OT: Go To War or Not?

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Raiders Army
Although personally I support Kosta on many of his viewpoints, especially since my wife may be one of the grieving widows, I will fight for our country...Last night during the State of the Union address, I realized that it would be better if I die over there than my kids dying here because of nukes, chem attacks, or biological threats. Also being a nuclear engineer, I understand that it is very easy to make a nuclear bomb; the hard part is actually getting the enriched uranium or plutonium.

I will support our President in this war, but I truly believe that if he had proof, he should have said it last night, instead of hinting around at it. Also, I can see where citizens of other countries would look at the U.S. not being the Hedgemon that it's supposed to be, but a dictator itself, attempting to control countries that "don't meets its standard."

Take care Raiders Army and I sincerely hope you return safe and sound to your family. I admire your commitment to actually put your life on the line for something you believe in...

[Bee]

BTW, I think we should give the inspectors more time in Iraq. I think a few months is a small price to pay to avoid war. The only way I think we should go to war immediately is if we have intelligence that shows Iraq is prepared to use WMD in the immediate future.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Bee
The fact that there is a difference, does not mean you want to see it.

It hurts me to see someone die in a car accident and it's just as sad as someone being murdered. BUT there is a difference when you look at the person committing the act and their intent.

If I have a friend who died in a car accident, I would grieve the same as if he had been murdered. That isn't the point. The point is I wouldn't blame the driver in the car accident in the same way as I would the person with the knife who had stabbed him to death.

I can't imagine you are truly blind to that difference.

Irrelevent analogy Bee... forget the car accident and lets just talk about the real thing... war!!

Al Qaeda people fighting their holy war (or whatever they are labelling it this month) use whatever is at their disposal to kill people.... dead!!

American soldiers fighting their war on terrorism (or whatever they are labelling it this month) use whatever weapons are at their disposal to kill people... dead.

The bombs don't fall out of the planes by accident.... just like the planes that were used as bombs were not an accident.

I understand that the terrorists were targetting civilians and that the US will do it's best to avoid civilians... but in the end it won't matter. Innocent people will die.

You know what - maybe in the end that will be necessary. But (as I have been saying all along in this thread - and I have had enough I think) this should be a last and absolutely final resort. We are nowhere near that point yet.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Kosta
I bet if you were an Al Qaeda member you'd be calling what they did a justifiable war too....

I cannot believe the insensitivity and blind hypocrisy on display here... collateral damage from American bombs is somehow ok???

I think I am going to be sick.

Are you intentionally ignoring it, or do you really not see it??? The WTC airplanes were intended to kill civilians. It was not a military target at all. The United States spends LOTS of EXTRA money to develop precision boms to minimize collateral civilian damage. If some get killed accidentally, that is sad. Can you not see this difference though:

WTC Bombers--did EVERYTHING they could to maximize innocent civilian deaths
US Armed Forces--will do EVERYTHING they can to minimize innocent civilan deaths

The 9/11 murderers weren't even satisfied with a symbolic attack either. Don't forget that they made sure to hijack planes with maximum fuel loads, insuring that the "flying bomb" effect would be maximized.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Bee
BTW, I think we should give the inspectors more time in Iraq. I think a few months is a small price to pay to avoid war. The only way I think we should go to war immediately is if we have intelligence that shows Iraq is prepared to use WMD in the immediate future.

well, after all that we totally agree on the most important thing....

[Bee]

I understand that the terrorists were targetting civilians and that the US will do it's best to avoid civilians... but in the end it won't matter. Innocent people will die.

But it does matter. It's the difference between accidental death and murder. I feel my analogy is a very accurate comparison of what we are talking about, even if you wish to avoid it.

The grief of the innocent people dying is the same, and I will feel sorry for any innocent deaths and I'm in favor of avoiding those deaths if at all possible. But when an innocent life is taken, it makes a difference to me if it was taken purposefully or by accident.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Kosta
Now I remember why I try and avoid these kind of threads... enjoy your war Fritz. Make sure you tune into CNN regularly and cheer as the cruise missles blow the fucking brains out of those scummy Arab bastards... with a bit of luck you'll hit a few hospitals and schools.... screaming kids with their arms blown off will delight you.

