Thread: How to deal with the peacenick ignoramuses

Twostep, to answer your questions...

1) Now because it's about time it gets done. We've all let Saddam thumb his nose at us and the UN for 12 years. With everything going on in the world today and now that terrorists have brought the destruction to our soil, the Bush administration has started a war on terror. To me that means any group or country that supports or commits acts of terrorism are the ones we are after. Saddam is a supporter of terrorism and if you come back with " where's the proof?", how about when Saddam openly offered money to the families of suicide bombers. We can't wait for the same reason that I believe that the UN needs an overhaul, if you make a resolution and it is not fulfilled by the deadline, then don't come back with oh let's extend it for a month or two. Now if a week before the deadline was up, and they had a major natural disaster, then I could understand extending the deadline for humanitarian reasons, but not for the only fact of they didn't comply. France on the other hand is all about the money from the contracts they had set to go when they got the sanctions lifted in the UN...

2) We started with Iraq, North Korea did not attempt to restart their nuke program until after we had already commited ourselves to Iraq. They are only after a bigger aid package from the US anyway. As for their ballistic misslies, they already can reach the west coast.

3) Why should we care, this is a man who has used these weapons on innocent people of his country just for being a different sect of muslim... And you might want to check you info, Saddam did use chemical weapons in the gulf war, transported by his scud misslies. As for the last part of that question I refer back to his monitary support of terrorist mentioned in answer #1.

4)This is apart of the war on terror...

5) You should pay for it because your an american citizen, freedom isn't free. Besides the part the Democrats don't bring up about if we go to war is, yes it will cost the budget billions, but a by product of war to more jobs, more money being injected into the economy by the military and the contracting companies that build weapons and gear for the military. I'd hate to say it but nothing is better at stimulating an weak economy than a war...

I'm glad that you atleast answered the questions that you asked, most people won't do that. I agree that we should discuss other ideas but the problem is it's either go to war or sit back and hope for the best. I personally would love to avoid war, but unless Saddam steps down and fully discloses the weapons he has then unless we can help organize and support a local revolution, our only option is to remove him by force. If someone has a better idea I'd love to hear it.

Sorry for the two long consecutive posts, but these need to be responded to.

Originally posted by Twostep
1) Why now? What is so urgent about going to war right now? Why can't the US wait 45 days like the non-permanent UNSC (Security council) people want? Why can't the US wait the 120 days that France apparently wants?

Why not a year? 10 years? 100 years? The French are already backing out of R1441, what makes you think they'll support us after 120 days? These are stall tactics. If we say, "Ok, we'll wait 45 days." When those 45 days comes around, I'd bet dollars to donuts those same people will clamor for more time. Bush and Blair have set a deadline realizing that after 45 or 120 days, the French will still be curled up in the corner crying, the Germans are afraid, after starting two World Wars, of helping to start another, and Russia has financial and political ties to Iraq. Nothing will change.

2) Why Iraq? North Korea *has* WMD. They almost certainly have the bomb. They have (and frequently test) ballistic missiles. The next generation of those missiles will be able to reach California.

Here's the difference. Saddam was given 12 years of opporitunity to disarm. Kim Jong Il was part of a non-nuclear treaty that recently stepped out of it. Strangely, I hear this arguement alot from the anti-war people. Unlike what many think, the US isn't a war monger. We will try diplomacy FIRST with North Korea, then move from there.

3) Why should we care? Saddam had chemical weapons before 9/11. He had them before the Gulf War. He didn't use them on us then, why would he do so in the future? How do we know that he would give them to terrorists?

That's because we bombed the hell out of his chemical and biological manufacturing facilities. He gassed the Kurds and other Iraqis as well as the Iranians. It'd be foolish to assume he wouldn't do the same to us.

4) Why should the US jepordize the so called "War on Terror"? Isn't it more important to be focusing all our efforts on finding terrorists world-wide?

From the capture of Kalid Sheikh Mohammad, I'd say the war on terror is going quite well. Think about it. What do Saddam and terrorists like UBL share in common? A hatred for the US. Saddam has 10,000 liters of anthrax missing as well as VX and Serin agents. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together and see that animals like UBL could just make a pit stop at Saddam's Chemical Weapon Quick-Stop and buy these weapons from him. It only takes one terrorist to smuggle it into the country. If we have a chance to help control the spread of these weapons, shouldn't we?

