidence? If yes, why did most say “there is nothing new about it”, if not: why not?

Does that mean the US of A are not a peaceful nation?

Well, in the broadest of terms, Yes, I would consider the US a peaceful nation. But in the context of his statement, be drew a distinguishment between the US and other (presumeably smaller) countries…that’s what I was referring to.

Well, first you talk of the classifed evidence, which we have to trust… so these pics shown were not, supposedly. What does that mean? Old evidence, false data, faked pics… why are they not classified, and when they are not, why do you believe them ?
Seriously now: Does the “classified” include other nations leaders (except T.Blair), or have they been permitted to see that evidence? If yes, why did most say “there is nothing new about it”, if not: why not?

First, I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying, but I’ll give it my best shot :-?. I believe the pictures, becuase that’s what our president is showing us. I know enough to know that the President of the United States and other key officials (ie Colin Powell & Don Rumsfeld) know ALOT more than I do…that’s why I’m trusting them and what they say.

Secondly, No, we are not sharing every piece of classified information with our allies and those countries we’re trying to convince on board. Why would we do that? That would surely jeopardize any attack (if we ever get to that point.) Of course, we do share some information, but not all of it.

My point is simple.
You can either sit back and criticize the officials, claiming they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Or you can trust in what they tell us and support any efforts to make our country a safer place. If you don’t want to support Bush for some reason or another, then do it for this reason: We have men & women, brothers & sisters, moms & dads, and friends over their fighting as we speak. Support it for them. :wink:

@Deviant:Scripter:

I know enough to know that the President of the United States and other key officials (ie Colin Powell & Don Rumsfeld) know ALOT more than I do…that’s why I’m trusting them and what they say.

You know enough to assume that the president et. al. know ALOT more than you.

Secondly, No, we are not sharing every piece of classified information with our allies and those countries we’re trying to convince on board. Why would we do that? That would surely jeopardize any attack (if we ever get to that point.) Of course, we do share some information, but not all of it.

Do you wonder why the US find such a hard time of convincing others then?

Or you can trust in what they tell us and support any efforts to make our country a safer place. If you don’t want to support Bush for some reason or another, then do it for this reason: We have men & women, brothers & sisters, moms & dads, and friends over th(ere) fighting as we speak. Support it for them. :wink:

Please do NOT patronize me.
It is not my country. I prefer to support more peaceful countries.
And why should i support people fighting when i think that their fighting is not backed up by any laws? Should i support any two people who happen to beat themselves up for no better reason that they are son and daughters etc?

@Soon_U_Die:

Yanny& Falk & others,

On Iraq. One would prefer to act in unison with a broad coalition. We aren’t exactly sure what will happen if we do act. We aren’t exactly certain what will happen if we don’t act.

However, we do have plenty of evidence of Saddam’s extremely brutal nature. We do have evidence of wide-scale use of chemical weapons. We do know that he has stockpiles of WMD and we do know that he wants more and will do anything to get them. We do know that he ignores every resolution and every action we have taken. We do know that he will let his people remain in abject poverty and suffering because of his brutal nature and desires.

Our embargoes and restrictions have caused considerable suffering on the average Iraqi. That is a shame. But the responsibility for this lies with the Iraqi regime. Nothing would please the US more than a peaceful, fairly moderate regime in Iraq that was willing and able to trade openly on the free market. There’s no need for them to be US toadies; there’s no reason for them to lose their sovereignty in any way. There is ample reason for them to join their place in the ‘civilized’ world and they can do so and keep their culture, traditions, religion etc.

The impediment to this is Saddam and his brutal regime; not the US, Israel or anyone else. This guy will stop at nothing to satisfy his ego and desires. I am convinced that he would gladly sacrifice his people to do so. They are the victims.

Now the problem with the situation is that peace today is warm and comfortable, and it is really hard to move from the status quo, when you are warm and comfortable. Instead, we tend to wait until we are cold and uncomfortable, before we change the status quo. The problem with this is that the transition is very dangerous when a madman is at play. The price to be paid for becoming cold and uncomfortable could be extremely high.

To me this is like a police analogy….prevention is great, we reduce crime, we make the streets safe. Then we start questioning why we spend so much on the police. We erode their budget. Crime goes up. We start screaming for more police.

The action that the US is considering is preventative. By its very nature, you cannot be certain of the outcome or your return on this investment. At some point, you have to make judgement calls. There will always be sound arguments on both sides. Believe me, I do not dismiss your logic out of hand. It is relevant and should be considered.

But…it’s 11 years later and the same wacko is still in charge and shows no sign of mercy for his own people. At the same time, he continues to pursue WMD quests. We are playing with fire. Sooner or later he will succeed in his quest. It will then instantly be too late for us to do anything. Preventive maintenance is just that…before it breaks down.

