What is YOUR excuse? - SciForums.com

wesmorris

02-10-03, 05:57 PM

I'm 33, I'm quite bright, a US citizen and a veteran of the gulf war.

Man, you know.. now that I'm older and understand (cuz I used to be just like you peacenik dildos), I believe the legal age to vote should be 25. Most of you people are too young too have your shit together. You blindly stick to "give peace a chance" because it's a really good idea. It IS a really good idea, but it doesn't always work. The jackass Sadaam is going to die and the world will be a better place for it. He is the one who is responsible for any deaths that come to his people. You're wrong if you think otherwise. Any leader of ANY fucking caliber would be moving his people to safe places so as to minimize civilian casualties... instead this piece of shit moves his troops into populated areas so as to "protect" them and make the US look bad. Shit, any SANE leader would strike a side deal with the US to save face and save himself at the same time. Death to his muslim fundamentalist ass, and all like him. The US will not be fooled and if they must, the civilians will die. It's not with a light heart that this must happen, but Sadaam's stupid ass has got to go down. If you have children you'd probably understand why. This dirtbag has got to die, and HE and HE alone is reponsible for any deaths that result from an attack on his country in the name of disarming his maniacal ass.

Eh, just my opinion.

Oh, and as for you jackoffs that say things like "you'd lick bush's balls if he asked you to" or whatever... kiss my ass. I don't really like the guy all that much but I do think this whole deal is what's right. Now, this is of course based on the evidence that I know of, and that is basically from Powell's speech and the infractions of the NATO things. I think the US government has done an excellent job of justifying this doodad to it's public. If you have evidence that the US is just making shit up regarding this whole issue, POST IT. Don't just talk shit. Back it up.

hypewaders

02-10-03, 06:12 PM

Westmorris: Please be my hero: If your solutions are part of reality, please make a HALO jump tomorrow night over Baghdad, and slit Saddam's lousy throat with your K-Bar.

Or at least justify 500+ dead soldiers like you, $3.00/gal low-test, gas rations, and (last but not least) the shredded corpses of friends, parents wives, girlfriends, kids in OUR own streets. Or prove that the preceding can not possibly happen under the Master Plan of our Dear "Elected" "Harvard" "Yale" "Military" "intelligent" "eloquent" "responsible" "Commander-in-Chief" who's "got the whole, world, in His Hands. Because when on small junta is risking the lives of many thousands of people, they dam well better justify it, in my not humble opinion. Do you honestly believe that the present US administration is behaving as if they know what the hell they are doing? Our President WON'T TAKE A PRESS CONFERENCE! SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL! (sorry to shout) We know they both lie, but who is probably lying more: talks-to-press-president, or doesn't-talk-to-to-press-president, hmmmm?

Please: Explain.

Oh, since you seem to think it matters, I'm 38, MWM, been shot at more than I care to remember, and was raised mostly in the Middle East.

Let me congratulate you, Westmorris, that you have correctly recognised that Saddam Hussein is a miserable blight on the Iraq. Let me offer my encouragement to investigate the possibility that 1)he poses no serious threat to the USA in his present status and 2)if we remove him by force, we will set off 5-6 additional crises, each of which much more of a Clear and Present Danger. If you can't imagine a couple of examples of "blowback", and would like to know the truth, I am at your service.

psychomantyss

02-10-03, 06:26 PM

I protest against anything Bush is in favour of.

i fully support firefly. bushie has an alternate reason for invasion of iraq if he'd just stop frickin' lying it'd be all good

hypewaders

02-10-03, 06:34 PM

He should ask his predecessor.:D

wesmorris

02-10-03, 06:43 PM

it's a name, not a direction (wesmorris) or (wesley morris)

Originally posted by hypewaders
Westmorris: Please be my hero: If your solutions are part of reality, please make a HALO jump tomorrow night over Baghdad, and slit Saddam's lousy throat with your K-Bar.

