Please do not act like your real cause is to protect Iraqis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?
Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.
Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.
<strong>What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think you have a cause. (Bet you weren't expecting that. )
[quote]<strong>Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by lifting those sanctions we clear the way for Saddam to have better access to materials to create chemical weapons.
You know where this needs to go, just accept it, most nations are. I don't think you're a bad person, I think you're being naive.
[quote]<strong>Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1 - It's not as simple as calling a few plumbers to go into Iraq. We're not exactly welcome there.
2 - Saddam has nothing to gain by letting us in to help his people. I'd like to see that happen but I don't see it happening. I don't see Saddam not hijacking anything we do to help his people for his own uses.
<strong>I don't think you're a bad person, I think you're being naive</strong><hr></blockquote>
You DO know that thats the most provocatory thing anyone can say to me, right?
Well if you are so sure that Saddam wouldn´t let the "plummers" into Iraq no harm in suggesting it.
And about lifting bans. Its hardly a secret that 1) the sanction list have things that only remotely can be used for chemical weapons and 2) the sanction commitee(yes my spelling sucks) is using unnessesary long time to let import licencees go through. If you have exported one thing (a pencil) with the blessing of the commitee and you want to export another pencil the next month it takes up to several years before you get the permission
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Anders, as grovrat was saying thousands are dying anyway because of sanctions... wouldn't it be good to get this mess over with once and for all? of course its a risk - one that I hate taking as well - but you have to consider all options when looking at this problem - not just the simplistic war is bad, doing nothing is good point of view...
Think of it.....
Also, all these marchers going against war do not directly support Saddam but at the end of the day if they get what they want - Sadam will gain from that big time! the marchers didn't - as far as I could see - support Blix and his tough inspections, they weren't offering alternative ways of containing Iraq (apart from trying to shift the attention to Israel which has nothing to do with this issue) they were simply saying - Bush and Blair are war mongering twats and they should be stopped period! this is effectively what Saddam is saying.
So here we have a very weird state of affairs where some of the worlds greatest so called humanitarians and Liberals are actually marching around to save the arse of one of the world's worst despots - how did we ever get here???
I can only assume your baiting me, but I'll play along. Are you really telling me that war is NEVER required? Never?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I'm not baiting you. It was a simple statement of fact.
The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die. In that regard we are much closer to that situation with N. Korea than the situation in Iraq.
<strong>The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die.</strong><hr></blockquote>It sounds like by that time it may be too late.
What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?
Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.
Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats simply not true - Iraq can sell oil in return for medicines and food - the reason people are still dying is that Saddam is using the money for his Palaces and military. the sanctions aren't preventing people from getting treatment its Sadam's regime - thats the problem - if you totaly lift sanctions he WILL have nukes in a matter of a year or two and then what.....???.
No I'm not baiting you. It was a simple statement of fact.
The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die. In that regard we are much closer to that situation with N. Korea than the situation in Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, then, by that definition, the US shouldn't have been involved in the European theater for WW2. I would love to hear the conversation, where you sit down with a US vet from WW2 and tell him his actions were immoral, because the US wasn't directly threatened by the conflict in Europe.
Sometimes war is justified, even if you haven't already been attacked.
This is an extremely important quote. A pre-emptive attack is an attack on liberty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes that's true - which is why I too am extremely uneasy about a possible war.... but is it truly pre-emptive with Sadam?
Has he not killed hundreds of thousands already?
Has he not used WOMD already?
Has he not been an aggressive tyrant?
Has he not attacked (without provocation) Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Israel, the Kurds....already?
Do you not think that he would LOVE to get his hands on a nuke?
And do you have any doubt as to whether that would be a good or a bad thing?
This is a really complicated issue and i don't think that the west can afford to simply stick its head in the sand and ignore the risks.... I'm not convinced that war is the only option but then I can't stand the position of the peace camp - which is basically saying to us all: lets crawl back into the warm sand, lets let this guy off the hook..... no real practical solution offered to compete with the solution of war or even a glimmer of hope that they understand the risks they are turning their back to....
