Well, we all knew it was coming eventually, and now we know when. Looks like jon will need to stock up on a lot more of that zombie escence (wait, i can't use that word, its origin is french!) scratch that, zombie sprite. Anyway, I've read bits here and there that gives a little idea of where some of you stand on this little skirmish, but lets get it out in the open. Who's for, who's against, and why?

And what the hell, I'll even start. I'm for kicking Saddam's ass a little, I'm sure he deserves it. Public beheading and all, and since we're not seeing a certian chicken's head roll, why not an evil dictator's. What I'm against is the idea of the US, or other such country thinking we have the right to put in place the new government that will supposedly be "for" the people of Iraq, when it will actually be for the allied governments. Let the people of Iraq put their own government in place, and if it's a new evil dictator, then I guess Bush was wrong, oh well.

Goats is most definitely against the war.

I don't like Saddam, and I won't be sad to see him go. I don't even think that the war will have any negative consequences, for the most part.

But there are some undeniable facts that make it impossible for me to support this action.

- Bush has not made his case that war is needed. There has been no evidence shown that he posesses any weapons that are a threat to the US. Clinton's containment policy seemed like it worked just fine.

- Bush has not made his case that Saddam is connected to Al Qaeda terrorism. Saddam's government is non-religious and at odds with what Al Qaeda stands for.

- The US should simply not be in the business of starting unprovoked wars. I learned very early on that it was proper to defend myself if provoked, but that starting a fight myself was wrong. Bush doesn't seem to be able to grasp these very simple kindergarten-level lessons.

- Bush has manipulated the American people into supporting his agenda. This is about oil and corporations and religious prophesy, not about freedom and terrorism. I don't like being manipulated. You're not going to get my support that way.

- Bush does not have a mandate from the people of his country, nor does he have the support of the international community. This may pose a more dangerous long-term threat to the health of our country than Iraq ever did.

There's more, but that pretty much covers it.

As an aside, I work on Wall Street, and I must say that I'm a tad bit nervous that some hick from Texas is willing to put me on the front lines for whatever nebulous reason. I walk by men with machine guns and strategically placed concrete barriers on my way to the office every morning. I sincerely doubt that regime change in Iraq will change that -- it will not make us any safer.

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I whole-heartedly agree.

First it was Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda. This I fully supported. We were attacked, and had every reason to retaliate. No problems there; actually, I don't think we went far enough. All of a sudden the campaign slowly trailed off.

Then it was Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. I'm not sure why the focus was shifted, and I'm not convinced of any single piece of 'evidence' that has been brought to the table (much like the rest of the world.) I won't go into it, Jon has already made all of my arguments for me.

I fully support America and it's allies, but I don’t support some Texan turning our country into an empire, and going about these types of actions because we can. I don’t think there’s anyone in the world who would deny America’s power; but that doesn’t mean that we should wield it in a way that suits our own needs. Especially when the person who’s calling the shot’s needs and wants are much different than the populous of the country.

I didn’t think that the world could ever see us as more arrogant and self-centered, and I grow more ashamed of how these actions portray us as a people every day.

I do not have enough facts to create an informed opinion. This is partially by choice.

Lacking the facts, I can only create an opinion based on personal biases and poorly-remembered truths.

Bush is evil. War is bad. Saddam is bad.

Fire bad.

I would have preferred to see more conclusive evidence that Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda before going to war. Having said that, I will take my share of the responsibility for whatever happens. None of this "he's not my President" horseshit, no sir. If you're a U.S. citizen, you have a hand in this, whether you raise it, sit on it, or flip off the government.

In Response to jon (#4501):

That's just evil!

In Response to Robonun (#4499):

I would have preferred to see more conclusive evidence that Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda before going to war.

Or indeed any evidence at all...

None of this "he's not my President" horseshit

Ah well, see, not being American I can safely say he's not my president.

That feels good.

Of course, this does mean I have to take responsibility for Blair. Oh shit. Can't even claim I didn't vote for him.

Oh shit indeed.

For a more detailed view of my opinions, there is always today's column [onlineopinion.net].