Man, I'm fat now. I'd just make an impact crater and a mess.
Originally posted by hypewaders

Or at least justify 500+ dead soldiers like you, $3.00/gal low-test, gas rations, and (last but not least) the shredded corpses of friends, parents wives, girlfriends, kids in OUR own streets.

I'm not dead. I don't have ANY enjoyment of corpses. I can't justify the corpses. I do not wish there to be any (well, besides a few who are just asking for it).
Originally posted by hypewaders

Or prove that the preceding can not possibly happen under the Master Plan of our Dear "Elected" "Harvard" "Yale" "Military" "intelligent" "eloquent" "responsible" "Commander-in-Chief" who's "got the whole, world, in His Hands. Because when on small junta is risking the lives of many thousands of people, they dam well better justify it, in my not humble opinion.

How can anyone EVER gaurantee that won't happen? Don't be scared. It's too late for that. Deal with what happens and hope we don't all die.
Originally posted by hypewaders

Do you honestly believe that the present US administration is behaving as if they know what the hell they are doing?

Yes, they are behaving "as if" they know what they are doing. I have no clue if they really do or not. I mean for chrissake I get my news from a bunch of different sources, but sheeeeez.. who knows what's actually true in these kinds of things? I have to go with what I've presented with even though it smells a little funny. It seems to me that it ALL smells a little funny and really, it has to. Do YOU honestly think the government could function properly if ALL its people really had a fucking clue what it takes to run a government? It's a bitch man, I feel lucky to be alive and well, I don't get fucked with by the MAN too much, but I lay low... hehe, that's military training at it's best. :)
Originally posted by hypewaders

Our President WON'T TAKE A PRESS CONFERENCE! SADDAM HUSSEIN WILL! (sorry to shout) We know they both lie, but who is probably lying more: talks-to-press-president, or doesn't-talk-to-to-press-president, hmmmm?

That is retarded. Saddam is a pissant. It is in his best interest to take a press conference. The only way he can get what he wants is to manipulate the peaceniks... to bring us down from the inside. heheheehehe.. it's SO naive to think that what you said there has anything to do with this. Bush is the leader of the free world (like it or don't, I'm still a little mixed on my opinion there, I hate teh idea of an "american" royal fucking family). He's busy and he pronounces everything wrong. You can bet his lackies won't let him do any more press conferences than absolutely neccessary. Dude, you have got to think a little harder than this, I mean, that doesn't even really make sense. He'll take a press conference so he's more honest?????????? Think about that for a minute.. hehe. That is so wrong in like 12323023 ways.
Originally posted by hypewaders

Please: Explain.

Oh, since you seem to think it matters, I'm 38, MWM, been shot at more than I care to remember, and was raised mostly in the Middle East.

That sounds hardcore. Sorry to hear that fuckers shot at you. That sucks. Of course it matters, you don't think it does? Please, if you're really 38 and have half a fucking brain, you know that 99.99% of all 18 year old philosophy types are peacenik types. That's okay because it's natural, but it's also stupid because they're too young to have a fucking clue. I was one of them so I feel pretty qualified in making the assessment. .

hypewaders

02-10-03, 07:12 PM

Are you sure you're getting smarter with age?

zanket

02-10-03, 07:51 PM

Me! Me! I’m 30-something too! This war is neither for defense nor to improve the lives of the Iraqis. I would get rid of Hussein in a just war. Why focus on only one dictator? His movement of troops into populated areas is little different than the U.S. chucking kids into the jungles of Nam. Bombing Baghdad in GWI was offense (Bush I’s pre-approval of the Kuwait invasion was for pretext), but it didn’t take, so Bush II is there to finish the job. This time we’re not leaving without the wellheads.

wesmorris

02-10-03, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by hypewaders
Are you sure you're getting smarter with age?

Hehe, you apparently AREN'T!

(teasing)

Uh, you DO get stupider with age (see I said stupider). You might, if you're lucky... gain a little wisdom.

wesmorris

02-10-03, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by zanket
Me! Me! I’m 30-something too! This war is neither for defense nor to improve the lives of the Iraqis.