I have not stated my position. Are you making a wittle assumption-wumption Kostapoo?

Originally posted by Kosta
A crude weapon is nothing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over...

Did you mean to say that a crude weapon is something to kill hundreds of thousands of people with?

I am confused how you can not differentiate between war casualties and murder but you can between sophisticated and crude weapons.

Originally posted by Kosta

Dumsfeld's visits to Iraq and the Reagan administrations support of Iraq is uneqivocal... nobody disputes them

That is true. The debate is over the US fostering an NBC program.

Originally posted by Kosta

Good to see you are so precious about me calling Rumsfeld Dumsfeld... seems like killing peeps is cool with you (collateral damage sorry, not killing) but making fun of an ego-maniac war mongerer is somehow wrong.

I never said anything was wrong or right. I said you insluted my Govenment instead of answering a question.

----
Kosta, you are starting to blather.

[Raiders Army]

Bee,

For the car accident/murder, I might look at it the same if the car driver was drunk or if the driver was negligent in some other way. For me, those are the same things, since when you drive drunk you're point a gun at everyone's heads.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Kosta
well, after all that we totally agree on the most important thing....

I don't know if we totally agree, but I'm probably much closer to your view than most of the board.

[Senator]

I would like to add my few comments to this thread. I am known among my peers as a pretty invovled Republican. I was the youngest delegate to the 1992 Republican National Convention. I have known our President for years through Texas political circles, so you would think I would be one of his biggest supporters regarding this issue. I may be, but not yet.

The pulse I am getting from Americans is, "We are not real sure we need to be doing this."

This cannot be the prevailing attitude from a country going to war. It plants the seeds of doubt early and history has shown those seeds grow.

If Bush wants the American people to support him in this issue, he HAS to divulge everything he knows. Whether that be through a website www.whyweneedtofight.com or through an official mouthpiece, al la Powell on the 5th, or whatever, he needs to show us, as horrible as it may be to take,
1) what we think has and why
2) what he is doing to his people
3) what he is planning to do to us
4) what can he do to us

This documentation needs to be layed at the feet of the American people to satisfy the uneasy feeling that this is about oil or a family vendetta.

I am one of those that trust Bush, but in this instance, his word alone will not be enough to make the majority of Americans support a war.

It is easy when you are attacked, you can justify anything you do after that point. But we are talking about a brand new thing for America, a pre-emptive strike, and that changes decades of foreign policy.

Show us everything Mr. President, we can take it.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Are you intentionally ignoring it, or do you really not see it??? The WTC airplanes were intended to kill civilians. It was not a military target at all. The United States spends LOTS of EXTRA money to develop precision boms to minimize collateral civilian damage. If some get killed accidentally, that is sad. Can you not see this difference though:

WTC Bombers--did EVERYTHING they could to maximize innocent civilian deaths
US Armed Forces--will do EVERYTHING they can to minimize innocent civilan deaths

The 9/11 murderers weren't even satisfied with a symbolic attack either. Don't forget that they made sure to hijack planes with maximum fuel loads, insuring that the "flying bomb" effect would be maximized.

Skydog I know you are the moderator but can you please do me a favour and skip the condescending remarks about ignoring issues thanks. I'm doing my best to have a reasonable discussion and have adressed the difference in targetting civilians and military in a post that was typed before yours. There are four or five of you firing stuff at me and I am trying to explain my viewpoint.

I appreciate the difference.... and the intent in actions... but in the end innocent people are the casualties of war.

Taking planes loaded with fuel is really akin to developing powerful weapons... and more powerful weapons... as has been done in recent years. Everyone is looking for maximum firepower.

As I have said, maybe war will be necessary. I don't think it is necessary at this point however. If Iraq can be disarmed without people in that country dying or (God forbid) people like Raiders Army having to face fire... then I think we should go to the absolute limit to achieve that.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Raiders Army
Bee,

For the car accident/murder, I might look at it the same if the car driver was drunk or if the driver was negligent in some other way. For me, those are the same things, since when you drive drunk you're point a gun at everyone's heads.

Interesting twist.

I think that enters in a third option.

