OT: Go To War or Not?

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by 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

Well, Tarkus just summed up everything I have to say on this thread.


Very well written, and sorry to hear about your mother-in-law.

EDIT: re-posted Tarkus' message since I hit the fold.

[Senator]

No offense taken Tarkus, and sorry for the loss.

I want to make clear, that from my standpoint, I am not opposing war. I am opposing the "trust me" policy that cannot work in today's modern political environment. The days of blindly trusting your leaders, bosses, or even sadly, clergy are over. Time after time these trusts have been broken. We are about to go on a pre-emptive strike. I don't give a lick about Saddam. I think he is a waste of DNA, and his death would be the world's gain. What I am talking about is the need to regain the public trust in a world of broken promises.
Basically it comes down to this. If you have the proof, show me the pudding. Am I not worthy of knowing this information? Do our leaders think I cannot understand such difficult and educated language? Will I be so stricken with fear by seeing the pictures that I will be unable to act?
No to all these questions.
Show me why you think we should do this. And then if it is what you say, I will follow. But I will be damned if I blindly follow anybody into battle just because they received the majority of the electoral college vote.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Senator
No offense taken Tarkus, and sorry for the loss.

I want to make clear, that from my standpoint, I am not opposing war. I am opposing the "trust me" policy that cannot work in today's modern political environment. The days of blindly trusting your leaders, bosses, or even sadly, clergy are over. Time after time these trusts have been broken. We are about to go on a pre-emptive strike. I don't give a lick about Saddam. I think he is a waste of DNA, and his death would be the world's gain. What I am talking about is the need to regain the public trust in a world of broken promises.
Basically it comes down to this. If you have the proof, show me the pudding. Am I not worthy of knowing this information? Do our leaders think I cannot understand such difficult and educated language? Will I be so stricken with fear by seeing the pictures that I will be unable to act?
No to all these questions.
Show me why you think we should do this. And then if it is what you say, I will follow. But I will be damned if I blindly follow anybody into battle just because they received the majority of the electoral college vote.

I agree.


Dang, did anyone else just feel that chill?

[Fritz]

Senator

Are you asking for information, or are you really saying that you want to part of an approval process?

[Senator]

I am hoping the Powell address on the 5th will be the definitive argument.

[WSUCougar]

But what if revealing the evidence puts sources at risk, or ruins our ability to obtain such intelligence in the future?

I understand your point, Senator, but that's a difficult predicament to put your nation's leaders in.

[Fidatelo]

Why do the US get to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and not Iraq? Why does the US government feel they should be the ones to get to decide who gets Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The older I get the more I start to think that Canada's proximity to the US might have more cons then pros...

[Senator]

Fritz,

I do not want to be part of any approval process. I want a united front against Iraq. I want there to be clear lines of wrongdoing and evil intent. I just keep hearing about this "proof", "clear and decisive proof", and I am inclined to believe it, but why can't we see it. My red flag radar goes off anytime someone says, "hey trust me on this," and that applies to any Republican, Democrat, or Other in office.
I just want some definitive proof that he is more of a threat than Iran, or any other country.
Why him, and why now?

I am one of those annoying people that need facts presented to them, and words alone ring hollow in my ears.

I guess I need more information. I want them to talk to me like an adult, and release information that in conclusive to doing this.

If it was as simple as sending a sniper team over, I would be all for it. But, Saddam has not attacked another country this time, and the situation is different. America has never went on a pre-emptive strike before, and this alone will change how we are viewed in the world, for better or worse. I just want it to be worth it.
What did Davy Crockett always say, "make sure your right, then go ahead."

[Senator]

But what if revealing the evidence puts sources at risk, or ruins our ability to obtain such intelligence in the future?

I understand this and can respect it. It would not take much data to convincve me, but they have released nada.

I think Powell on the 5th will be my day of full support. That is what I have been asking for.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
Why do the US get to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and not Iraq? Why does the US government feel they should be the ones to get to decide who gets Weapons of Mass Destruction?

The older I get the more I start to think that Canada's proximity to the US might have more cons then pros...

I don't even know how to respond to such an ignorant post.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
I don't even know how to respond to such an ignorant post.

Start by explaining what is so "ignorant" about it...

[clintl]

I don't believe that releasing enough information to be convincing would jeopardize our sources is the real motivation the Bush Administration has for being reluctant to produce it. Bush has a well-established history of obsession for secrecy in domestic affairs as well, and I think it's just a combination of arrogance and standard operating procedure for his administration.

[Bee]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
I don't even know how to respond to such an ignorant post.