Why isn't it? Prove what this war is about. To me, it sounds like it is about ousting a piece of shit. It's about putting in a puppet government that might actually let it's people eat. That's the way it seems to me. Show me that it isn't? Your claims seem pretty unwarrented to me. Nobody is thinking war is fun, war sucks and I think most everyone knows it. Doesn't mean that sometimes it isn't justified. To me, you sound brainwashed. Maybe it's me? The sad part is that really, there is no way to tell eh?
Originally posted by zanket

I would get rid of Hussein in a just war.

What war is "just"? To someone, war is always quite unjust.
Originally posted by zanket

Why focus on only one dictator?

We forgot about him for a while. Somebody remembered. One at a time, he seems like a good place to start. In my rather twisted opinion, I think we should get imperialistic and take the whole fucking region, their oil and give all of their people tv's a playstations. That's just me.
Originally posted by zanket

His movement of troops into populated areas is little different than the U.S. chucking kids into the jungles of Nam.

How in the fuck is that anything at all the same? That was a few rogue soldiers who lost their minds fighting a war they didn't understand. This is the LEADER OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY doing the shit. You don't see a difference?
Originally posted by zanket

Bombing Baghdad in GWI was offense (Bush I’s pre-approval of the Kuwait invasion was for pretext), but it didn’t take.

Yeah, good point. The best defense is a good offense. So what?
Originally posted by zanket

so Bush II is there to finish the job. This time we’re not leaving without the wellheads.

He is indeed and in my opinion, more power to him. He should have been taken down 11 years ago. Wellheads? Wow. Never heard that word before. Hehe, okay, you're meaning source of the problem?

hypewaders

02-10-03, 10:54 PM

As long as we all get CIVILISED with age, there's hope: I may totally disagree with anyone here, and I may really want something somebody's got that I think I need.

I won't kill you for it. But as a group (the USA) is doing exactly that.

The burning question is- since we don't agree with Saddam's disobeying orders from Washington in the latter 1/4 of his murderous career, why do millions of Iraqis have to die?

Please don't come back with how scary he is- that is the programming that always purports to justify needless wars. Saddam is far less of a threat to Americans than the flu. I have more to fear (40,000+ americans DEAD every year) getting in my car. I have more to fear from cancer (1.5 MILLION americans annually). I have more to fear from white American violent militant separatists.

Our political priorities are ridiculous. War is sold as sexy and decisive and honorable.

There is no honorable part in killing people you don't even know.

The United states is about to snuff out countless lives, many in agonising, gruesome ways, and about to pour Trillion$ out on a war that will not achieve any of it's stated or intended goals.

News Flash America (one CNN will never carry): We are not considered the good guys. I judge it highly probable, that this war and it's aftermath will negatively effect nearly every American. It is likely to lead directly to the death of good friends, the death of loved ones. This war will most likely ruin the finances of millions- nest eggs gone, many jobs- gone.

The foreign policy of the United States is completely out of control.

Learn. Think. Speak out. Stop this unjustifiable war. And if you can't see far enough ahead to act now, I have to accept that. Remember this then: Don't feel unwelcome to join the dissent a year from now, when everyone knows W and his chickenhawks played with fire, and got us all burned viciously. We'll all be a good deal more humble (those who are left) when this next firestorm is over.

The Marquis

02-10-03, 11:09 PM

To me, it doesn't matter all that much if bush has an ulterior motive or not. I find it almost irrelevant. I also don't have a clue as to whether this war is "justified" or not, and frankly I don't care anymore, because it's going to happen (by most accounts) regardless of what anyone thinks. I'm definately not one of those who will sit behind their computers and say "peace under any circumstances" because that's simply a load of tripe.

People are going to get killed, soldiers and civilians both. That's what happens in a war. I'm resigned to it. Those who are going to rant every time a civilian bites the bullet might as well protest against the sky being blue, because there is no army in the world capable of eliminating civilian casualties.

