OT: Go To War or Not?

[Raiders Army]

What do you think after the State of the Union Address?

[Craptacular]

I didn't watch the address (for applause reasons among others), but my position hasn't changed in a decade ... finish the job.

[Easy Mac]

If the first one couldn't, what makes you think the 2nd one could?

And as a side note, someone kill Fritz Hollings. He has to be the dumbest man alive (next to Strom Thurmond). Maybe he wants the draft as a joke, I don't know. My god, is South Carolina really a huge joke to the rest of the country?

[Craptacular]

They could have finished it, but George Sr didn't have the balls. There were 1000's of nearby soldiers just waiting to go into Baghdad.

[detroit_fan]

I agree with the crap-n-nator! I was in the Air Force during the Gulf War. Sadam is a monster and is already planning his next strike on US soil. We have to take him out before more of us are killed by his rein of terror

[ISiddiqui]

They could have finished it, but George Sr didn't have the balls.

BULL! To have a full fledged invasion of Baghdad you'd need more logistical planning than we had. To simply go in with what we had would have led to many more deaths than should have been lost.

Secondly, you lose any help from any allies. And then what do you without supply lines?

It's utterly foolish to say we should have gone into Baghdad in 1991 and 'finished the job'.

[detroit_fan]

And you know this how?

[Kosta]

Originally posted by detroit_fan
I agree with the crap-n-nator! I was in the Air Force during the Gulf War. Sadam is a monster and is already planning his next strike on US soil. We have to take him out before more of us are killed by his rein of terror

His next strike... when was his last strike?

I am sure the mighty US can contain Iraq if it is really scared about all these WOMD it cannot seem to locate.

The Gulf War had a UN mandate to liberate Iraq... not to invade Baghdad.

I think your old commander (Schwarzkopf) detroit_fan said it best in the press today - why the rush? There is no compelling reason for war.

[ISiddiqui]

Its obvious. The plan was for a liberation of Kuwait, and that is how the forces were set up and supplied. For a greater invasion, more troops would probably be needed, as well as more munitions (especially air to surface missiles to soften up the city before ground troops would enter).

Secondly, even a cursory knowledge of international relations will tell you that any plans to extend the war to invade Baghdad would be met with the utmost hostility. The Coalition would never agree (Hell, they barely agreed with liberating Kuwait) and permission would be revoked for that measure.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Kosta
His next strike... when was his last strike?

I am sure the mighty US can contain Iraq if it is really scared about all these WOMD it cannot seem to locate.

The Gulf War had a UN mandate to liberate Iraq... not to invade Baghdad.

I think your old commander (Schwarzkopf) detroit_fan said it best in the press today - why the rush? There is no compelling reason for war.

SUrely Kosta, you knew that the 9/11 highjackers were really from Iraq. I mean, thats what over 50% of America believes... surely they wouldn't be misled

I agree with the Aussie.

[detroit_fan]

What do you all know of Saddam Hussein? If you had seen what i've seen, you would know he is a monster who would kill his own children to get what he wants.

The US gov will show us the smoking gun when the time is right. You don't think that Saddam has not been supporting al Qaeda? This man is Hitler reborn.

[detroit_fan]

Kosta, when you get a chance can you post the ref to stormin' norman. I respect him a lot and would like to read his view points.

Thanks

[Kosta]

Here you go d_fan, from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

Cheers
Kosta

PS - I don't think Saddam WOULD kill his own children to get what he wants, I think he HAS killed his own children to get what he wants. I'd be happy to see the back of him, I just don't think an invasion is the way.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by detroit_fan
The US gov will show us the smoking gun when the time is right. You don't think that Saddam has not been supporting al Qaeda? This man is Hitler reborn.

Why isn't the time right now to show us the smoking gun? Why don't we show this evidence to our skeptical allies France and Germany so we can secure their support rather than enduring their skepticism?

I'm also very skeptical of these claims of tie-ins between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Have you forgotten that Iraq is a secular country and Hussein is not a promoter or supporter of fundamental Islamic religion? He spent many years in bitter combat with Iran and their extremist Islamic government. Has Hussein's hatred of America overtaken his deep opposition of Islam such that he's funding Al Qaeda terrorists? I have my doubts - show us some evidence.

