Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

[vwr32]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

Ok, here we go.

quote Giant Killer:

Well, well, well, what do we have here? :):

Hmmm, hmmm, I wonder if it’s a bit presumptuous to assume that every single anti war protester is dumb and ignorant and only jumps on a bandwagon? I’m sure a number of them do, but then so do some of the people who are feverishly pro-war, so there are ignorant guys in both camps. In fact, jumping on a bandwagon is pretty much what got us into this mess in the first place. People were panicky because of 9/11, so when they were told how dangerous Saddam was supposed to be, they all went with it and decided we absolutely had to attack Iraq.

It’s not presumptuous to assume the anti-war protesters want the US to vacate Iraq. For them to protest that they want us to “end the war” suggests *they believe* we are unnecessarily prolonging it. Their efforts would be better targeted if they protested against the insurgency which guarantees our presence is still required.

People who are opposed to “ending the war” aren’t feverishly pro-war. I’d love to see our troops come home, but not if it means abandoning the Iraqi people. It’s our mess, we are there for the duration and the “end the war” campaign is specifically designed to pressure washington to bring the troops home now. Google it yourself, “end the war”. Look in the images section and you’ll see their message: Bring the troops home NOW. End the war NOW. I have yet to ever see an anti-war protest which calls for the US “to end the war as soon as the newly formed Iraqi govt can protect its people.”

I didn’t call them dumb or ignorant… I said they were bright individuals with childishly simplistic notions of how to bring a peaceful end to the duty we have in Iraq. As much as the protesters hate Bush, you’d think they would realize he probably isn’t happy watching his approval rating go down the toilet. He could have just caved in to American and International protest pressure and left Iraq in an attempt to win the popularity contest. Would his critics have been any happier with him if he had done so and now someone worse than Saddam took over? Again, we have a job to do and can’t just leave. “End the war” evades every ounce of logical thought associated with actually ‘ending the war’.

It wasn’t “panic” that brought us into iraq. It was better than a decade of failed diplomacy and UN sanctions, the whole time possessing the appropriate language necessary to justify military action but not acting on them. Post 9/11 our gears shifted to seeing the need to be more proactive rather than reactive to terrorism. Flawed as it was at the time, all of the intel we had said Saddam had WMD and the history backing the reasons to take them away from him. Either way, we entered Iraq and there are certain steps necessary to exit.

quote Giant Killer:

As for the UN resolutions, I find they don’t mean all that much, considering that the US is one of the five power brokers there and pretty much pushed their agenda, while at the same time using their veto power over the years to prevent resolutions from being adopted that would go against their interests or condemn allies, such as Israel.

That’s politics. France didn’t want us to go into Iraq. As peaceful as they tried to portray themselves, they had a very sweet deal with Saddam for oil. The resolutions don’t mean that much because they aren’t enforced. You should be glad they finally were. :): The real failure is that the resolutions weren’t enforced at the moment they were violated. We’d have to look at the Clinton administration to wonder what was going on that was more important and recognize the mess Bush inherited was 8 years of neglected concerns. Fair enough?

quote Giant Killer:

Despite the veto power of the US, there are plenty of countries that are in violation of UN resolutions, yet we are not making the case that they should be attacked because of it:

I’d like you to rethink that point… you can’t be mad that we did attack Iraq for UN resolution violations AND mad that we haven’t attacked others. Either be happy we haven’t attacked the other ones or write your congress person and advocate we play catch up with the rest. To the credit of our administration, we targeted a country who’s leader (we thought) had WMD and had used them in the past on his own people.

quote Giant Killer:

And the UN itself requires that conflicts should be settled by peaceful means first:

Agreed. The resolutions provide peaceful means for settlement as well as consequences for failure to meet the demands. Saddam chose his own path, and he did so for more than a decade. Diplomacy failed.

quote Giant Killer:

Then again, Iraq is sovereign now and has an elected government, so we are no longer an occupying power.

Yep. We are there at the request of their government. They know they can’t provide for their own security yet, but we also know we can’t stay there forever. So it really does beg the question… if Bush is allowing his rep to go down the toilet to keep the Iraqi people safe, why not protest the Iraqi government for dragging their feet in providing their own security?

I think they just want someone to hate and it’s easy to hate the person who stood in the way of Gore going to office. Really the only way we can settle this is for all of us to get together and trade arm punches until someone says uncle.

[miriam]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote downforlife76:

Miriam… What classes do you teach? I’m always down for a challange!