5) Why should I pay for it? The lowest estimates have the cost at around 100 billion dollars. There are around 300 million US citizens, which means each person is paying an average of $333 dollars. Since many of those people pay signifigantly less taxes than I do, I would suspect I am paying closer to $1000 of my taxes to pay for a war I don't want.

In the long term, I think the money spent will come back to us. From the huge oil deposits to the American companies moving over there to provide services, I'm not worried about the initial costs.

Let me head off the inevitable response:
No, I won't leave the country if I don't like what it is doing. The point of a democracy is that I can express my views, and vote to elect people that share my views. My representatives know how I feel, and nearly all voted against war.

Heh, and you shouldn't. I agree with you here.


I agree with #1.

2) Lots of world leaders have murdered many of their citizens. Many of those leaders we call our friends. How many murders must a leader commit before we take him out? 10? 100? 1000? Who decides?

Countries that have the balls to take on these people. As the UN becomes more complacent and politically driven, it loses footing. But who decides? I think people like Saddam, Milosevic, and Hitler decided for themselves. We didn't put ourselves in the position of the world's police force; Organizations like the UN did that for us. Go ask people like Kim Day Jung if we should take our troops out of his country and let the North Koreans trample through.


This one I'm going to have to break up:

3) I don't know what the alternative is. I have heard many alternatives to war. I also haven't heard any of them seriously considered by our government. I haven't heard people on TV debating them.

Huh? You don't know an alternative, but you've heard many? Sounds to me like they weren't good alternatives.

How can I (or any other American citizen) decide when we are presented with only one choice?

It's called "thinking on your own." Martin Sheen, Sharyl Crow, and Jane Fonda aren't your conscience. I personally have thought long and hard about alternatives. I hate war as much as anyone, but there are no plausible alternatives. The only ones I've heard have fallen into 3 categories.

1. Diplomacy - We did that. The unanimous passing of R1441 demonstrates that. The UN has tried diplomacy for 12 years and failed.

2. More inspections - 8 years of inspections weren't enough? (Yeah, it's less than what I said in my original post. Inspectors were out of the country for about 4 years.) Obviously they were ineffective, so what is another 8 years going to do besides sweep the problem of Saddam under the rug?

3. Send a sniper team into Iraq and take out Saddam! - Riiiiggghhtt. I've actually heard this one. Watch a great documentary about Saddam called, "Uncle Saddam." That'll explain why this is not plausible.

5) Maybe. What if we are required to kill as many Iraqi soldies as we did in the first Gulf war? We killed thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. Don't you think a peaceful transition to a democracy in Iraq would be better? After all, if you end up in the same place, but don't have to kill people, it sounds better to me.

Sounds better to me too, but that's no longer an option. I've heard estimates between 100,000 - 200,000 iraqis died during the first war, but that number is unconfirmed by other sources. Most of the deaths were on the "Highway of Death" at the end of the war.

Donald Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks have discussed their strategy at lengths. The Iraqi soldiers will surrender in groups before fighting even begins (the Gulf War confirms that). For example, look at the Iraqi soldiers that surrendered last week because they thought fighting had already begun. They don't want to die, and we don't want to kill them. We want Saddam and his brothers and sons out of power. If we can keep their infrastructure (including their soldiers) as undamaged as possible, the easier and cheaper it'll be to rebuild Iraq after the ousting of Saddam.

My issue with the way this has all been happening is the way the President is presenting the issue to us. We don't get any real talk about war being one of several options, all we hear about is war as the only option.

Again, what alternatives? If there were peaceful alternatives to war, we would try them in a heartbeat. But we didn't get the English out of America by talking them to death.

Discussions like this are important, and I think you need to ask yourself why they don't happen more. I also would like to hear why you *dislike* discussion.

Me? Why do you think I started this thread? It sounds to me like you just haven't evaluated the alternatives and discovered that we have reached our last option.

Gutter, I made that comment about the sniper as wishful thinking... I know it's most likely possible, but wouldn't it be nice if it was. Then there wouldn't be a worry about how many thousands are going to die.