Basically, my comparison was between death that was caused on purpose and death that was caused accidentally (and the fact that while both are equally sad, there is a difference based on the intent of the killer).

I think you are suggesting a "middle" option where the accidental death was due to negligence. I don't know if even negligence is as bad as intentional murder, but it gets much closer IMO.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Senator
I would like to add my few comments to this thread. I am known among my peers as a pretty invovled Republican. I was the youngest delegate to the 1992 Republican National Convention. I have known our President for years through Texas political circles, so you would think I would be one of his biggest supporters regarding this issue. I may be, but not yet.

The pulse I am getting from Americans is, "We are not real sure we need to be doing this."

This cannot be the prevailing attitude from a country going to war. It plants the seeds of doubt early and history has shown those seeds grow.

If Bush wants the American people to support him in this issue, he HAS to divulge everything he knows. Whether that be through a website www.whyweneedtofight.com or through an official mouthpiece, al la Powell on the 5th, or whatever, he needs to show us, as horrible as it may be to take,
1) what we think has and why
2) what he is doing to his people
3) what he is planning to do to us
4) what can he do to us

This documentation needs to be layed at the feet of the American people to satisfy the uneasy feeling that this is about oil or a family vendetta.

I am one of those that trust Bush, but in this instance, his word alone will not be enough to make the majority of Americans support a war.

It is easy when you are attacked, you can justify anything you do after that point. But we are talking about a brand new thing for America, a pre-emptive strike, and that changes decades of foreign policy.

Show us everything Mr. President, we can take it.

It's almost 2AM here and I have to check out - I don't get to this forum often these days so I might not get back to this.

Thanks for the interesting discussion from both sides. Pretty civil and no name calling (have things changed around here??)

Senator, I suspect that Bush has no real compelling evidence to present - and has been hoping to uncover something in recent times. The mood of the world, not just the US, is that of "not sure" as you described.

I may not be a fan of Dumsfeld, but Colin Powell is someone I do trust - and I will eagerly await his words on the 5th. As some of you may know, Australia is a staunch supporter of Bush's actions so far and we have already sent troops to the Gulf...

I think that if this war is to be fought it must come with world support and not a unilateral action.

Good night.

[jamesUMD]

For the past year or so Iraq is known to havve been buying GPS scrambler units from countries in Europe. Much of The United States munitions rely on GPS to accurately guide our weapons to their intended, "military" targets". The purpose of the units, are to throw off the precision of our armaments. If Iraq really cared about it's citizen's why would it do this? Trying to make munitions dodge military targets!!!! They do not care for the citizen's, IMO, unless they can somehow use them to their advantage. Missle misses factory, takes out large group of civilians, and Iraq gets what it really wanted. Propaganda to use against the United States!

We have established that some of the 9/11 highjackers met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in the months leading up to the event. I think what we do know in conjunction with what the Intelligence community knows, we have the proof. To reveal our sources would be to eliminate them. To me, it's no really unlike the reason a reporter refuses to name sources. To reveal intimate dettails or names would betray those sources confidence for future needs, and just by giving intimate details we would enable our enemies to "Connect the Dots" so to speak and discover those assetts. Lastly, why is it that The UK is behind us while the seeming majority of the world is not. The UK is our closest ally, and ideologically the most similar to our country. We share information with them, sources, capabilities, etc., etc., that we refuse to share with other countries because of that trust. The UK is our most trusted confidant, and if they agree with our assessment of the situation, then there is merit to our reasoning. I'm done.

[Malificent]

Perhaps the reason they have not told the public their evidence yet is that it is from classified sources that could be in danger when the evidence becomes unclassified. Maybe they need a few more days to get their sources clear.

As far as intent of death goes, Kosta may not recognize it, but the law certainly does (difference between manslaughter and murder) and that's good enough for me.