Why is it that we have come to a point where we only have 2 options to choose form - either to be naive and choose appeasement or to be murderous and to choose a pre-emptive war?
to me its sad!
BTW, one can also argue that 'essential liberty' means the liberty to defend one's self from imminent attack so your argument really goes both ways...
Well, then, by that definition, the US shouldn't have been involved in the European theater for WW2. I would love to hear the conversation, where you sit down with a US vet from WW2 and tell him his actions were immoral, because the US wasn't directly threatened by the conflict in Europe.
Sometimes war is justified, even if you haven't already been attacked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's quite a stretch. The conflict with Japan and Germany was interconnected even then. It was clear we were threatened by them. As a matter of fact WWII was in my mind the last justifiable conflict we've been involved in. What followed has always had another agenda.
Theres some children dying of hunger down the street, and the people among them have bad views about me and pack guns, and yet I don't want them to starve to death, but I can turn my face away and forget about it, or I can get up take a stand, punish the families responsible, and make sure that the children grow up loved and secure. Am I arrogant for wanting to help them? Am I attacking liberty if I take a stance and help them?
And all those people who say that the US press is biased, take a look at history, what was the first nation to have freedom of press? Our media headlines are for conveying news quickly, not for selling an agenda on paper, unlike some other countries over there.
Its an international community, and all the world should have the rights and opportunities we USA, Germany, and France have, its just sad that some unsavory people think otherwise.
Why is it that we have come to a point where we only have 2 options to choose form - either to be naive and choose appeasement or to be murderous and to choose a pre-emptive war? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say because Bush has backed himself into a corner.
[quote]Originally posted by rashumon:
<strong>
BTW, one can also argue that 'essential liberty' means the liberty to defend one's self from imminent attack so your argument really goes both ways... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing is, there is no imminent attack. If there were (Israel 1967) there would be no argument. The fact is that Bush would have attacked six months ago if the UN had let him. But during these past six months there has been no attack, so an attack six months ago would not have been to pre-empt an imminent attack.
The same goes now. There is talk Bush wants to attack in Mid March. I'm willing to bet my life that if we don't, within six months of that Iraq will not have attacked outside its borders.
That's quite a stretch. The conflict with Japan and Germany was interconnected even then. It was clear we were threatened by them. As a matter of fact WWII was in my mind the last justifiable conflict we've been involved in. What followed has always had another agenda.
There may have been a connection between the governments and ambitions of Imperial Japan and Third Reich Germany, but Germany did not yet pose an immediate threat to the US, no gun pointed at your head yet as you say. So, how was US involvement justified by your "wait till the gun is primed, pointed and aimed" reasoning for war?
The fact is that Bush would have attacked six months ago if the UN had let him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the UN had let him? I thought he was acting unilaterally, imposing Pax Americana, UN be damned.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
The same goes now. There is talk Bush wants to attack in Mid March. I'm willing to bet my life that if we don't, within six months of that Iraq will not have attacked outside its borders.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you be willing to bet your life that no terrorist organisation will have launched an attacked against western interests, potentially with the aid of Iraq, in that time frame?
Comments
<strong>Anders/Bunge:
Please do not act like your real cause is to protect Iraqis.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?
Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.
Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.
<strong>What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think you have a cause. (Bet you weren't expecting that.
[quote]<strong>Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by lifting those sanctions we clear the way for Saddam to have better access to materials to create chemical weapons.
You know where this needs to go, just accept it, most nations are. I don't think you're a bad person, I think you're being naive.
[quote]<strong>Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1 - It's not as simple as calling a few plumbers to go into Iraq. We're not exactly welcome there.
2 - Saddam has nothing to gain by letting us in to help his people. I'd like to see that happen but I don't see it happening. I don't see Saddam not hijacking anything we do to help his people for his own uses.