But back to the silliness. Today, more than ever, I for one need a laugh. To combine both thoughts, there is always the White House [whitehouse.org].

Cheers,
Graham

I oppose the way we've gotten into this war more than anything else. I can see a point when you look at the 10-year picture that there were resolutions passed that were meant to have consequences attached to them, and they were not properly enforced. But when you look at events in terms of the past weeks or months, what we're doing doesn't make sense. It feels like the 10-year perspective was being held in reserve and is being used as an excuse.

My biggest problem with the situation is that the U.S. government has been misleading the U.S. people, and as a result we don't have a clear and true picture of why we should or should not be at war at the moment. There hasn't been an acceptable level of question-and-answer communicaton with the press, for one thing.

Bush has over-stated the nuclear threat from Iraq, citing findings from organizations that say they don't know of any such findings. This is not to say that there is no Iraqi WMD threat.

Bush has over-stated the alleged connection between Iraq and bin Laden. It seems unlikely that the two are aligned. That is not to say that Iraq lacks terrorist ties.

In both cases, Bush appears to be manipulating public opinion by latching on to high-visibility fears. The fact is, he's weakening his position by doing it. If he'd just stuck to what's known to be true, he might have been able to build a stronger case both here and internationally. Unless, of course, we're being lied to at a far more fundamental level about the state of things in Iraq.

So what is it really about? I don't honestly believe it's about oil. It's fashionable to think that everything we do in the middle east is about oil, but it doesn't make sense to me in this case. Nor do I accept that it's as simple as Bush wanting a war. I've come to dislike Bush, but I don't buy into the popular image that he's stupid.

So to me neither the official reasons nor the common speculation add up. If I don't know why we're at war, that means no justification has been presented to me, so I oppose being at war.

At the same time, I can't say I agree with the French position. The unwillingness to attach consequences to resolutions -- or even to stand behind that aspect of existing resolutions -- goes too far in my opinion. Statements that imply that no compromise is even possible are simply counter-productive, and even if France is right that the aborted vote wouldn't have gotten 9 votes, the hard line "we will veto you" stance contributed to the break-down of diplomacy.

As for the influence of "some hick from Texas"... well, I'd feel no better if our president were a slick New Yorker. The U.S. political system grants certain power to the president, and your chosen candidate isn't always going to be in office. That's the system at work.

Did containment work with Iraq? Depends what your objectives are. Would it have worked forever? We'll never know. Does Iraq pose a threat to the U.S.? Well, the ability to lob a nuke onto the U.S. mainland isn't the only thing that constitutes a threat. If, as I've heard reported, Iraq is funding suicide bombers -- or terrorists of any form -- then they are posing a threat to Americans abroad if not at home.

So to me, it may be that a case for war could have been constructed, but that didn't happen.

In Response to mea37 (#4515):

Bravo. Well thought out and worded. I heartily concur.

Of course, I'm just some hick from Minnesota, so what do I know? ;)

In Response to jgarcia (#4516):

You know where to buy Point Beer [pointbeer.com].

That's something.

In Response to mea37 (#4515):

So to me, it may be that a case for war could have been constructed, but that didn't happen.

I think this is the point that many people can agree with - an invasion of Iraq could be justified, but it hasn't been yet. Containment has worked so far. There's no evidence Iraq has any weapons programs we didn't know about when we were actively supporting them. Those programs are almost certainly less advanced than when we were supporting them. The UN inspectors believe they could have done their job fully in a matter of months more. This, to me, is ample evidence to carry on as we were, at least for the moment.

The French position is difficult to make a judgement on. Reports both here (UK) and in America have been of "We'll veto any resolution authorising war, regardless." Whereas the actual text could be read as "We'll veto any resolution authorising war, while the inspections appear to be working." That's an awful lot more reasonable.

And the French did state before 1441 was passed that they did not regard "serious consequences" as code for war.

But we have to deal with the world as is, and turn attention to how to minimise damage during the war, and carry out the rebuilding afterwards in the interests of Iraq and world peace.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to zamphir (#4520):

That's very true, Zamphir. Thanks for reminding me. I'll be sure I drink one to your health this weekend. And some Summit Maibock, for good measure. And maybe a nice porter...