The UN is quickly becoming a joke - not because of their position on inspections (although the weight of proof is on Iraq to show they have disarmed as versus on the inspectors to show that Iraq has WoMD), but because of things like this. Rotating countries alphabetically is silly. Putting Libya in charge of the Human Rights committee is silly. If they aren't careful, they're going to become another League of Nations.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by jamesUMD
For the past year or so Iraq is known to havve been buying GPS scrambler units from countries in Europe. Much of The United States munitions rely on GPS to accurately guide our weapons to their intended, "military" targets". The purpose of the units, are to throw off the precision of our armaments. If Iraq really cared about it's citizen's why would it do this? Trying to make munitions dodge military targets!!!! They do not care for the citizen's, IMO, unless they can somehow use them to their advantage. Missle misses factory, takes out large group of civilians, and Iraq gets what it really wanted. Propaganda to use against the United States!

We have established that some of the 9/11 highjackers met with Iraqi Intelligence agents in the months leading up to the event. I think what we do know in conjunction with what the Intelligence community knows, we have the proof. To reveal our sources would be to eliminate them. To me, it's no really unlike the reason a reporter refuses to name sources. To reveal intimate dettails or names would betray those sources confidence for future needs, and just by giving intimate details we would enable our enemies to "Connect the Dots" so to speak and discover those assetts. Lastly, why is it that The UK is behind us while the seeming majority of the world is not. The UK is our closest ally, and ideologically the most similar to our country. We share information with them, sources, capabilities, etc., etc., that we refuse to share with other countries because of that trust. The UK is our most trusted confidant, and if they agree with our assessment of the situation, then there is merit to our reasoning. I'm done.

Well, if you are looking for civilian death as propoganda, look no further than the 9/11 attacks. Bush is pushing this as a large reason to attack Iraq. Isn't this what Saddam is going to do (and yes I do notice the difference between sacraficing your own people for propoganda and between using what happened that was beyond your control for propoganda, but you're still using the deaths to rally.)

The Iraqi connection and the meeting has not actually been proven to be true. There are many conflicting reports of whether that actually happened.

The UK is not behind us, Blair is behind us. His own party isn't behind us. Blair is pretty much the only one in the UK giving us support. And the UK is our little bitch, to put it bluntly. Just b/c they always support us doesn't mean we're always right. That's like saying b/c my friend does everything with me that he is automatically going to join me when I go to kill Johnny. That arguiment doesn't make sense.

[Bee]

I'm interested to see what kind of evidence is released next week. I believe Powell is supposed to present some on Wednesday.

From what I've read on the subject, "inside sources" indicate there is not a smoking gun per se but a lot of circumstantial evidence. I'm generally skeptical of "inside sources" as they are often wrong, but in this case it makes sense that's what we'll be seeing.

If there were concrete information, I can't imagine it not being presented prior to this in some form. Generally, there are ways to protect sources while still putting the info out there. Of course, it might be a case that we were not ready to act upon the info until now, so it wasn't presented to protect sources until we are ready to act.

On the other hand, I can't imagine that there is no evidence or minimal evidence. The claims have been too strong coming from the Bush administration and the intelligence community. You don't make the kinds of claims that have been made without having at least circumstantial evidence to back it up. Of course, it could be a case where Bush and the intelligence community have made assumptions and have not found evidence to support those assumptions.

There are going to be some people who will cry the evidence is overwhelming and some who will claim there is no evidence, no matter what is presented. I tend to ignore those folks as much as possible. The people that have to be convinced are those who are willing to listen to the evidence before deciding what action should be taken.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
The UK is not behind us, Blair is behind us. His own party isn't behind us. Blair is pretty much the only one in the UK giving us support.

Blair's own party is not behind him in a wide variety of areas, mainly because he is a leader with right wing leanings in charge of a left wing party.

In the area I live, about 90% support military action, across the country as a whole, I would say it stands at about 50/50.

[Easy Mac]

I just don't think Bush and his advisors understands the necessity of having (at the very least) a vast majority of Americans supporting the war. Right now, The last poll I saw put about 30% of Americans supporting a war now w/o "compelling" evidence. They don't seem to realize that they're going to need more than that to invade Iraq.

I think he looks at his dad, where a vast majority of America supported the invasion, and sees how that didn't work for him getting re-elected. Perhaps he feels the Americans will be petty, so it shouldn't matter as much. But it would be far worse for him politically if its done on his terms and not Americas.