<strong>I don't think you're a bad person, I think you're being naive</strong><hr></blockquote>
You DO know that thats the most provocatory thing anyone can say to me, right?
Well if you are so sure that Saddam wouldn´t let the "plummers" into Iraq no harm in suggesting it.
And about lifting bans. Its hardly a secret that 1) the sanction list have things that only remotely can be used for chemical weapons and 2) the sanction commitee(yes my spelling sucks) is using unnessesary long time to let import licencees go through. If you have exported one thing (a pencil) with the blessing of the commitee and you want to export another pencil the next month it takes up to several years before you get the permission
<strong>
Its not about giving Saddam a second chance but the thousands that will die in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Anders, as grovrat was saying thousands are dying anyway because of sanctions... wouldn't it be good to get this mess over with once and for all? of course its a risk - one that I hate taking as well - but you have to consider all options when looking at this problem - not just the simplistic war is bad, doing nothing is good point of view...
Think of it.....
Also, all these marchers going against war do not directly support Saddam but at the end of the day if they get what they want - Sadam will gain from that big time! the marchers didn't - as far as I could see - support Blix and his tough inspections, they weren't offering alternative ways of containing Iraq (apart from trying to shift the attention to Israel which has nothing to do with this issue) they were simply saying - Bush and Blair are war mongering twats and they should be stopped period! this is effectively what Saddam is saying.
So here we have a very weird state of affairs where some of the worlds greatest so called humanitarians and Liberals are actually marching around to save the arse of one of the world's worst despots - how did we ever get here???
<strong>jimmac:,
I can only assume your baiting me, but I'll play along. Are you really telling me that war is NEVER required? Never?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I'm not baiting you. It was a simple statement of fact.
The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die. In that regard we are much closer to that situation with N. Korea than the situation in Iraq.
<strong>Anders/Bunge:
Please do not act like your real cause is to protect Iraqis. </strong><hr></blockquote>
My own beliefs are affected by that, yes, but there's more to it than that for me.
<strong>Anders/Bunge:
Please do not act like your real cause is to protect Iraqis. They die by the thousands already without war.
Keep ignoring that, I guess, because that's the result of playing the diplomatic game with Saddam.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, that's a result of Saddam solely.
<strong>The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die.</strong><hr></blockquote>It sounds like by that time it may be too late.
<strong>
What IS our cause them? Are we iraqi agents put here on AI to secretly try to change the opinion of the pro-war people?
Yes Iraqis are dying by the thousands. And we have to ask ourself how we can prevent it. One quick way is to lift sanctions on things that can be used to in hospitals, water purifying plants aso.
Actually a great idea: Why not spare the bombs and go into Iraq and repair the food factories, water systems, hospitals aso instead and let it be heard all over the middle east. Saddam have had nothing but advantage from the sanctions and Osama is making great "moral" profit among the people from what we are doing now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats simply not true - Iraq can sell oil in return for medicines and food - the reason people are still dying is that Saddam is using the money for his Palaces and military. the sanctions aren't preventing people from getting treatment its Sadam's regime - thats the problem - if you totaly lift sanctions he WILL have nukes in a matter of a year or two and then what.....???.
<strong>Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759</strong><hr></blockquote>
rashumon,
This is an extremely important quote. A pre-emptive attack is an attack on liberty.
<strong>It sounds like by that time it may be too late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes that's true. But, if you conduct yourself any other way you become just like what you're fighting against.
<strong>
No I'm not baiting you. It was a simple statement of fact.
The one and only time war has no option is when you are looking down the gun barrel of your enemy and don't want to die. In that regard we are much closer to that situation with N. Korea than the situation in Iraq. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, then, by that definition, the US shouldn't have been involved in the European theater for WW2. I would love to hear the conversation, where you sit down with a US vet from WW2 and tell him his actions were immoral, because the US wasn't directly threatened by the conflict in Europe.