I will give Bush credit in that his war propoganda has opened-up Iraq once again to weapons inspectors, which is a good thing (or at least better than when there were none); but before we start talking about not only sending our troops into the line of fire, but contemplating further destabilization of the middle east region and the effect of such a campaign on the oil supply, I'd like to see both a coherent plan outlining our goals, including what will become of the country assuming we're successful, and the undisputable proof that Iraq has or is assembling chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. Having both of these elements in place will likely ensure not just domestic support for war but also significant international support.

People love to say "screw Europe and the rest of the world - we don't need them", and in some limited ways they may be right; but nothing exists in a vacuum, and the sooner this country realizes this and acknowledges that every action has an equal an opposite reaction, the better off we'll be. Stomping around the international stage and shouting how we're going to do whatever we feel like because we can, the hell with all the rest of you, the more we will become the scorn of the rest of the world and suffer the results of that opinion. No empire lasts forever, and there is already considerable sentiment around the world that would love to see us fall. Arrogance and short-sightedness will only work so long - I prefer a stance with more open-mindedness and long-term vision.

[detroit_fan]

I respect your view point dawg. I don't have an answer as to why the smoking gun has not been shown. I believe releasing this info could hinder our "agenda".

Kosta, thanks man!

[mrushh]

Newton's 3rd Law deals with Physics, not politics, not countries, etc.... Every action does NOT have an equal and opposite reaction.
Usually, every action has a much HARSHER reaction when dealing with the Middle East, which causes another reaction, and so on, which is called a chain-reaction.
You can't deal with Hussein unless and until you are prepared (over OR under the proverbial table) to deal with the rest of the reactions you will receive.

[detroit_fan]

Kosta, thanks that was a good article. I think the difference between me and most people on this board is that I am trusting that Bush has the proof and is waiting to release it. If i'm wrong I am the biggest fool on this board.

I have no evidence to support my belief. I would bet most pople on the other side of the coin can't prove that I am wrong.

Not to sound like a heartless war monger, but I don't think we can take the chances that he has WOMD. Just my .02

[sterlingice]

You think this little hellhole in the armpit of the Middle East can make a working WoMD? They use Russian scuds because they can't make better stuff on their own and we all saw how well those work (scuds = russian, right?). I must echo dawgfan- why again are we going into this little sandbox and kicking around a 3rd world dictator? More importantly, why are we doing it at the expense of pissing off all but our very closest allies. Yes- every action like this does have a reaction, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

SI

[astralhaze]

Only problem with that is that you can't prove a negative. It is impossible to prove something like "Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction and doesn't support Al-Qaeda". You have to prove that they do.

[detroit_fan]

I acknowledge it. I just think that it is more dangerous to do nothing. If Iraq will follow UN requirement I beleive we should wait, but they must change ASAP.

[andy m]

so many people are so blaise about the prospect of war because of

a) computer games like 1942, where you fly up a screen and blow everyone up with one aeroplane
b) there hasn't been a proper war in most of our lifetimes

once war breaks out and destabilises the entire middle east and american soldiers and probably even citizens back home start dying as a result of this, it will bring a mass change of mindset and this poll would have a completely different result.

[Mac Howard]

I was watching Richard Butler being interviewed yesterday. He was the leader of the UN inspection team that was forced out in 1998.

He was in no doubt that Saddam had WMDs and also in no doubt that, if he had hidden them, then the inspection team would have considerable difficulty finding them. In his view failing to find them would, by no stretch of the imagination, mean that he doesn't have them.

The reason he's confidant that Hussein has the weapons is that his team found considerable quantities of anthrax and other chemical weapons in 1998. They also found evidence of research on missiles capable of much greater range than the 150 kms that Hussein is allowed to have by the UN treaty following the Gulf War.

When his team where kicked out they had begun destruction of the chemical weapons but had only destroyed around a third of them. Two thirds were still left. The team was also pretty certain that the chemicals they knew of were by no means the only ones in Iraq.

In the document that Hussein has returned to the UN in which he was required to state what weapons he had or give evidence of how and when he destroyed them, he doesn't mention these weapons at all.

So, he had them in 1998. There is no evidence that he has destroyed them. He still has them.

That's the evidence that Hussein has these weapons. If that isn't true then the UN resolution requires that he prove it with evidence of their destruction not that the inspection team should find them.

I personally feel that the inspectors should be given more time though I have limited confidence that they will find anything. But from a political point of view I think that may be necessary.

A significant part of this is about fighting terrorists, in particular preventing them getting hold of WMDs. But it's essential that we don't do that in a way that generates two terrorists for every one we get rid of and the consequence of disarming Saddam by invasion does have the potential to do that if we're not careful.