A pre-emptive strike is definitely difficult to reason, especially if, as Bee says, we're only given "circumstancial" evidence. While politically the onus is of proof on Iraq, here it seems it falls more on Bush here.

[jamesUMD]

The easy assumption would be that Bush's advisors are equally as inept as some would assume George Bush to be. I really do not think this is the case. We may joke about the government, and how illogical or stupid they are, but I think that they have a much better, and informed understanding of the situation than we could ever have. There is a reason that our forefathers chose a representative democracy. Everyone can have an opinion on every subject regardless of their knowledge of that subject. I would rather have a group of informed decision-makers map out the best course of action, over the mass opinion of the uninformed any day.

If I'm driving my friends home from the bar, and I'm the only one that is sober:

Is it more important that everyone has a say in how I drive regardless or their level of sobriety?

Or

Should I be solely in charge because I am in the best position to understand the best course of action?

It may be a stupid analogy, but to me it's not too unlike our current situation!

[panerd]

Originally posted by jamesUMD


If I'm driving my friends home from the bar, and I'm the only one that is sober:

Is it more important that everyone has a say in how I drive regardless or their level of sobriety?

Or

Should I be solely in charge because I am in the best position to understand the best course of action?

As long as you are heading to the strip clubs!

In all seriousness I think that you have a good start for an analogy, but I believe the situation is a little more serious then a drive home.

What if your drive home somehow put some of your passengers lives at risk? While I do agree that the government is able to make more informed decisions than the general public I also believe that the fathers, mothers, brothers, etc. should have some say when it is their kids lives who are at risk. Don't you agree?

[Fritz]

I don't see the obligation of the President to supply evidence to the general population. His only obligation is to act in the best interests (not the same as popular interests) of the people, within the scope of the constitution and laws of the US.

It is true that popular support is a political necessity, but not a moral or legal one.

[Senator]

I don't see the obligation of the President to supply evidence to the general population.

Vietnam changed this. When it comes to sending boys to die for their country, I think the President is obligated to supply evidence that war is neccessary.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Kosta
I would think - as Mac alluded to above - allowing the weapons inspectors to do their job thoroughly, continuing diplomatic pressure on Iraq and forming a strong alliance with the countries in the Middle East is the best and safest path to preventing any use and to disarmament. War should always be an absolute final resort... we are nowhere near that stage yet.

Do you seriously believe that Saddam Hussein would allow UN weapons inspectors to find "the goods" to implicate him? The whole process is something of a joke to me, more or less a wild goose chase. Send in the UN boys, and watch the evil dictator give them the run around. As for proof, it sounds like Iraq has not given any evidence to refute the existence of thousands of liters of anthrax and other chemical warfare agents. Intelligence indicates they're sniffing around for enriched uranium.

"Diplomatic pressure" has done nothing to Saddam Hussein in the past. He routinely scoffs at the international community and professes his innocence of any wrong-doing.

You can claim the United States is a war-mongering nation intent on murdering innocent Iraqis all you want, and stick your head in the Australian sand while you're at it, but the bottom line (as ALWAYS) is that if the U.S. doesn't stand up to Saddam Hussein, no one else will. I think the world is wary - and rightfully so - of war as a means of policy, but to deny the risk that Iraq poses is to be blind to reality. Set terroristic attacks on the U.S. or any other nation aside for the minute, and imagine a major chemical or nuclear strike by Iraq on Israel. Then all the diplomacy and other methods will fly right out the window, as the entire Middle East goes up in flames.

[Easy Mac]

But when we go at Iraq, don't you think as a last resort he'll try to hit Israel anyway? The shit will probably hit the fan regardless. If he's as ruthless as people say, then htis is already a foregone conclusion.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
Vietnam changed this. When it comes to sending boys to die for their country, I think the President is obligated to supply evidence that war is neccessary.

The President deploys military force from time to time without consulting the general population. When does a President have the obligation to supply evidence and when does he not?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I just don't think Bush and his advisors understands the necessity of having (at the very least) a vast majority of Americans supporting the war. Right now, The last poll I saw put about 30% of Americans supporting a war now w/o "compelling" evidence. They don't seem to realize that they're going to need more than that to invade Iraq.

