posted 01-14-2003 10:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Hammond:
oversimlifications

---

And for our first contestant on Stump the Editor, "what is an oversimlification?"

posted 01-14-2003 10:54 AM               

But wait a minute. What does "For those who are unaware, Rich lost dozens and dozens of co-workers in 9/11, including his best friend" mean?

Are we going to make that right by killing innocents in Iraq?

Somebody's dream scenario goes like this:

We decide we're ready to roll. It's Desert Storm all over again. Aircraft carriers and jet fighters. Cobra gunships and hellfire missiles. B52s and smart bombs. Destroyers escorts and cruise missiles. Tanks and troops. Our guys gobble up the Iraqi terrain and take down town after town, closing inexorably on Bhagdad. Our superior firepower and technology "soften up" the city, and when we move in, there's sporadic resistance, some vicious street fighting, but we emerge victorious with few casualties on our side.

Big win. The newsboys trumpet our invincible military, the brillliant strategy. Its a testosterone high. For about a week.

Then of course Saddam is gone and the Sunnis and the Shiites and the tribes and the Kurds all live happily ever after. We leave 40,000 troop there to make sure. And even tho they've never had anything like a democracy, and the mullahs hate it and the guy in the street doesn't know how it works and the women can't vote, they're all happy as clams that we made them over in our image. Its now safe for Exxon and McDonalds and WalMart to move in.

Oh, and they agree to sell us $12 a bbl oil for evermore, and none of the countries around are nervous that the same thing might happen to them too. Plus now we have this big base, right in the middle of Oil Land, and all's right with the world.

posted 01-14-2003 10:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jdub2:
And for our first contestant on Stump the Editor, "what is an oversimlification?"

---

posted 01-14-2003 11:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Peters:
For whatever it's worth, I thought that Bush did almost exactly the right things in the aftermath of 9/11. As I've made plain, I couldn't disagree with his Iraq policy more. In my view they're very different questions.

---

posted 01-14-2003 11:03 AM            

I so don't believe that.
But, I have no interest in a war, right now, with Iraq. None. I hope it doesn't happen. I just don't care about Saddam and Iraq and the weapons he may or may not have and how horrible he may or may not be. If, however, he does something that seems like a clear and immediate threat to the U.S. or our allies, then okay, fine. But I hope it doesn't happen.
Are there any IRAQI acoustic guitar players who post to this board?

posted 01-14-2003 11:08 AM               

Aside from those who pertetrated the 9 11 attacks and a handfull of equally hateful individuals, I can't imagine anyone thinking that such episodes of mass murder is justifyable. As I've said before, though, no evidence has yet been prsented that Iraq had anything to do with 911 and I emphatically add my name to the list of those who oppose attacking Iraq under some pretense that this will avenge the horrible loss of innocent lives in New York.

I protest such actions proposed by my government, not because I don't love my country, but because I do love it. I have grandchildren who deserve peace, as do the granchildren of Iraq and every other nation on earth. The notion of peace may seem like a pipedream, but many, including Gandhi and Martin Luther King have effected positive change through non-violent means. It may not reap immediate gratification like kicking someone's ass, but it has been shown to be effective. No matter how it is presented, violence does appear to beget more violence--even if it is not an immediate reaction.

posted 01-14-2003 11:27 AM               

But, I remember how the mention of the phrase "ground troops" caused very intense handwringing in the US. So, we ignored the threat, and just pretended it wasn't there.

posted 01-14-2003 11:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Evan:
Surely nobody is so duped as to think Iraq is not up to their hips in WOMD's?

And it's equally clear they have not cooperated. There were WOMD verified...verified...at the end of previous "war". They haven't even produced evidence of their destruction, storage, nothing. They simply deny they ever existed, never mind scads of hard evidence.

ALL of the above said, I feel very bad about an imminent invasion...UNLESS Iraq launches a nuke or some other WOMD. And if we pre-assure their annihilation as a response, the likelihood of their doing so is quite slim.

So, my suggestion for a real peace is arm to the teeth and make plain to all the consequence of treading on us. Worked in the cold war...