I’m currently not on the schedule… but I sub cardio and cardio bag classes. Typically, that’s saturday at 10:30am, sunday at 9:30am, or the weeknight bag classes whenever needed and asked. ;):

[downforlife76]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote Miriam:

I’m currently not on the schedule… but I sub cardio and cardio bag classes. Typically, that’s saturday at 10:30am, sunday at 9:30am, or the weeknight bag classes whenever needed and asked. ;):

Oh well. I didn’t sign up for the cardio classes. I usualy go to the ground fighting class on Saturday morning though (I should be back there next week… Nursing a wrist injury and grapling probably isn’t the best thing to help it heal!)

J

[giant-killer]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

As for the pro-war/anti-war protesters, it really just comes down to difference in opinion, nothing more. Pro-war sees reasons to stay, anti-war to leave. In both camps there are probably people who are more articulate and well-informed than others. You believe strongly we should stay, fair enough, that doesn’t mean all the people who don’t agree with that viewpoint are somehow “childish”.

Now, while the pro-war people worry that leaving too soon will leave Iraq open to a larger civil war possibly resulting in a new type of dictatorship, the anti-war protester may feel that there are too many American dead already, the war costs billions we can’t afford and that might be better spent at home, the military may be stretched too thin because of the ongoing conflict, there may be a lot of angry sentiment amongst Arabs against our ongoing involvement in the region (causing more people to hate the US enough to possibly decide to join a terrorist movement) and it’s a conflict that can’t be solved for years, decades or ever and Iraq may still end up with a corrupt government or even a dictatorship in the long run, whether we leave or stay. So, some decent arguments on both sides, agree or disagree.

Also, are we really still “at war”? We attacked Iraq and conquered it. War over, at least in the traditional sense. If we still consider the situation now “war” and consequently have to fight it until Iraq is one happy peaceful nation with a shining democracy and a military that’s well-trained and able to protect it’s people, it could take decades until that’s achieved, if ever. Do we really want to be there that long?

As for countries which are also in violation of UN resolutions, I’m not saying attack them all, I’m saying don’t attack until there is no other choice whatsoever. Saddam and his military was weakened by sanctions and the “no fly” zone put in place, which was regularly patrolled by the US. He was in no way capable of flying his military halfway around the world and attack the US no matter what weapon he may have possessed. There was no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with 9/11 or that he posed an actual imminent threat to anyone.

There are plenty of countries against which one could make a case for war, if one were so inclined. I remember, around the time all the talk about Iraq began, there was also a lot of talk about North Korea. They might get a weapon soon and, hey, they actually have missiles (however crappy) that might be able to hit LA. Worrisome for West Coast people such as myself. Yet, a decision was made to go with Iraq first, then that turned into a mess, now no more talk about Korea and they agreed to abandon their nuclear program anyway.

Oh, and all the talk about Iran lately, we’re all doomed, because they will get a weapon soon, then all of a sudden it’s “Oh, wait, they’ve abandoned their nuclear program in 2003.” Apparently, someone changed his mind about a possible invasion and it’s time to tone things down a bit.

So, you can conceivably bring a number of countries into the spotlight, put pressure on them, then ultimately make the case for war and a good number of people will likely go along with it. If we had gone after Korea instead of Iraq, I’m sure there’d be lots of people today who’d justify that decision and those same people would hardly even mention Iraq as an imminent threat. But because we decided to go the other way, that situation is reversed.

War is ugly and yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable, but it should always be a last resort. This wasn’t the case with Iraq, despite all of the rhetoric.

_________________
Giantkiller

[vwr32]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote Giant Killer:

You believe strongly we should stay, fair enough, that doesn’t mean all the people who don’t agree with that viewpoint are somehow “childish”.

I didn’t say they were childish. I said their idea of simply leaving was childishly simplistic. It amounts to closing your eyes to keep the monsters under the bed… only in this case the monsters are real. If we don’t provide sufficient training for iraqi troops to defend their own, it’s our fault.

This isn’t a matter of me slamming those who disagree with me, I welcome any and all suggestions on how to get us out from both sides. But for those who think simply packing our bags and boarding a plane will do (and have been calling for us to do so since Iraq fell), they are grossly missing the gravity of the situation. (imo of course :): )

quote Giant Killer:

Now, while the pro-war people worry that leaving too soon will leave Iraq open to a larger civil war possibly resulting in a new type of dictatorship, the anti-war protester may feel that there are too many American dead already, the war costs billions we can’t afford and that might be better spent at home, the military may be stretched too thin because of the ongoing conflict, there may be a lot of angry sentiment amongst Arabs against our ongoing involvement in the region (causing more people to hate the US enough to possibly decide to join a terrorist movement) and it’s a conflict that can’t be solved for years, decades or ever and Iraq may still end up with a corrupt government or even a dictatorship in the long run, whether we leave or stay. So, some decent arguments on both sides, agree or disagree.