The only thing I really have to say is this :
If the American people force their government to pull out before the job is done, you're going to lose a lot more than just a fight. Some of you have gone so far as to say that they hope the US does lose. Be careful what you wish for. That "new world order" you all want might not be what you expected.

The US probably shouldn't have gotten itself into this situation in the first place, that much is obvious. But now that they're there, they might as well do everything they can to win the damn thing, and win it convincingly, because losing is going to do a lot more than make them look stupid. They went in with a whole heart in WW1 and WW2, and won convincingly. The countries that went down in those times have gotten back up now, but none of them look even remotely like they'll ever try anything of the sort again. There's a message in that.

hypewaders

02-10-03, 11:30 PM

Marquis: "If the American people force their government to pull out before the job is done..."

Marquis, I suppose you would also be of the opinion that we could have won the Vietman war.

I know it takes you out of your comfort zone to ponder, but consider that the Vietnamese would STILL be resisting American occupation today if we had never backed out of our colossal mistake- 50,000 American troops' lives wasted, and over 5 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, all dead. For nothing.

Gulf of Tonkin "incident" - no Vietnamese participation.

OK back to the present, having remembered recent history.

WTC attack - no Iraqi participation.

WMDs - no Iraqi threat to US.

Support for terror - Threat increases with any US Mideast Intervention

"If the American people force their government to pull out before the job is done..."

One last technicality: In a democracy, the people never "force" the government to do anything, because the government expresses the will of the people. Are you sure you even like democracy, Marquis?

wesmorris

02-10-03, 11:46 PM

HW,

You are a poor debator. You are merely condescending, how inspired. Do you have a point worth making? Killing is bad, stop killing. Well, for the most part I agree. Sadly though, the only thing you have to back it up is hippie rhetoric. Please continue with your rant, I'm sure there's nothing I could say to stop it.

The Marquis

02-11-03, 12:27 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hypewaders
Marquis, I suppose you would also be of the opinion that we could have won the Vietman war.

I most certainly am. If you'd done it properly, you could have.

I know it takes you out of your comfort zone to ponder, but consider that the Vietnamese would STILL be resisting American occupation today if we had never backed out of our colossal mistake- 50,000 American troops' lives wasted, and over 5 million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians, all dead. For nothing.

As I said, not if you'd done it properly. America these days has forgotten how to win a war, it seems.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but my comments were on the condition that if a war is to happen. I don't think there are terribly many people here who have professed to liking war. What I said was, if you are going to get involved in one, make damn sure you win it. The consequences of an American failure to do so if they get involved in one here, could be disastrous.

WTC attack - no Iraqi participation.

You don't know that.

WMDs - no Iraqi threat to US.

You definately don't know that.

Support for terror - Threat increases with any US Mideast Intervention

Probably. If Iraq gets the living hell smacked out of it I have a feeling the other mid east nations might think twice about letting them operate off their territory unhindered though, don't you?

"If the American people force their government to pull out before the job is done..."

One last technicality: In a democracy, the people never "force" the government to do anything, because the government expresses the will of the people. Are you sure you even like democracy, Marquis?

In an ideal situation only, Hypewader. In reality, the goverment does whatever it thinks it can get away with, as governments do all over the world every day.

I like democracy quite a bit, it's led to countries like ours where we can say as we feel. You're assuming everyone feels as you do, and I can assure you this isn't the case.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 12:54 AM

US did not have sufficient will to sufficiently kill in vietnam because the justification for the war was absent. Justification and support for the defense of Vietnam, for the 3rd major unsuccessful foreign intervention in a generation, was inexhaustible.

America is the most powerful nation on the planet, and can defend itself. Iraq has not attacked the United States, and we have no need to retaliate or pre-emptively act militarily.

9-11 Hijackers: 15 Saudis, the rest Egyptian/U.A.E. and Lebanese. Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization that is the mortal enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Al-Qaeda and Iraq have never succeeded in cooperations of the most tenuous kind, and CIA has admitted this. There is no substantive or logical link to Al-Qaeda, except through Washington: US govt manipulation of American fears plays perfectly into Al-Qaeda's hands. That is the ONLY connection credibly found.