Well, the last sentence made sense to me considering how many terrorist enter the US from Canada. I can see where the proximity of Canada is more of a con than a pro.

[moore4807]

Tarkus -sorry for your loss....
as far as offending us - nah more fuel to the fire!

I'm fence sitting on this one - if its WMD I think we have more to fear from N. Korea than Iraq, I'd rather go Al-queda hunting than waste time on a third world meglo-maniac. He cant even feed his people and we already control 2/3s of his airspace... kill him with kindness, open our food banks and walk in with foodstuffs and he'd go quietly, theyre starving over there! Offer thier people food for guns and they'd be eatin good in the neighborhood! we could probably get THEM to go WMD hunting for profit which would be cheaper than building our own bombs... LOL

I'll support my military troops if Bush decides to go over there, but dont ask me to support Bush - he was the better option in a two horse race -but neither was good for the USA in my book!

BTW the Canada thing, Were like two brothers stuck together in a room - were arguing but dont let anyone else get into it or we'll both turn on ya!

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Bee
Well, the last sentence made sense to me considering how many terrorist enter the US from Canada. I can see where the proximity of Canada is more of a con than a pro.

True enough, I'm not going to claim that Canada is by all means perfect

[Dutch]

Why do the US get to have Weapons of Mass Destruction and not Iraq? Why does the US government feel they should be the ones to get to decide who gets Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Sheesh....let's make this simple.

Lots of nations have the nuclear bomb. It is the responsability of the world, not the United States, to never let weapons of mass destruction get into the hands of diabolical maniacs. However, as we are witnessing, the world is failing in that objective. So, who else has the strength to stand up by themselves to enforce these basics rules of survival? Nobody but the U.S.A.

[Bee]

Also, after Iraq lost the Gulf War, they agreed to stop researching WMD and destroy their stockpiles. That's why they are not allowed to have them.

It's a similar agreement that other nations have agreed to after losing wars, but Iraq has not lived up to their promises.

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
Start by explaining what is so "ignorant" about it...

Start with your apparent contention that the issue over WMD is some sort of juvenile posturing and self-righteousness on the part of the United States. Follow that up with your seemingly blind lack of understanding of world history in the 20th century. Add a sizable dose of typical anti-American vilification, and then throw in a pinch of snide oh-ain’t-it-a-bad-thing-for-Canada-that-we’re-neighbors-of-the-U.S. commentary.

Mix, bake at 350, and enjoy.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
Fritz,

I do not want to be part of any approval process. I want a united front against Iraq. I want there to be clear lines of wrongdoing and evil intent. I just keep hearing about this "proof", "clear and decisive proof", and I am inclined to believe it, but why can't we see it. My red flag radar goes off anytime someone says, "hey trust me on this," and that applies to any Republican, Democrat, or Other in office.

Senator,

It certainly sounds like you want to be part of an approval process, even if it is by national concensus.

What happens if Powell speaks and you do not find his information compelling?

[moore4807]

Wow
WSU - you certainly got a lot more out of Fidatelo's post than I did!
Anyway let em hate us -we HAVE a reason to set the table, our forefathers did the hard work for us, Now we have to do the house cleaning, its simple!

Fritz -hate to argue with you but WHO the hell is playing with my tax money, The Prez AND Congress. We elected em and they damn well better pay attention to our WANTS and NEEDS. I didnt elect a 4 year dictator in this country!!!! Sorry rant over!

[Senator]

What happens if Powell speaks and you do not find his information compelling?

Then either I will make the decision on a personal level to support the actions that will follow or I will not.

On a side note:It would be the first time Powell has not come through for me.

As far as Bush goes, well, I have my personal stories that I keep to myself.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fritz
Senator,

It certainly sounds like you want to be part of an approval process, even if it is by national concensus.

What happens if Powell speaks and you do not find his information compelling?

It doesn't matter what we think, haven't you noticed. There is going to be a war. 15% of America could favor it and there would be a war. But as a consensus of people living in the state, we have a right to know why our government feels the need to invade other countries. And we need something more tangible than Saddam is a bad man, b/c if thats the case then at least 10-15 other countries should be invaded.

And Tarkus, no offense taken. But along your points 1 and 2, I believe Saudi Arabia fits into the categories of 1-3. And 4, we know its not a whim, he wants the oil, and the horribleness that is Saddam allows him to accomplish 2 missions at once. I don't despise the man, but just be forthright with the people as to the threat he immenently poses.

I'd rather have an informed America who is willing to ask questions, than one who mindlessly follows a president, be it democrat, republican, or an intelligent person.