First off… let’s change that “pro-war” term you keep using to something a bit more accurate. Hmm. How about “anti-cowardly” since it is equally insulting to the opposition as being called pro-war. Like I said, most people in favor of remaining in Iraq are of that mind out of a sense of responsibility.. not bloodlust. So… the anti-cowardly group recognizes it is costing tons of money. They see international hatred growing. They understand it isn’t improving Arab sentiment by being there (excluding the grateful Iraqis of course). The anti-cowardly people KNOW full well our military is stretched thin and our troops are in harms way.

Here’s the kicker: they know all this, but also know it’s the price we HAVE to pay for conquering the country.

quote Giant Killer:

Also, are we really still “at war”? We attacked Iraq and conquered it. War over, at least in the traditional sense.

I can’t answer for what the protesters put on their signs. No, we don’t want to be there for decades in the same capacity as we are currently. Eventually we’ll decide we’ve done all we can but it will be based on reports from both our military and their government… not some angry sign carrying mob outside a Starbucks in Paris.

quote Giant Killer:

He [Saddam] was in no way capable of flying his military halfway around the world and attack the US no matter what weapon he may have possessed. There was no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with 9/11 or that he posed an actual imminent threat to anyone.

We weren’t worried about him leaving the country with his army. We were worried about him sending the materials out of the country into the hands of others who would then use them against the US or our allies. The weapons inspectors *knew* he had WMD materials at the end of Desert Storm (keep in mind these aren’t biased Americans wanting war as some liberals see the Bush administration). So what happened to them? I’ll post a follow-up to this immediately following this post.

So here’s the question to you (or any protester still reading): Is it really the intention of the “anti-war” group to *cause* more harm to the iraqi citizens? Given the opportunity, would any one of them really give the order to bring the troops home if they *knew* it meant a fate of civil war, civil rights oppression, taliban like dictatorship, and instability for the entire region?

They (the anti-war folks) seem to want peace for everyone *except* the Iraqi people. Why is that?

[vwr32]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote Giant Killer:

War is ugly and yes, sometimes it’s unavoidable, but it should always be a last resort. This wasn’t the case with Iraq, despite all of the rhetoric.

Only in hindsight is that true. While it does *nothing* to change our duties to the Iraqi people there now, our thinking was quite different at the time based on the reports of the people doing the inspections.

Portion of full article:

quote :

UNMOVIC
United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission

The Role of International Monitoring, Inspection and Verification in Arms Control and Disarmament – the case of Iraq

Lecture by Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC at the Second Training Course of UNMOVIC

Paris, 7 November 2000

Resolution 687 adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter in connection with the cease-fire with Iraq after the Gulf War, stipulated that Iraq must be rid of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and capacity to produce such weapons and missiles. To give effect to this binding injunction – accepted by Iraq – the Security Council stipulated that Iraq should promptly declare all relevant items to IAEA and UNSCOM. These organizations were then to inspect and verify items and sites declared, and other sites which they thought relevant; they were further to ensure the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all relevant items, installations, facilities. When the Security Council agreed that all this had been completed, the sanctions, notably the prohibition to buy Iraqi oil, would be lifted (paragraph 22). Thus, this prohibition was intended to serve as a powerful incentive for Iraq to declare all prohibited items and programmes and to cooperate with UNSCOM and the IAEA in their elimination. Iraq could have used resolution 687 and the procedure laid down in it as a way of getting rid of the sanctions even in 1991. Indeed, that was the expectation of the Security Council. The verification, inspection and destruction phase would then have been followed by monitoring to give confidence that no new proscribed programmes were started. Plans for such programmes were submitted and approved by the Security Council, in 1991.
Regrettably, Iraq did not use the opportunity offered by resolution 687 but declared relevant items only grudgingly and often only after UNSCOM or the IAEA had uncovered them through other means. Instead of the cooperation, which had been envisaged between Iraq and UNSCOM and the IAEA, what has been termed a ‘cat and mouse’ play lasting many years ensued. The UN bodies were obliged to make use of their very extensive inspection rights and to act like detectives. Iraq, resented the intrusive measures used but did not provide the full declarations that would have made such intensive inspections unnecessary.

Over the years, much work by the two UN bodies, grudging cooperation by Iraq, assistance by other governments, and information from defectors resulted in the destruction of many weapons and installations. It must be understood, however, that although the two UN bodies performed extensive and intensive inspections, Iraq, at all times, had the full executive power. At any time, it could physically deny or delay access to sites, installations, individuals or documents which the inspectors wanted to visit or see.

clip

quote :

At the same time – end of 1998 – the largest number of question marks, both in the assessment of UNSCOM and of outside international experts, attached to the biological weapons programme.