I think he looks at his dad, where a vast majority of America supported the invasion, and sees how that didn't work for him getting re-elected. Perhaps he feels the Americans will be petty, so it shouldn't matter as much. But it would be far worse for him politically if its done on his terms and not Americas.

A pre-emptive strike is definitely difficult to reason, especially if, as Bee says, we're only given "circumstancial" evidence. While politically the onus is of proof on Iraq, here it seems it falls more on Bush here.

I tend to agree with you, but I would make one point. I don't believe the Gulf War had the support of the vast majority of America prior to us getting into it. I'd have to go look up the numbers, but I believe it was pretty evenly split whether we should get involved. Once we got involved, then everyone threw their support behind it (which I am guessing is what Bush is expecting to happen again).

[jamesUMD]

While I do agree that the government is able to make more informed decisions than the general public I also believe that the fathers, mothers, brothers, etc. should have some say when it is their kids lives who are at risk. Don't you agree?

Honestly, no I don't agree. When I joined the military, it was my decision, not my mother, father, or brother. I made that choice. I was not forced. If we had a draft and the military was full of conscripts that were against serving their country, and against this conflict in general, then I would lend credence to this line of argument.

When you volunteer for the military, you pledge an oath to support your country, and the decisions of your Commander in Chief (President). It is then up to him to decide the best course of action for the country, and for you to carry out those orders.

When you let someone else drive the car, you are, in all seriousness, putting your trust in the hands of that person, to make the right decisions for the group as a whole. If you do not have that trust, then he should not have been "Elected" to drive the car, or "Country", in the first place.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
The President deploys military force from time to time without consulting the general population. When does a President have the obligation to supply evidence and when does he not?

I think that's something the people determine, not the President.

[andy m]

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH

DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.

I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.

IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST, THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS.
BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER.

UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 - $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.

WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.

I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.

I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.

I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,

GEORGE WALKER BUSH

Switchboard: 202.456.1414 Comments: 202.456.1111 Fax: 202.456.2461

[Senator]

I think that is a fair question, and one that does not have a cut and dry answer. ie. when we send x amount of men, consult nation.

This is obviously a very large force we are sending. This is also more intense than your average Bosnia mission as far as manpower ect., to me, the time to supply evidence is when we decide to do any pre-emptive striking. I do not expect the President to tell me dates of attack, targets of attack, but what I want is some definitive proof that our country is at risk of being attacked and with what, whether it be chemical, biological, nuclear, what have you.
And the follow up question, why him, why not others in the middle east with the same reputation and the same setup. I need to be convinced that this man, in that place, at this time, is threatening the well being of the United States, or threatening another country.

I will personally support and fight for any cause that is right. If he is that bad, please show me how bad. And by disclosing the information, you silence the critics who tell you it is about oil and a family vendetta.

[Easy Mac]

Bee, yeah, i was looking around, it said about 48% of America supported Bush to attack by his Jan. 15 deadline in 91. For some reason I thought it was more. This is simlar to the current debate, although the numbers are a little higher in favor of war. It will also happen about a month later... in his 3rd year... scary similarities.

I didn't elect him I threw my vote away b/c Gore and Bush both seemed like idiots.

But I follow Hobbes in the fact that when someone is sovereign unless they run a tyrannical regime, and Bush isn't there quite yet

[Bee]

Bush should know that typing in all caps is annoying.

[Bee]

I get a chill everytime I read Senator's posts and realize I'm agreeing with a republican.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
But I follow Hobbes in the fact that when someone is sovereign unless they run a tyrannical regime, and Bush isn't there quite yet

Don't listen to stuffed tigers, they can get you in trouble.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I think that's something the people determine, not the President.

I do not agree. The President is obligated to act in the best interests of the people, but not to seek their approval.

[jamesUMD]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fritz
The President deploys military force from time to time without consulting the general population. When does a President have the obligation to supply evidence and when does he not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that's something the people determine, not the President.

The people did determine that when they voted him into office.

[Easy Mac]

Well I try to follow Calvin, but I keep getting hit with snowballs

[Easy Mac]

well, thechnically, the people voted in Gore.