---

I agree w/ you, especially the verified weapons that have not been accounted for. BUT there has been no creditable direct linkage between 9/11 and Iraq. Coming from the Viet Nam era, I become very leery of any military action that does not have 1) a clear, direct cause of action, 2) a clearly defined goal, and 3) a realistic expectation of achieving that goal within a prescribed period of time. Otherwise, we are asking for a protracted, divisive, morally indefensible "police action." 50,000 dead in Viet Nam, including members of my family. NEVER AGAIN.

I would be interested on other people's opinions of my contention that the other, local, Arab states would fight Iraq if it threatened to upset the balance of power in the mid east. None of them have a history of cooperation w/ each other, there is tremendous tribal hatred, competing forms of government. Certainly, our presence would unite many streams of disparate opposition against The Infidel being on their territory.

posted 01-14-2003 11:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich:
Or, we can take premptive action.

---

Rich, my question would be who do we go after next? Osama isn't the cause, he is the sympton. The disease is the idea that the US is responsible for the ills of the world through who knows what reasons. Immorality, lack of Islamic belief, support for Israel, Teen pop stars, who knows how we caused it. the isse is there is a huge population of the world that thinks they would be better off if we were all dead. Ok. Killing lots of people makes that belief worse. Attacking a country before they attack us is called aggression. Aggression is what the bad guys accuse of of practicing. By attacking Iraq without laying all the reasons out on the table, we play into the bad guys hands. I'm not saying we don't have good reasons to invade. I'm saying that Bush hasn't told us what they are other than He's Saddam, he's bad and he tried to kill my Dad. Well, go get 'em Tex. The rest of the world shakes their head.

I agree with Loopy (imagine that) on one very important point. Tell us the exit strategy. When do the troops come home? We still have guys in Afghanistan. No exit strategy. We still have guys in Korea for goodness sake. Before we take over ANOTHER country like Iraq, can we agree that it would be nice to know what the conditions are for declaring victory and coming home?

posted 01-14-2003 12:35 PM               

"Yer either fer us or yer agin us."

posted 01-14-2003 12:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cbouscaren:
Rhetoric from pro-war Washington paints a picture of a united world (one-voice) in support of a unilateral US invasion of Iraq. (Doesn't the term "unilateral" defy this claim?)

Actuate Peace,

Chuck

---

#1: "Rhetoric from pro-war Washington" is rhetoric in and of itself. If you honestly believe that Colin Powell is pro-war, your peace efforts may be doomed due to misguided "rhetoric". Washington is not pro-war. The current administration apparently just has a different, more aggressive view of how to avoid future war and world catastrophe than you do.

#2: I have seen no picture, nor been handed any misguided idea, of a united world. However, I have seen support for a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. I wouldn't say that the world is united. I'm also not terribly concerned about that. Can you remember a time when the world was actually united? And if so, what medication are you on?

#3: No, "unilateral" and "one voice" are not mutually exclusive here. Many people can have voices while a few are willing to act decisively. That's because the world is used to voicing/needing/wanting and having the U.S., often unilaterally, having to make the tough calls and do the heavy lifting. Just because the Marshall Plan was driven by the U.S. doesn't mean it was NOT supported by others in the world. Many, particularly the Europeans, have the best of both worlds. They sit back and have the luxury of occaisionally supporting and occaisionally criticizing our efforts while spending a fraction of their resources on defending them. Nothing new here. The British are usually the exception to that rule.

#4: I am "actuating peace" (clever verb, nice copy) by supporting an aggressive stance toward those who stand to further destabilize our world and attempting to keep in context naive one-dimensional chants about peace, love, and harmony. I suspect my "actuation" would not be in line with yours, but I think you are after effort here more than policy. I think. I don't know. Whatever.

Peace,

posted 01-14-2003 12:59 PM               

There is no doubt that the events on that dreadful day rank with the worst crimes ever committed in the history of mankind. However, I had nothing to do with it. I dont see why I should be treated any differently because of it. Luckily, all my US friends are super nice about it and realize that pre or post 9/11 I'm the same guy. But when I read comments such as these, or that tend to grossly over-generalize by saying: "Hey, 9/11, lets go kick Iraq's butt.", it makes me feel that you're being very vengeful and in the course can (and will) blindly harm as many (actually, much more) innocents as those who fell on that day.

With that said, I've always felt that culturaly I belong to the US more than my own country and really had the best two years of my life studying there. I just love that place. To know that the feeling is not mutual through no fault of my own just makes me sad.
Peace,
--m