What has happened to Iraq’s four proscribed weapons programmes since the end of 1998, we do not know. We have no declarations by Iraq in this regard, no inspection reports and there seems to be no significant evidence in the public domain. Renewed inspection, verification and monitoring on the ground are needed to ensure that the past programmes are adequately cleared up and neutralized, and that no new programmes emerge.

Again, hindsight doesn’t change our current responsibilities to the iraqi people. Even if it’s dangerous and expensive.

[downforlife76]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

I could go off on a 30 page rant right now, but I’m only going to counter one of the points that I feel gets misunderstood the most in this debate.

As far as the “war being over” comment… This is where I’ll definately admit we made a mistake. We decided we were going to fight a war and make it look like a peace keeping operation. The bottom line is that when you go in and take over a country, you don’t hand it back over to a fresh government and expect everything to be fine. We should still be in TOTAL control of Iraq. The way it stands now, the Iraqi courts end up letting people go who we catch red handed killing soldiers. There is a curfew that we (and the Iraqi police) aren’t allowed to enforce. People are allowed to openly carry assault rifles. There are at least a hundred more examples I could give, but by kissing ass to the liberal media, our government is making my job as a soldier over there next to imposible. If we were allowed to do this thing by the book, there wouldn’t be a problem. We’re showing weakness, which is not what you want to do when you’re fighting against religious extremists.

J-

[downforlife76]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

Oh yeah… Make sure you vote for me for president as a write in thumbsup.

J-

[giant-killer]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

I’ll be sure to do that! :):

As for the weapons inspectors, they actually weren’t so sure going to war with Iraq would be the right course of action:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

But anyway, we are there now and will be for another year at the very least. Let’s all hope violence will continue to decline and a solution can be found that will work for the Iraqis as well as for the US.

_________________
Giantkiller

[vwr32]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote Giant Killer:

Let’s all hope violence will continue to decline and a solution can be found that will work for the Iraqis as well as for the US.

Agreed. My issue has never been that the “anti-war” crowd shouldn’t voice their concerns. It’s that the only solution I hear from them only benefits us. We created the situation, it’s our burden to bear. No shortage of dead horses to beat on either side it seems.

Even without WMD, we still unseated and brought to justice an entire government guilty of horrendous crimes to their own populace. The irony is that it appears a regime similar to Saddam’s is required to establish and maintain order.

[giant-killer]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote vwr32:

The irony is that it appears a regime similar to Saddam’s is required to establish and maintain order.

That’s ironic indeed. Too bad he’s already been executed. ;):

_________________
Giantkiller

[vwr32]

Re: Politics & History – that old taboo topic!!

quote Giant Killer:

That’s ironic indeed. Too bad he’s already been executed. ;):

_________________
Giantkiller

Yeah, they shouldn’t have done that. :):

[la-revancha]

mmmm…..STEAK!!!!

HA!

Moderate liberal here, and I approve of this thread! I’ll remember you when you take my class, Miriam…

*sinister laugh*

You folks need to lay off the haterade.

Keep it comin, seÒorita! In the spirit of all things Nietzsche, liberation theology, and Danton, “…il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace…”

[miriam]

Re: mmmm…..STEAK!!!!

quote La Revancha:

HA!

Moderate liberal here, and I approve of this thread! I’ll remember you when you take my class, Miriam…

*sinister laugh*

You folks need to lay off the haterade.

Keep it comin, seÒorita! In the spirit of all things Nietzsche, liberation theology, and Danton, “…il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace…”

And vice-versa there champ… let’s see you in a cardio bag class sometime soon, then eh???

And I mean absolutely NOTHIN’ personal to anyone who has posted below, but when did the supposed-to-poke-fun-at-the-conservative-vs.-liberal-joke-thread turn into a debate about war?? :rolleyes: Sheesh!!!

I wonder what’s gonna happen when I start posting things about fashion and music and what’s hot right now. These forums need some color, and I think I’m just the person to splash some around all this gray. :woohoo:

Example: I just returned from 2 days at the Ojai Valley Inn and Spa and had the best freakin’ deep tissue massage I’ve ever had. (I write about spa treatments for a magazine, so I give this opinion in fair context.) Lemme just say: “I approve of the masseur digging into the knots in my traps, hips, and OOOOHHH yeah, the glutes, baby, the glutes!” :OhMy:

[vwr32]

Re: mmmm…..STEAK!!!!

quote Miriam:

but when did the supposed-to-poke-fun-at-the-conservative-vs.-liberal-joke-thread turn into a debate about war?? :rolleyes: Sheesh!!!

Who said it stopped being fun? thumbsup

[Author]

Posts