[Bonegavel]

I didn't read through the whole thread, but your poll is flawed. The last choice...

Yes...but only after positive proof of WMD

...is a wrong assumption. He does have the weapons. He needs to prove that he has destroyed them and he has not produced one shread of evidence that he has complied.

Imagine I know that you have leaky oil tank (for home heating) in your basement. This violates state/federal regulations and you need to clean it up and attain proof of the cleanup. I, as the Environmental agent, come to your house and want to make sure you have cleaned up the hazard and to show me that you complied you take me into the attic. I demand to go the basement where I know the leaky tank resides. You refuse, but tell me that you have cleaned it up. I want to see the proof you were supposed to keep and you cannot provide one shread of proof.

Is it safe for me to take you at your word? Or, is it a good bet to assume that you haven't cleaned up the problem?

[jamesUMD]

I harken back to an article that I read right after 9/11, in the Washington Post. The Army was preparing to give a presentation to the President regarding their plan of action and presenting tactics. The President's staff was going over the Power Point slides with the military staff prior to giving the presentation. They came across a slide that discussed how Special Forces teams would poison the water supplies in enemy surroundings. The President's staff asked where the slide came from because "United States Special Forces do not poison water supplies." How naive!

What I'm saying is, Bee, I understand what your saying. Point taken. I just feel that there are many things we do, know, say, deny, etc., etc., that are best left unkown. I, for one, would be devastated if my friend never returned from one of his overseas trips, because the American public felt they had a right to know the very details that may well get him killed. Those field operatives are trusted for their judgement and common sense. Their superior's have to trust that those field operatives will make the right decisions given they have more information available to them. We have men and women, serving all over the world for the sake of preserving our freedom. There comes a point where I say, "Is my right to an informed opinion, a fair trade off for risking another countryman's life?" I just don't think so. There are people out there, risking life and limb, every minute of every day. I do not feel that I have paid a high enough price for my country, to have to know the full truth, to only put another's life in further jeopardy.

"Surround me in the shroud of night, and I'll put my faith in those that have been chosen to lead me through the darkness!"

[WSUCougar]

Easy Mac,

So is the issue to you the lack of "imminence" of the threat, rather than the mere existence of the threat? If so, where do you draw the line?

(I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your point).

[Easy Mac]

I don't see how saying "we know Iraq has x.y.z bombs from an operative in Iraq". How does that compromise anything? But that information has not been presented by anyone. All they've said is they believe former ones haven't been destroyed, whih is entirely different from we know with certainty he has some.

"Is my right to an informed opinion, a fair trade off for risking another countryman's life?" I'd counter by saying is not having information worth agreeing to put at risk my fellow countrymen's lives? I's rather be informed and put lives at risk than to be uniformed and the same situation regardless.

[Scarecrow]

Tossing my hat into the Fritz / Senator debate:

I agree with Fritz that this 'proof' is probably better left unknown to the general public (which includes the Iraqui government) than being revealed to the gereal public for some sort of Cinton-esque opinion poll.

That said, I have faith that what the president has is significant enough to begin deployment, and eventually an invasion of Iraq. This 'faith' I have is due to, in a large part, the fact that over the past year significant worldwide leaders have initailly been against the US actions, only to quickly change their minds after meeting with Bush. A few examples are:

British PM Blair (Feb 2002)
Russian PM Putin (Jun 2002)
Turkey Chairman Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Dec 2002) - although could be more $$$ motivated
Norman Schwarzkopf (this week)

Take this for what its worth - just a layman's opinion.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
Easy Mac,

So is the issue to you the lack of "imminence" of the threat, rather than the mere existence of the threat? If so, where do you draw the line?

(I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand your point).

I'm not sure the threat exists, at least to America (in terms of Saddam and his capabilities, not terrorism). Now to our allies, of course I see that, but I think that going in there has the potential to have the same effect of endangering our allies.

Got to go to class, so this reply is rushed. Perhaps later I'll write more.

[Fritz]

moore4807 -

You are in a position to tell them you wants, but needs can be another matter.

[moore4807]

jamesUMD,
In agreeing with easymac, may I point out that we bombed a wedding party because of "bad intelligence" (oops sorry bout that!) Now you think that we automatically send people out to gather intelligence? Someone makes the who, what, why, decision, and that someone is put THERE by politicians, elected by US!
So I ask you WHO has the right to information -we paid for it, we followed the rules, and we deserve accountability in general terms (NOT exact specifics) but show me a weapons storage area in Iraq and I'll show you a worthy target of bombing and infiltrating - it isnt that hard for them or US!