Originally posted by thenominous
and of course we cant say that the USA has never done that, can we...

Cite specific examples where the US has purposefully used chemical and biological weapons on innocent civilians.

and who has told you this?
Why have we still not seen any progress in processing these people and sending them to trial?
Eventually they are going to have to be prosecuted, set free, or all shot.

Those deemed to be a danger to the US will be prosecuted. Ones who are not, will be set free:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breakin...2543-3595r.htm

And it sure sounds like a terrible place for our enemies to stay to me:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8</a>

Gosh, how horrible. Judge how we treat these detainees to the way Vietnam or Korea treated American prisoners during those wars. The US has to interview each prisoner, retrieve as much information as possible, corroborate it, analyze it, and decide then. It's not a weekend retreat. These are people who fought against US soldiers and should be thankful that they are being treated so well in captivity.

erm how does that work? They are not POW's but they were fighting against the USA which had invaded their country in the attempt to remove the current government. Sounds like a war to me!

They aren't technically POWs since we didn't formally declare war (through our congress) on Afghanistan. In this case, the terms of the Geneva convention do not apply.

Being inprisioned without trial? Havent you seen the pictures of prisoners in shackles? The accomodation? It would be a concentration camp, if only they were allowed to walk around freely

Prisoners in shackles!?!?!? Holy Crap! Someone call Jesse Jackson and get him in here! It's an Emergenjacity!

And gosh, the accomodations. No window dressings or TV, and worst of all, NO ROOM SERVICE. Oh god, the agony!

They have a roof over their head, they have food, clothing, and medical attention. Hell, the gov't doesn't even do all that for me.

If it has been broken, who do you think is going to complain? Is the USA going to listen? Who, if anyone, would try and make them listen?

Uhm...the UN. That's their job. Do these people not have roofs over their heads? Are they not getting fed? Are they doing slave labor? No medical attention?

The fact that a lot of americans think that WW2 lasted from the end of 1941 - 1945 shows just how helpful the USA was to the rest of the people in Europe.

We did have a Democrat in office at the time, which is one reason. The other is that we were isolationists. Obviously, Roosevelt didn't have the foresight that Churchill did in seeing the danger Hitler posed. But where did this come from? I didn't state that WW2 was between 1941-1945.

When you are being attacked by a vastly superior force as in WW2, common sense tells you to surrender and not be obliterated.

I think that has more to do culturally. Looking back at American History, and look back at say, France's history. Ours is a history of standing up for ourselves telling the world that our freedom is worth the small price of our lives. Whereas France's history shows a long list of defeats, surrenders, and occupations. I think the only war they won was the French Revolution, and that's just because the opponent was French.

Imprisoning thousands of japanese civillians in concentration camps during WW2 probably does.

I'll give you that one. There are many sad chapters in our history, but this is completely different. Those were thousands of hard working Japanese-Americans who had nothing to do with the war. The detainees in Guantanamo Bay FOUGHT AGAINST OUR TROOPS. You don't see the difference there?

Security of a country thousands of miles away from Iraq, with very little chance of direct retaliation from it. ie. WOMD

No, security of our own country, and the world. If we can guarantee that Iraq won't be running their own mail order WOMD business, we (including you) will be better off.

Bingo, the USA attitude.
We do what we want because we can, and we dont give a damn what anyone else thinks as it wont effect us.
The USA is a bully. It picks on people smaller than it, knowing that it wont get into trouble as everyone is too scared to complain.
Inwardly democratic (leave out the fiasco over Bush getting into power), outwardly dictating terms to the rest of the world.

But who does the world call on when they need help? OH yeah, that's right. The US.

The USA is the problem for the future, they are in a position of great dominance over the rest of the world. Militarily they are streets ahead of any other country and it would seem not too bothered about showing it. Maybe Iraq is a demonstration to the world that they are not to be messed with?

And unlike the superpowers of past (including your country), we aren't in the business of taking over other countries. Will we overthrow governments? Yes. Will we remain in control of them? No. Examples? Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan. We do what's in our best interest, as all countries should. We have given more money, liberated more people, and done generally more good in the world than any other country. Ask and I'll cite specific examples, but it's lunchtime.