All for your health, of course.

In Response to albionsoft (#4527):

The French position is difficult to make a judgement on.

That's a valid point; I'm looking at the American press representation of the French position. And to be fair, they have said that the whole field would look different to them if Iraq were to use chemical weapons in the upcoming war.

While the details of exactly what the French said they would veto -- and how reasonable such a statement would be with that added information -- may be debatable, I would still argue that the veto power given to the permanent members of the security council -- including the United States -- is arbitrary and dangerous in that veto threats tend to shut down debate.

In Response to mea37 (#4541):

I would still argue that the veto power given to the permanent members of the security council -- including the United States -- is arbitrary and dangerous in that veto threats tend to shut down debate.

And I would not disagree. Straight majority voting of fifteen random countries seems less than ideal either - as US/British attempts to buy votes has proven. Instead, I'd suggest that allowing the veto holders to refer a vote to the general assembley would make much sense.

Cheers,
Graham

In Response to jon (#4494):

I Heart 1984.

The US doesn't seem to do well, historically, when it goes sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. I hate the idea of going to war, but then, I hated it as much on September 12, 2001. I understand proportional responses. I think they're necessary, albeit immoral-- but this?! I think this is childish, simplistic behavior on the part of our government. Jon made reference to kindergarten...

All that aside, I've spent the last five years traveling abroad, and every time I talk to someone on the street, I feel like I have to apologize because I'm an american. I don't see that getting any better any time soon, do you?

Finally, and this goes out to you, Robonun, he's not my president. I, along with the majority of people in this nation, voted for a man named Al. Anyone want to move to canada with me? It's a thought.

i agree that saddam needs to be removed. any person who will drop chemical and biological weapons on his own people needs to be taken out of office (and preferrably dragged out into the street and shot. many, many times).

what i'm glad to see in this thread, however, is that most people have been disagreeing with my ultimate boss (bush) instead of the plethora of bosses i have under him (the u.s. navy chain of command). i've gotten flack from a decent amount of people, friends included, about the fact that i'm a member of the armed services and therefore a war monger and wholeheartedly support this war. there are many who don't support it, and even more who aren't sure one way or another (myself included).

however, i will fight this war. not so much because i'm ordered to (but that has something to do with it), but rather because when i get over there (sometime within the next six months, so let's all hope that it's just clean-up efforts by then), it will be my life that's in danger; mine, and the lives of the sailors under my command. and i'll be damned if i'm gonna sit back and watch as they are killed in front of me.

[shameless plug]
if anyone wants to help make some of the u.s. troops stationed overseas feel better, go here [operationm...upport.com] and volunteer to write a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who might not otherwise get mail from the states. it'll brighten their day, and let them know what we do appreciate the sacrifices they make to protect our country. (apologies to all the non-u.s. people on the board for that).
[/shameless plug]

-p

I see quite a bit of Bush bashing and not very much Sadaam bashing on this board. I don't really understand this; it seems more like people would rather bash their own government (for some reason) than look at what actually is being accomplished. If you take a step back and look at it all: an evil dictator is being overthrown, a country is being liberated, and we are protecting ourselves from a possible attack.

On the negative, we might be pissing off some big countries. That might be a real problem; but chances are, it wont. I choose to trust in the Bush admin. and hope that it goes well. I don't see the hurt in trusting them.

I noticed a previous post suggesting moving to Canada because their canadate hadn't won the election (among other things). I guess that is his choice, but I, personally, see this as a time of war, and think that B.S. like that just hurts this country more.

In Response to the_fetus (#4588):

I see quite a bit of Bush bashing and not very much Sadaam bashing on this board. I don't really understand this

Well, for my part, I'm coming down on Bush because it's Bush's actions we're discussing. If you'd like to discuss Saddam's actions, I'll be happy to rip him apart as well. In fact I'll be far more thorough.

an evil dictator is being overthrown, a country is being liberated

Is the U.S. in the "liberating other countries" business? Will we follow through on making sure that the New Boss, so to speak, isn't The Same As The Old Boss? Is that even our business? I refer you to history for partial answers, but I will say I think you're being exceedingly optimistic.