Why does no one else join the party? Because they are still warm and comfortable. They know what is the status quo and they know how to deal with that. They are afraid of changing that equation. I doubt any of the European leaders actually wants Saddam in power. Likely they all want Saddam out of power. But, it’s messy business and the outcome is uncertain. So, it is much easier to wait until tommorrow. You know this line of thought…

When they came in the night for the Catholics, I said nothing, as I am not Catholic. When they came the next night for the unionists, I said nothing, as I am not a unionist. When they came the next night for the academics, I said nothing, as I am not an academic. When they came on the last night for me, there was no one left to say anything.

I submit that with the exception of the US, we are saying nothing.

Imagine if Bush had not said anything at all in the past year about Iraq. Would we be better off? I submit that you have to keep the pressure on the madmen of the world, and sooner or later, you have to act. Perhaps the question is not why act today…but rather, why NOT act today? What exactly do we expect to change if we say and do nothing?

Anyway, enough of my rant. I do acknowledge your points and there is merit in them. But, it’s high time to get tough and sometimes leadership means that you move first and without total group consensus.

SUD

Good Post!

@F_alk:

@Mr:

Quote from F_alk "For the first:
Why the hell did and do the USA still produce weapons of mass destruction, even illegal ones?
For the secod:
Why do the US spy on even their allies and friends?

You seem to take rights for you that you don’t allow other nations. "

Why did they? The cold war is why, and it made most Eurpoean countries safer because of it. How far do you think Russia would have went if not for the US?
America has been down sizing its nuclear weapons ever since the Wall came down.
Your sadly mistaken if you think the US is the only “friendly” nation that spys on its allies.
I’m willing to bet every nation is “guilty” of it.

You didn’t answer the queation after the “why do they still” and ignored the illegal ones.
Yes, after the war there was a danger of another war, but not directly after it. None of any allied people would have understood why to fight on. The russians wouldn’t have gone further, as they have already met the allies, remember the deal of the western allies and the russians, to exchange some of east germany for a part of Berlin. The climate cooled down since then, but the danger of a directly successive war was not given. Even in the liberated countries with much interest of both sides, the russians went to use (weaknesses of) the democratic ways to strengthen their position (like Greece, Yugoslavia, East Germany, etc.). If you read the party programs of the west german parties after the war, even the conservatives were (in american standards extremely) socialist. But you are right, the climate cooled down since then, and a war might have started later (when the soviets had nuclear weapons of their own).

For the spying: I can give you proof that the US spies on the german economic and inventions, stealing some of them. Can you give me proof that we do the same to you?
Just because you “think” it is someway, doesn’t make it that way!

Quote from F_alk"Seriously: I would take away the bat, then bring some distance between the two, and then examine the case."

What if its the 10th time he’s hit her with the bat? He’s done it again and again over the years.

Oh well, that i can only know when i start to examine the case!
Or could you see from the tip of his nose that he has done it once, twice or ten times?
The punishment afterwards is something where i would then look at the legal system, which punishment for which crime etc.

Quote from F_alk"Just as the US are in possession of these weapons, and are capable of using them for terrorist attacks.
It kind of sounds that you are envious to anyone who can do that as well, as if you want to have the monoply of weapons of mass destruction.

Come on! you know dam well the US doesn’t use terroist tactics. Its silly of you to even make that statement.
It kind of sounds like you are suggesting we (international community) let any dictator, with a shady past, have access and the means to weapons of mass destruction.

lol
No, of course. The US never supported guerrilas in america, to fight against the elected government. The CIA never was involved in anything illegal…… that’s all lies… just as Saddam in real is the most peaceful person since Gandhi…
shaking my head
And let’s have a look at which dictator was supported by the americans…
Hmmmm… nearly all…
You even cooperated with Germany after WWI, clearly breaking the peace treaty of Versaille with that. ANd this cooperation lived on till '41…

Quote from F_alk"as many years as other countries get."
What other countries are you referring to?

which other country in the middle east continously defies UN resolutions?

Qutoe from F_alk"Acting in defense? Well, were did the Iraq attack the US then?
You could claim the fighters again, but would you call shooting at foreign soldiers in your territory “attack”? Couldn’t you argue that it’s the Iraq qho is constantly under attack? (No, that is not my position, but the US are clearly not defending).
Is a pre-emptive strike really defending? Is it defending, because you call an attack a pre-emptive strike? Did Germany never attack the USSR or Poland in WW2 then, just because german media said so?

And, you would get the worlds approval with an instant, if you were attacked, just remember Septembre last year."