Originally posted by thenominous
When R1441 was tabled, the US specifically left out the mention of "by any meens deemed neccesary" was was in previous resolutions before the last gulf war. They knew that if it had been included, it would have been veto'd. They now wish to use R1441 as a reason to justify their actions. If they do not get a second resolution, it will be the fault of the USA that the UN breaks up.

But 1441 did mention "serious consequences." If the UN is no longer able to uphold and enforce their resolutions, they did it to themselves. Ask the massacred Bosnians and Tutsis how effective the UN is.

So best let the USA start WW3 then? The west pretty much asked for WW2 due to the crippling restraints we placed on Germany after the first round.

We asked for WW2? Are you one of those people who say a woman is asking to be raped because she wears a short skirt?

What will change is that the US will get those financial and political ties that it doesnt like to see Russian having.

Or the Russians could maintain and build those ties even further by assissting us and having a stake in the future Iraq.

Unfortunately it is diplomacy on the USA's terms, and those only.

If you're talking about North Korea, they agreed to the non-proliferation agreement. Our stance is the same as when they signed into it. A stance they agreed to when they signed into it. I don't understand why you don't expect them to uphold their decision.

In the terms of Iraq, does that mean that you'd prefer:

"Saddam, we're kinda sorta not happy with the idea that you have WOMD. If it's alright with you, could you stop please? Please, with a cherry on top?"

than:

"Saddam, you are a threat to our country and way of life. You have not, and will not comply with UN resolutions, so prepare for the *** whooping of your life."

We have all the toys, and we dont want you to have any, here, have some economic aid and go STFU.

So to be fair, we should let everybody have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons? Great idea! Let's start selling our nukes on E-bay so that no country feels left out. We don't want anybody to feel excluded.

Unlike your stance, I feel that continued proliferation of WOMD is a bad thing. Are countries that already have them going to give them up? No. Are we going to try to prevent other countries from developing them? Aboslutely. That's common sense, which you stated you had in an earlier post.

The point is that he didnt the last time around, and had plenty of oportunity to try and do so.
Please do remember that the west supplied Iraq with a lot of the technology to make this stuff, and plenty samples too.
I believe that last time he didnt use them against us as he knew that we would "finish the job" and oust him from power.

You just proved my point. "he didnt use them against us as he knew that we would "finish the job" and oust him from power." Now we're ousting him from power, so using what you just stated, what is he going to do with his Anthrax, VX gas, and Serin? Surpise!

The USA really should take a long hard look of why these people hate them so much rather than trying to find and eradicate them. The USA caused the problem in the first place with their policies towards the region. By what means does the USA expect people to express their views and make the USA listen that they do not want their interference?

The good ol' "Blame America First" strategy. There is absolutely nothing we could do to appease people like UBL. Do you honestly think taking troops out of the middle east would do anything?

Probably would have helped if the west hadnt supplied them nor the technology to produce them in the first place

I'm not saying that we haven't gotten in bed with the wrong people in the past. Again, we did what was in our best interest at the time. Unfortunately, it was the wrong decision and policies have changed. But we know how perfect the UK is. That whole silly apartheid deal was just for laughs.

No, you did. The USA is NOT the world's police force, the UN IS. The USA is a tool of this "police force", just as the rest of the members of the security council are. It is the USA's job to listen to the UN and take it's cue from them. Not teh otehr way around as the USA would like, and seems to be planning for.

And everytime some crazed dictator in some squatty little country is eradicating his people, who do they call on for help? The UN? I think not. Look at the 8,000 unarmed Bosnians massacred in an UN safe zone by Serbs while the UN sat back and watched. What about the million of so Tutsis in Rwanda that were massacred without a peep from the UN. We are not the first to suggest the UN is ineffective and undermining its own authority.

If we are not the world's "police force," then would you feel the world would be more stable if we removed our troops from places like Afghanistan and South Korea? Who do you think has kept the North Koreans from invading the south?

Its not the troops that they value, its the millions of dollars worth of spending within the country that the US military provide every year.

Riiiiggghhhtt. And it's not the heavily armed nuclear communists dancing on the 38th parallel? Try again.