In any event, most of us aren't arguing about the pragmatic outcome of the war. We're looking at the total cost of going to war. Non-combatants -- people who don't want to fight in the first place, no different than the passengers on the planes used on 9/11 -- are going to be killed. War has a cost beyond "might piss off other countries", and it takes a lot to justify it.

I would argue that the only person who has the right to lay down an Iraqi's life for the cause of Iraq's freedom would be the Iraqi. Revolution has to come from within.

and we are protecting ourselves from a possible attack.

If the case for that had been properly developed, it might justify where we are. The case has not been made. See my prior post for the reasons I believe this.

I choose to trust in the Bush admin. and hope that it goes well. I don't see the hurt in trusting them.

I trust those who show themselves to be credible (or at least don't show themselves to lack credibility). It isn't an open choice; it is a reaction. The Administration may have legitimate information it isn't sharing with us, but I'm not going to just take that on faith while many of the things they are saying are not true.

So, what's the harm in just trusting government? The founding fathers would roll over in their graves at that question. The American political system is based on the awareness and involvement of the individual. That's what "government of the people" means. Modern society's ignorance of that responsibility can be blamed for most of the major screw-ups in American politics today.

I noticed a previous post suggesting moving to Canada because their canadate hadn't won the election (among other things). I guess that is his choice,

I could write quite a bit about my views on the "I'm leaving the country" bit, but I'll leave it at this: If someone really thinks on the whole they'd be better off in another country, that's their call (though again it might be a bit more responsible to get involved and try to change the things you don't like).

but I, personally, see this as a time of war, and think that B.S. like that just hurts this country more.

Sorry, I'm calling foul here. Dissenting views do not hurt this country. Attempts to suppress dissenting views (such as by suggesting that they hurt this country) hurt this country. Extreme situations (such as war-time) are exactly the times when everyone must be free to express his or her honest viewpoint.

In Response to mea37 (#4594):

Revolution has to come from within.

I agree with this sentiment, but I think it a bit optimistic.

Humans have gotten very very good at huge ostrich sized oppression. We have solved a lot of the problems that used to limit oppressive governments - communication over distance, ability for a small group to oppress a large group, control of natural resources, distribution of necessities. Thanks, technology!

Sometimes, it's really not possible for revolution to come from inside.

In Response to jgarcia (#4528):

Point Beer is skunky. Howzabout if I drink to his health with an Irish coffee or two instead?

In Response to zamphir (#4598):

I agree with both of you. We fought our own revolution, and freed ourselves, why can't everyone else do the same. Sadly, it is as you said Z, it's much harder for revolution to come from within, but I don't think it's impossible. I'm not completely against the US getting involved to help liberate Iraq, but I think the Iraqi people need to make the first move. Once it has been established that there is a clear movement of the masses within the country to liberate themselves, I think it would be justified for the US, or other countries, to help that country free itself from an obvious evil dictator.

In Response to mea37 (#4594):

I dont see how threatning to leave the country because youre unhappy with the outcome of the election 2 years ago exactly helps this country. And I dont see how pointing it out hurts it, either.

But, its your call.

In Response to coolhand (#4604):

Right, I'm not saying outside support is never justified. We may say we fought our own revolution, but we had help, too.

In Response to the_fetus (#4605):

The specific statement "I don't like what happened so I'm leaving" doesn't help the country. If you look back at my post, you'll note that I did say I didn't agree with that sentiment. The ability of someone who feels that way to say so, however, is vital.

Pointing out that the specific statement isn't helpful is fine. What you said is "that B.S. hurts the country". That differs from "what you said isn't helpful" in two major ways:

1) It isn't true.

2) There are those who would use that kind of logic to limit free speech, which most definitely does hurt the country.

There is a common thread in some circles that dissenting views are harmful and we should all support the Administration's viewpoint for the good of the country. You can bet that when I see thought that plays into that hand, I'm going to say something about it.