Defense of future terrorist attacks.
I said nothing about any fighters, sorry.
Don’t know what your saying about WW2 Germany media.??
Does the US have to wait for another terrorist attack before it is OK with everyone?

To the fighters: “you could”…. man, do i have to teach you your grammar ;)
To german WW2 media: The attacks on Poland and Russia were “pre emptive strikes”, if you believed the Nazi propaganda.
And to the terrorists: You are after Al Kaeda and Bin Laden… and the whole world supports you in this. As long as you fight them, noone will say anything, but the Iraq is a different story.
They have a dictator, true. This dictator has committed crimes, true. He is being punished for that.
Starting a war, to get rid of any peoples government, is an act of aggression and anti-democratic. Would you bow, if someone told you: Get rid of GWB, or we will bomb your country into oblivion? Would you?

Again, The US feels Iraq is a cog in the terriost threats against them.
They have every right to “defend” against that.

I feel i get paid not enough. I feel the currentUS government are arrogant hawks, who should fight in the first front line in whichever war they start. I feel like a coffee and a cigarette.
You start a war because you feel threatened by a second class dictator?
That is worse than anything heard here before, even worse than still caling a pre emptive strike “defending”.

I curious, why are you ( that being anyone) against action against Iraq?
I don’t undestand what the outstanding reason are?
It seems clear to me ( if you havn’t guessed) something has to be done.

Read my previous posts.
I think i have made my point clear enough there and more than once. If you wish, feel free to ask me again, i then will answer. But not before you made at least an effort to read what i wrote before.

PS: Yes, maybe diplomacy with the Iraq is hard, and effort, and noone garantuees total success. But that is life: There is no total security, no total success, and you have to work for the limited success you want.
These are part of the “american dream”, aren’t they? Why is that skipped, has your dream died? Are you not willing to work for successes, are you like a spoiled child? Wanting everything, and screaming and kicking if you don’t get it all and at once?
… if that is so… then let’s hope that you grow up, and do so quickly…

Wow its been awhile, just got back for holidays….

Ok F_alk where is your proof that America is the only nation that spies on its allies?

And about your “American Dream” rant, have your arguments against me come down to you slamming my character?, taunts about grammar? Thats pretty weak on your behalf.
And, on top of all that, Im Canadian.
Maybe you should open your eyes and read before you type somthing and hand out insults.

Qutoe from F_alk
“If you do not wait for the UN approval, then an attack on the Iraq is criminal”

I’ve said before, however I’ll say it again.
Action in Kosovo, was not approved by the UN.
Was it wrong that NATO intervened?
Surely not.

Granted Iraq is a different situation, morally at least.
However, The UN is far from the moral conscience of the world.

@cystic:

sure EG - love to help. Trouble is, you’re nowhere near Winnipeg, and i have cardiology rounds for the next few weeks.
Any questions feel free to private message me.
what kind of biology?

THe forums were down so I couldn’t but I got 94% on it. I can’t believe I had to memorize the thickness of a microtubule and that wasnt even askedi n the end. What a waste.

@Ghoul:

Wow its been awhile, just got back for holidays….

Ok F_alk where is your proof that America is the only nation that spies on its allies?

And about your “American Dream” rant, have your arguments against me come down to you slamming my character?, taunts about grammar? Thats pretty weak on your behalf.
And, on top of all that, Im Canadian.
Maybe you should open your eyes and read before you type somthing and hand out insults.

You didn’t miss much, the site was down for about a week.
So, let’s have a look at America spying on allies (most links will lead to pages in german):
On the 7th of march 2000, James Woolsey, former CIA-boss, admitted it (see: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/6663/1.html).
One of the tools possibly used is the Echolon system, which was not only active in Europe but also in Japan. (http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7985/1.html).
For allies spying on the USA, all i found was that Israel is being classified as an “A”-country by the US.

For you being Canadian, and me mistaking you for US american, i apologoize. For taunting your grammar: The use of this emoticon ;) usually indicates “not serious”. For slamming your character: in the section of my post about the american dream the “you” i used was the “plural” you, like in “you all”. If this wasn’t clear from what i wrote, i will try not to let that misunderstanding happen again.

You still didn’t answer my question: Why do the US still produce (even illegal) WMD and still research on (even illegal) ones?

@F_alk:

@Ghoul:

Wow its been awhile, just got back for holidays….

Ok F_alk where is your proof that America is the only nation that spies on its allies?

And about your “American Dream” rant, have your arguments against me come down to you slamming my character?, taunts about grammar? Thats pretty weak on your behalf.
And, on top of all that, Im Canadian.
Maybe you should open your eyes and read before you type somthing and hand out insults.