[moore4807]

Fritz,
If the elected dont give me what I need then the machine can be turned off and they go into retirement if you get my meaning -its been done many times before!

[Bee]

Originally posted by jamesUMD
I harken back to an article that I read right after 9/11, in the Washington Post. The Army was preparing to give a presentation to the President regarding their plan of action and presenting tactics. The President's staff was going over the Power Point slides with the military staff prior to giving the presentation. They came across a slide that discussed how Special Forces teams would poison the water supplies in enemy surroundings. The President's staff asked where the slide came from because "United States Special Forces do not poison water supplies." How naive!

What I'm saying is, Bee, I understand what your saying. Point taken. I just feel that there are many things we do, know, say, deny, etc., etc., that are best left unkown. I, for one, would be devastated if my friend never returned from one of his overseas trips, because the American public felt they had a right to know the very details that may well get him killed. Those field operatives are trusted for their judgement and common sense. Their superior's have to trust that those field operatives will make the right decisions given they have more information available to them. We have men and women, serving all over the world for the sake of preserving our freedom. There comes a point where I say, "Is my right to an informed opinion, a fair trade off for risking another countryman's life?" I just don't think so. There are people out there, risking life and limb, every minute of every day. I do not feel that I have paid a high enough price for my country, to have to know the full truth, to only put another's life in further jeopardy.

"Surround me in the shroud of night, and I'll put my faith in those that have been chosen to lead me through the darkness!"

Oh, I agree there are things that need to remain confidential. But if there is as much evidence as has been suggested, I think it's reasonable to assume some of that is not going to jeopardize our sources.

When you really think about it, there should be quite a few cases where the sources of the info can be protected or where you can obtain similar information from non-secretive sources. For example, if you know where the WMD are you can use the spy planes to obtain proof. No "sources" would be jeopardized that way.

I think if we have that kind of proof, the reason it hasn't been shown yet is because we are not prepared to act on that information. If you show the info too soon, Iraq would be able to move things before we could destroy them. By waiting until the military is in place, you can strike before Iraq can move them. Just my guess though.

If Powell has compelling evidence next week, my guess is we will strike almost immediately and not necessarily wait for the UN to "discuss" things.

[moore4807]

All things said - Bush do what ya gotta do but;
I'd rather we were hunting Al-queda across the globe....

[Bee]

Is anyone else shocked there have been so many No votes in the poll?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by moore4807
Fritz,
If the elected dont give me what I need then the machine can be turned off and they go into retirement if you get my meaning -its been done many times before!

explain your meaning please

[Fritz]

as far as "proof" goes, if I were the President I would keep most of that stuff under my hat until right before I was going to act.

[jamesUMD]

Easy Mac,
I still disagree on this. We are not a rogue state. The United States government has Intelligence analysts that pour over Humint (human intelligence), Elint (electronic intelligence), and every other type of "int" you can think of. These teams develop possible scenarios and outcomes for every region on the map. I doubt The United States suddenly developed a gambling addiction, and decided to "Wing it."

What would the full truth do to change the situation, if the government presented all the evidence? Would you feel better about American Soldiers going over to fight a war against Iraq? Would the American public sleep better knowing their government was not railing against their moral beliefs, maybe? Even in the government, some information is only presented on a "Need to Know" basis, and I just don't see where there is a need to know. I trust in my leaders, and believe that's how the system should work!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
Then either I will make the decision on a personal level to support the actions that will follow or I will not.

This reads like you want to be part of an approval process. If you do not approve, you will withhold support.

What kinds of support? Will you stop paying taxes? Will you refuse civic obligations?

[Senator]

I would never stop supoprting this country or the men and women in uniform.

It is my right to disagree with anyone if my concious dictates it. I will verbally and openly disagree with the decision with all the power I have, while supporting the people fighting, which if bad enough would be myself.

Since you seem obsessed with the term "approval process", I will define what I mean by it. My voice. That is all.

This is a moot point, as I honestly feel Powell will give me all I want to hear, like I said, I don't need much, but I do need something.

Obviously, Bush got the message, or he wouldn't be sending Powell there at all to do this.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
This is a moot point.

Hardly. While our discussion may be immediately applicable to the possibility of a Gulf War, the real discussion is about presidential obligation to public disclosure and the role of popular approval.

[Senator]

Presidential Obligation:
When is a President obligated to give public disclosure on issues?

This is a good question, and one that seems driven by the very same approval process you abhor. Would Clinton have told anyone about his antics had someone not disapproved and started the process of impeachment?

Would Reagan have ever mentioned Iran/Contra had there not been disapporoval?