Sometimes war is justified, even if you haven't already been attacked.
<strong>
rashumon,
This is an extremely important quote. A pre-emptive attack is an attack on liberty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes that's true - which is why I too am extremely uneasy about a possible war.... but is it truly pre-emptive with Sadam?
Has he not killed hundreds of thousands already?
Has he not used WOMD already?
Has he not been an aggressive tyrant?
Has he not attacked (without provocation) Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Israel, the Kurds....already?
Do you not think that he would LOVE to get his hands on a nuke?
And do you have any doubt as to whether that would be a good or a bad thing?
This is a really complicated issue and i don't think that the west can afford to simply stick its head in the sand and ignore the risks.... I'm not convinced that war is the only option but then I can't stand the position of the peace camp - which is basically saying to us all: lets crawl back into the warm sand, lets let this guy off the hook..... no real practical solution offered to compete with the solution of war or even a glimmer of hope that they understand the risks they are turning their back to....
Why is it that we have come to a point where we only have 2 options to choose form - either to be naive and choose appeasement or to be murderous and to choose a pre-emptive war?
to me its sad!
BTW, one can also argue that 'essential liberty' means the liberty to defend one's self from imminent attack so your argument really goes both ways...
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>
Well, then, by that definition, the US shouldn't have been involved in the European theater for WW2. I would love to hear the conversation, where you sit down with a US vet from WW2 and tell him his actions were immoral, because the US wasn't directly threatened by the conflict in Europe.
Sometimes war is justified, even if you haven't already been attacked.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's quite a stretch. The conflict with Japan and Germany was interconnected even then. It was clear we were threatened by them. As a matter of fact WWII was in my mind the last justifiable conflict we've been involved in. What followed has always had another agenda.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
And all those people who say that the US press is biased, take a look at history, what was the first nation to have freedom of press? Our media headlines are for conveying news quickly, not for selling an agenda on paper, unlike some other countries over there.
Its an international community, and all the world should have the rights and opportunities we USA, Germany, and France have, its just sad that some unsavory people think otherwise.
Blatant irresponsibility
<strong>
Why is it that we have come to a point where we only have 2 options to choose form - either to be naive and choose appeasement or to be murderous and to choose a pre-emptive war? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say because Bush has backed himself into a corner.
[quote]Originally posted by rashumon:
<strong>
BTW, one can also argue that 'essential liberty' means the liberty to defend one's self from imminent attack so your argument really goes both ways... </strong><hr></blockquote>
The thing is, there is no imminent attack. If there were (Israel 1967) there would be no argument. The fact is that Bush would have attacked six months ago if the UN had let him. But during these past six months there has been no attack, so an attack six months ago would not have been to pre-empt an imminent attack.
The same goes now. There is talk Bush wants to attack in Mid March. I'm willing to bet my life that if we don't, within six months of that Iraq will not have attacked outside its borders.
<strong>
That's quite a stretch. The conflict with Japan and Germany was interconnected even then. It was clear we were threatened by them. As a matter of fact WWII was in my mind the last justifiable conflict we've been involved in. What followed has always had another agenda.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
There may have been a connection between the governments and ambitions of Imperial Japan and Third Reich Germany, but Germany did not yet pose an immediate threat to the US, no gun pointed at your head yet as you say. So, how was US involvement justified by your "wait till the gun is primed, pointed and aimed" reasoning for war?
<strong>
The fact is that Bush would have attacked six months ago if the UN had let him.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the UN had let him? I thought he was acting unilaterally, imposing Pax Americana, UN be damned.
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
The same goes now. There is talk Bush wants to attack in Mid March. I'm willing to bet my life that if we don't, within six months of that Iraq will not have attacked outside its borders.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would you be willing to bet your life that no terrorist organisation will have launched an attacked against western interests, potentially with the aid of Iraq, in that time frame?
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>