You didn’t miss much, the site was down for about a week.
So, let’s have a look at America spying on allies (most links will lead to pages in german):
On the 7th of march 2000, James Woolsey, former CIA-boss, admitted it (see: http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/6663/1.html).
One of the tools possibly used is the Echolon system, which was not only active in Europe but also in Japan. (http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7985/1.html).
For allies spying on the USA, all i found was that Israel is being classified as an “A”-country by the US.

For you being Canadian, and me mistaking you for US american, i apologoize. For taunting your grammar: The use of this emoticon ;) usually indicates “not serious”. For slamming your character: in the section of my post about the american dream the “you” i used was the “plural” you, like in “you all”. If this wasn’t clear from what i wrote, i will try not to let that misunderstanding happen again.

You still didn’t answer my question: Why do the US still produce (even illegal) WMD and still research on (even illegal) ones?

F_alk, its all good.

Maybe I should be more carful when I’m reading posts before I start jumping on someone.

As for the spying, your link did not work.
Its not that I think the US ISN’T spying on allies, I just belive they are not the only ones. I don’t look at them as the big bad guys.

I’m not sure I know what’s consider illegal in reguards to WMD.
I think chemical warheads are illegal, after that I don’t know.
The US, as far as I know it, has cut back their arsenal of WMD.
I don’t have a problem with US still making them though.
Maybe not illegal ones.

As a Canadian, I have nothing but thanks for the USA.
Canada would be up shits creek without the way the US handles itself.
We, as a country, have almost no military.
The US is are our defence.

I think back to 9/11 and if those planes hit in Canada, our Prime minister would have apologized.
Someone has to put their foot down…hard.
And, had it been the case that those planes hit Canada, who do you think would have been the first nation at our side…Thats right…The United States of America, demanded justice.
Our reation to 9/11, from our political leaders, was brutally embarrassing.

Anyhow, enough ranting.
I found a post from another forum that has an American’s take on the US and and their stand on foreign iusse that relate to the Iraq situation.
Its pretty good.

Quote
There is a genuine hypocrisy about Ameican foreign policy. We demand other nations subscribe to the UN resolutions, but maintain our veto, and refuse to accept constraints on our own actions. We want to avoid being the “world’s policeman”, but don’t want rival military buildup elsewhere. We promote democracy, but only if it votes our way. We want others to have the same rights we demand for ourselves, but only to insure our own citizens keep the priviledges they expect at home. We don’t meddle in other countries’ civil affairs, unless our economic interests are threatened. We demand human rights, just so long as it doesn’t cost us too much.
The U.S. has become the economic equivalent of the Borg. “We are Corp. Lower your tariffs and prepare to be acquired. Your existence as you have known it ends. We will add your economic and material resources to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”

Now, I’m no pacifist. I love a good explosion as much as the next guy. But, there’s no wool being pulled over my eyes. The middle east is about oil, plain and simple. If we wanted to show some moral superiority, it would NOT be to bomb the hell out of stone age characters, or scare everyone here into surrendering their civil rights. Maybe, just maybe, it would involve something like, oh, charity - giving not just bread to make them dependent, but the technology to become independent.

I’m more than happy to continue this, but, I agree, not here. Maybe we should start another thread on the topic elsewhere.

One last thought: imagine that civil rights flared up again like in the 60’s, and riots started throughout the country. Perhaps even military intervention to quell rebellious militia, or martial law. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the UN sanctioned the US, until it restored basic liberties, perhaps even suggesting an international peacekeeping force? Should WE be allowed to have a civil war, when we don’t think anyone else should?
End Quote

Not that I totally agree…however, it
made me think twice about my stance on Iraq.

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up shit creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

@cystic:

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up sh*t creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

Canada chooses not to have a strong military right now, plain and simple. It’s got nothing to do with the United States stopping them. It’s pretty sad when you stop to realize that our New York Police has as many officers as Canada’s entire military.

Canada’s coast guard shows up to help in Afghanistan: http://chalkdust.org/stuff/canadian_coast_guard.jpg
… :wink:

yeah, that pic is an old joke. in fact, it might well have been posted on another board here in the forums.
And you’re right - our military is inadequate. I think most people in the country agree. When our military is needed, then we produce heroic numbers of vehicals and soldiers, however our peacetime military is crappy. And why not? We’re not at war, we don’t provoke other nations to war with us, and many of America’s enemies are our trading partners. If America did not exist, and if we had not spent roughly the last 188 years building up an alliance of sorts with them, then we might need a vastly different military. But up until now, if America has defended us militarily, then i’d suggest its a deterrance. Otherwise our relationship with her has made us more of a target - maybe we need to increase our military for this reason?

America was Canada’s enemy until 85 years ago, when the Canadians and Americans fought together in the trenches of France in World War 1.