Bush won larger states, hence why he won.

So the people gave war authority to Gore, not Bush.

[Fritz]

well, technically, the people voted for a slate of electors

Bush won more electors, hence why he won.

So the people gave war authority to Bush via their electors.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
I do not agree. The President is obligated to act in the best interests of the people, but not to seek their approval.

I'm not talking about approval, I'm talking about who determines when there is an obligation to supply information (as per your original post). That is something completely different than approval.

[Bee]

Originally posted by jamesUMD
The people did determine that when they voted him into office.

The issue was not if he has authority to go to war, the issue is determining when there is an obligation to supply information about why we are going to war.

[Bee]

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but don't change my argument.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Easy Mac

So the people gave war authority to Gore, not Bush.

LMAO!!!

[Dutch]

The signs are there that Iraq is very belligerent and acting terribly unilaterally. Why isn't anyone protesting them?

So what happens if we don't go to war? Do we continue on indefinately with Sanctions? Why do we even have sanctions if there is no proof? The UN sponsors the sanctions...how can they now argue for proof?

They do know that the sanctions and Iraq's insistance of using what little income they do on military rather than economy is killing hundreds of thousands of desolate Iraqi's each year. Primarily Kurds and Shiite Muslims. The minority groups that Sadaam has always fought are now the ones primarily getting killed by these sanctions.

Where were all these people concerned about death and proof the last 12 years? Now that the world is poised to put a final (but violent) end to the situation, why aren't these people happy?

It's not that they care about people, it's because they don't trust governments. It's all a grand conspiracy! Something for the movies. Well, I know that's bullshit.

Iraq and Al Qaeda are not liberals, they will not listen to chants of "Peace, Love, Dope!"....they are motivated by nothing more than death. If the only way to stop them is to kill them. Well, as hard as it may sound, that's what we have to do. Live by the sword and die with your boots on...it's something from the past, and these people live in an age gone by. They know nothing of liberalism. They will not respect it or respond to it. To them, it is merely a sign of weakness that they will always exploit.

[clintl]

Technically, you're right, Fritz that the president's obligation is to act in the best interests of the country. However, he damned well better have the public behind him, and to do that, he has to reveal the evidence and explain in what way Saddam can attack us in detail. Otherwise, he will have no support for the war, nor will he deserve any.

[Senator]

I get a chill everytime I read Senator's posts and realize I'm agreeing with a republican.

Welcome aboard, we have been waiting for you.

Actually, I am less party driven, and more conscious driven.

To quote Churchill,
"So far as my own personal cause has been concerned I have mostly acted in politics as I felt I wanted to act. When I have desired to do or say anything and have refrained therefrom through prudence, slothfulness or being dissuaded by others, I have always felt ashamed of myself at the time."

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I'm not talking about approval, I'm talking about who determines when there is an obligation to supply information (as per your original post). That is something completely different than approval.

fair enough, but you are also changing evidence to information.

[Tarkus]

These discussions are basically meaningless. There are those pussies that will always oppose war regardless of the situation, there are those real men who will always support their country if they decide to go to war assuming that the vast majority of the time it will be for good reason, and then there are those who want the CIA to open their data banks and share everything with the entire world so that they can make an informed decision. With that being said there are several facts that anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea should acknowledge.

1. Iraq supports terrorist groups.

2. Iraq has programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

3. The CIA has reams of data proving one and two are true.

4. Whatever you think of him, George Bush is not going to go into some lame ass country to get rid of some lame ass dictator just a whim. Unlike some of you here, he knows 1, 2, and 3 are true.

5. The UN is the most useless multinational organization ever put into existence.

6. The US clearly worries about world opinion. If not they'd just go in there and nuke the shit out of Saddam and anyone stupid enough to be close to him. Of course being the stellar person his is I'm sure Saddam would call the whole country to his castle just so he wouldn't have to die alone.

7. Sorry if this post offends anyone. My mother-in-law died recently and I'm just taking a break from getting ready for the funeral. Didn't sleep much last night.

Peace to all.

Tarkus

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
fair enough, but you are also changing evidence to information.

Sorry, when I was typing I forgot what the exact wording was that you had used.