Would Nixon have admitted watergate? Would the war in Vietnam ever ended had not public support wavered and nose dived?

Public approval and disapproval of a Presidents choices and actions do drive what happens, short and long term. What a President chooses to divulge at any certain time is usually dependent on what the constitution says, the polls say, his peers say, or his concious decides.

In this case, he can only help his cause by releasing information, and I think that is why he is sending Powell to the UN.

[BishopMVP]

I realize this has veered off into a discussion on Presidential Disclosure, etc., but I wanted to go back to an earlier point.

Originally posted by Kosta w/reference to France & Germany
Every single time...??? you have a very selective memory. They were actively involved in the last Gulf War and in Afghanistan...

France did not support us at all during the Gulf War. They even refused to let us use their airspace when flying planes over there. Now they have become a unilaterally acting ex-colonial power with delusions of grandeur. Look at what they are doing in Sierra Leone, or w/ Mugabe. When we go into Iraq, the French and Germans will hate it, because currently they are in position to get all the oil and because many German and French companies have been trading with the Iraqi Gov't in violation of UN Sanctions. When the shit hits the fan, the French and German governments will be revealed as their true selves, not the allies some people seem to think they are.

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Senator
Presidential Obligation:
When is a President obligated to give public disclosure on issues?

In a way what it comes down to is the fact that the majority of the country would be quite supportive of a war against Iraq if they had enough information to forget about the issue. The question to ask yourself is this: how can an administration faced with a public that overwhelmingly supports a war against terrorism continue to fail to garner public support? It's not an issue of accountability (though that's part of it) so much as it is an issue of information in the information age. In a way it's partially the eroding of the idea of representative government; now that people can communicate instantaneously over great distances, the idea that others may have more information than a person can find out (through the internet, email, etc.) is reduced. Most people don't WANT to worry about the war--if they can have their minds put at ease that it's the right thing, they'll go along with it. Thus far the administration has done a poor job of educating the public just enough to make them feel content that they're on the side of right.

[Senator]

NoMyths,

Correct as usual.


Maybe Saddam is just looking for, someone to dance with.



But the bigger issue. How can you be a grizzled vet with half the post as myself? Questions begat questions.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Hmmm the last time we fought an actual war, proof was displayed along with our intentions. What makes this situation so different? Has the populace of this country dumbed down in the last 60 years?

I think not.

Make this a real war and I would love to see what difference popular approval makes.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Senator
But the bigger issue. How can you be a grizzled vet with half the post as myself? Questions begat questions.

Send minsal SPs to Ayr. Duh

[Qwikshot]

We are attacking Iraq? (just kidding)

I think we will be very involved in many areas of the globe.

I think North Korea is different, if we attack N. Korea, without proof, or provacation, then we will trigger world world 3. Make no bones about it, China will come at us with pistols firing.

Iraq has no friends in the Gulf, it is a country that has attacked its neighbors in the past, yes there will be some Muslims that will object, and it will probably trigger some more terrorist attacks, but this is inevitable to the deranged terrorist anyway.

I think Kosta needs to understand that Americans aren't bloodthirsty, but we are proactive when it comes to balance of power.
Iraq will be attacked, some civilians will die. But I think you overact, I believe that our military has taken great steps to not attack civilians, remember, it has been claimed that certain weapons facilities are right smack in the middle of suburbs or residential areas, hence laser guided missiles.
I don't think the U.S. will go after Iraqi civilains anymore than it did Afghani civilians...but make no mistake terrorist love to target civlians as they did with the WTC, in Israel, and in the Australians case, Indonesian nightclubs...

[NoMyths]

Originally posted by Senator
But the bigger issue. How can you be a grizzled vet with half the post as myself? Questions begat questions.

Conspiracies abound!

[TestAmenT]

I hope we take him out soon...the quicker the better.

[Raiders Army]

As the "thread starter", I just wanted to know how much support there is, since this is somewhat of a microcosm of society. It's just a pleasant side effect to see the discussion that's going on.

I just want to know, for both my soldiers and my own sake, what kind of reception will await us when (if) we return. The one thing that I could not stand is putting my life on the line for our country and then (Vietnam) getting spit upon when we return.

Since I know that a few posters on these boards are in the armed forces and are probably deployed, I ask for the whole that you pray for them and their safe return. (also, when the patch 4.0c for FOF4 comes out, could somebody burn it to a cd and mail it to me?) Since I am leaving soon, I will leave you with this: our soldiers are the most well-trained, most capable soldiers in the world. We are prepared to fight, win, and return safely. Take care, and root for the Raiders next year!