I don't think that development of the weapons will be proceeding apace while the inspectors are in there. Their very presence there should produce more time to find evidence or the arguments to convince a greater part of the world that invasion is necessary than currently believes that now. Otherwise in the aftermath of the invasion we could have a very dangerous world indeed.

[Ryan S]

I am inclined to think that the first "positive proof" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will come when he actually uses them on someone.

I am also sure that our EU "Allies" still won't be convinced....

[Kosta]

Very sarcastic Ryan...

You would think that over the course of time the US would have shared lots of information with your EU allies as you put it - funny how big nations like Germany and France seem to be unconvinced don't you think??

North Korea actually admits to having WOMD... I don't see a rush to invade them.

If Iraq has crude WOMD (at best/worst) then attacking them is likely to be the best scenario to force their use.

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.

By the way, how is the hunt for Osama going do you think? This rush over the past 6 months to demonize Saddam as enemy #1 seems awfully coincidental with the inability to catch Osama and to really dent the terrorist network (as we saw in Bali).

[GrantDawg]

Schwarzkopf is on Today right now. He is saying that the time has come. "This monster has to go." He is convinced that the White House has compelling evidence. It basically sounds like the State of the Union has changed his mind.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by Kosta
funny how big nations like Germany and France seem to be unconvinced don't you think??

Funny how it is the same nations unconvinced every single time, no matter how compelling the evidence.

[Mac Howard]

>North Korea actually admits to having WOMD... I don't see a rush to invade them.

While agreeing with you generally Kosta I think the behaviour of North Korea is one of the strongest arguments for disarming Iraq. The lack of any rush to invade NK is precisely because they may have and may use their nuclear weapons against SK and maybe Japan. Once one of these tyrants have WMDs then it's very difficult to do anything about them.

We need to keep a very balanced outlook about all this. I don't rule out that war may be necessary in the end but we really must try all other options before that decision is made to keep as many other countries on our side. We may not like some of their structures but we don't need them to become incubators for terrorism.

On the other hand it's crucial to keep the pressure on Saddam. Any let-up in the belligerence Saddam would exploit to the full - it was Bush's belligerence after all that got the UN inspectors back in there.

It's a delicate balance. It's a very dicey situation and if we get it wrong the consequences could be dire.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Ryan S
Funny how it is the same nations unconvinced every single time, no matter how compelling the evidence.

Every single time...??? you have a very selective memory. They were actively involved in the last Gulf War and in Afghanistan...

And what is this "compelling evidence" you speak of... share it with us.

Be specific. I am intrigued.

Thanks.

[Mac Howard]

>So, he had them in 1998. There is no evidence that he has destroyed them. He still has them.

You cannot ignore this, Kosta.

I'm not suggesting he's in a position to use them other than very crudely but I have little doubt he hasn't destroyed them.

[Fritz]

Some people appease the monster at Munich. Some people need to wait until the Arizona settles to the bottom.

[Kosta]

Mac, perhaps I wasn't specific. I meant compelling evidence to rush to war. It has been 3 months since Iraq allowed weapons inspectors to return. All the avenues of this process, of diplomacy and of genuine attempts to resolve this without war have not been exhausted. Not even close.

The weapons inspectors themselves have asked for more time to do their job. Most of the world wants more time. I see no credible threat of Iraq poised to use these weapons... I don't understand the rush to war. As I said earlier, the cynic in me suggests it is a way of diverting attention from the stumbling US economy and the failure to capture Osama...

The evidence so far is that Iraq has defied some UN decisions (as have many countries, Israel included). Crude weapons may or may not exist... we haven't been able to prove anything... before tens of thousands of innocent people perish I think treading cautiously might be a better option.

If Bush has such compelling evidence as he keeps on hinting at - why not reveal it?

By the way, I have a lot of time for Richard Butler - he is a measured and well credentialed person in this field. I have seen him interviewed several times in recent weeks and I don't think he thinks war is necessary yet - it may be in the future, but I sense he believes that time has not come.

[jamesUMD]

To begin, I believe The United States has enough evidence to enter into the conflict with Iraq. I also believe we should have finished the job during the first Gulf War. We did have ample manpower, and the logistics were in place to march on Bahgdad. We did not do it because at the onset, in order to garner support from other countries we said this was about the liberation of Kuwait. To vary from that declaration might have been strategically advantageous, but it would have gone against everything we had told the coalition we were there to do.

I got into a deep conservation with a friend of mine the other day. He just returned from overseas. He is in the military, but never wears his army uniform, if you understand what I'm getting at. He works within the intelligence community, and is privy to see much of the information that we just have to believe is there. He is the most level-headed guy I know and he felt this is very neccesary, and if I had any doubts prior to that conservation, I dont have any now. We need to do this for our security.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Kosta
Crude weapons may or may not exist...

Does "crude" make a difference?

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
Some people appease the monster at Munich. Some people need to wait until the Arizona settles to the bottom.

With all due respect Fritz, the appeasement analogy in this instance is misplaced. Iraq 2003 and Germany 1939 are black and white.

A lot of people were horrified here when 911 occured. I'm not sure I understand how the murder of Iraqui citizens by bombs in coming months is much different... they will just be ordinary people going about their working day too. If you felt any sympathy for those that perished on 911 (as I am sure you did) you will too for these people.

The quarrel is with Saddam... not with the 20 million of Iraq who live under the dictatorship.

[Fritz]

Kosta,

I did not make an analogy.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
Does "crude" make a difference?

To answer your question yes.

I guess it depends upon what kind of chemical weapons supplies and training the US supplied Iraq with in the 1980's when Saddam was buddy buddy with the then administration.

Ask your Sec of Defence, Dumsfeld... he went to Baghdad several times back then to meet with Saddam to make sure Iraq got what they needed to fight Iran, chemical weapons and know how included.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
Kosta,

I did not make an analogy, you just did.

OK then, obviously I misunderstood your appeasment comment in a thread about Iraq. Sorry.

[Bee]

If you don't understand the basic difference between casualties of war and victims of terrorist attacks, then I can't imagine you understand the difference between someone being killed in a car accident and someone who was stabbed to death.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Kosta
To answer your question yes.

I guess it depends upon what kind of chemical weapons supplies and training the US supplied Iraq with in the 1980's when Saddam was buddy buddy with the then administration.

I asked about the "crude" quality of the weapons making a difference. You answered by going on a tangent to comment on a possible source of the weapons and to insult my government.

So I ask again, does "crude" make a difference?

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Bee
If you don't understand the basic difference between casualties of war and victims of terrorist attacks, then I can't imagine you understand the difference between someone being killed in a car accident and someone who was stabbed to death.

Please... dead is dead!! Tell the grieving widows the difference, I am sure they care!!

If I remember rightly your President called 911 an "act of war" anyway.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone bombed in Iraq as they go about their business is a more justified death than someone in the WTC on 911?

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
I asked about the "crude" quality of the weapons making a difference. You answered by going on a tangent to comment on a possible source of the weapons and to insult my government.

So I ask again, does "crude" make a difference?

Which part of "yes" are you having trouble understanding??

Insult your government?? I just stated some facts - very well reported facts.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Kosta
Are you seriously suggesting that someone bombed in Iraq as they go about their business is a more justified death than someone in the WTC on 911?

Sure

[Bee]

Originally posted by Kosta
Please... dead is dead!! Tell the grieving widows the difference, I am sure they care!!

If I remember rightly your President called 911 an "act of war" anyway.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone bombed in Iraq as they go about their business is a more justified death than someone in the WTC on 911?

Obviously, my assumption that you see no difference between a car accident and murder was accurate.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Kosta
Which part of "yes" are you having trouble understanding??

Insult your government?? I just stated some facts - very well reported facts.

Oh, good to know that a crude weapon is nothing to fret about.

Those "facts" are as ironclad as the warren commishion report.

Forgive me if I think calling our Sec. of Def. "Dumsfeld" a slap at our government.

[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."

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Kosta
Are you seriously suggesting that someone bombed in Iraq as they go about their business is a more justified death than someone in the WTC on 911?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As has been said, the former would be a victim of collateral damage from a justifiable war, the latter a victim of murder by cowardly terrorists.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
Sure

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.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As has been said, the former would be a victim of collateral damage from a justifiable war, the latter a victim of murder by cowardly terrorists.

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.

[Kosta]

Originally posted by Fritz
Oh, good to know that a crude weapon is nothing to fret about.

Those "facts" are as ironclad as the warren commishion report.

Forgive me if I think calling our Sec. of Def. "Dumsfeld" a slap at our government.

A crude weapon is nothing to kill hundreds of thousands of people over...

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

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.

[Bee]

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.

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.