Since the Afghan adventure, where is the Taliban? Pakistan, with visions of nuclear close-at-hand warheads, and a politically weak US puppet dictator (Musharraf) for the taking. Where is Qaeda? Everywhere.

No, in a democracy, when the government diverges from clear majority opinions on any major issue, it ceases to be a democracy. Yes there is a lot of lag, but the government in the USA is representative of American attitudes in my opinion. Sometimes issues are confused, as in the fear and panic after 9-11, and I am in such times glad we have political inertia. However, the US government is rapidly finding itself at odds with public opinion at home and abroad. All the way to the top, the US government is quite nervous about this.

The US is not a perfect democracy, of course. Sometimes we hold the reins a bit too loosely, and sometimes we lose some touch with reality. But Americans are becoming slowly aware. This will not be a successful war or occupation by any measure, because both are unjustified, will bring other intractable crises, and will suffer rapid loss of public support.

Who is really in denial here?

hypewaders

02-11-03, 01:11 AM

I forgot to mention that I don't fear Iraqi weapons, because it is so basic a question as to be childish. I didn't even fear them when I was in the Gulf. Marquis, you can't be serious when you say Saddam is a credible threat to the United States. I'm sorry, but that line of propaganda is completely bankrupt.

Marquis:"America these days has forgotten how to win a war, it seems. " - I do not agree, but:

OK. If so: Why do you support this war?

NightFall

02-11-03, 01:20 AM

What is YOUR excuse? ill be at a fundraiser. protesting doesn't change anything in terms of war. it just pisses people off. it doesn't matter. everyone i know is already on a plane.... my dad, my uncle, my best friend....

The Marquis

02-11-03, 01:39 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hypewaders
US did not have sufficient will to sufficiently kill in vietnam because the justification for the war was absent. Justification and support for the defense of Vietnam, for the 3rd major unsuccessful foreign intervention in a generation, was inexhaustible.

Thats certainly a major part of it. But overall, you lost in Vietnam because the American forces did not have permission to fight as it was capable of doing. Hamstringing your army led to disaster, not anything so lofty as "no justification". Lack of political justification led to the army being held back, but was not the cause of it losing, in bare terms.

I was pointing out that the US would be ill-advised to allow that to happen again.

America is the most powerful nation on the planet, and can defend itself. Iraq has not attacked the United States, and we have no need to retaliate or pre-emptively act militarily.

The US apparently believes it does have the need to pre-empt. Are you so sure they have nothing giving them cause to believe such? There are reasons why such evidence would not be brought to public light, if they had it. Are you so certain they don't have something which gives them cause for alarm, and haven't produced it to the world in general for reasons of their own? I'm not. Nobody can be.

9-11 Hijackers: 15 Saudis, the rest Egyptian/U.A.E. and Lebanese. Al-Qaeda is a fundamentalist organization that is the mortal enemy of Saddam's Iraq. Al-Qaeda and Iraq have never succeeded in cooperations of the most tenuous kind, and CIA has admitted this. There is no substantive or logical link to Al-Qaeda, except through Washington: US govt manipulation of American fears plays perfectly into Al-Qaeda's hands. That is the ONLY connection credibly found.

I don't really believe that Al-Quaeda operates out of Iraq either. However, I'm open to the possibility. War has created stranger bedfellows, so has politics, and religion.

Since the Afghan adventure, where is the Taliban? Pakistan, with visions of nuclear close-at-hand warheads, and a politically weak US puppet dictator (Musharraf) for the taking. Where is Qaeda? Everywhere.

Even the US government's propaganda is focusing more on Iraq being in possession of WMD than on Al-Quaeda links. You're diverting a little here.

No, in a democracy, when the government diverges from clear majority opinions on any major issue, it ceases to be a democracy.

Generally true. But in this case, what clear majority opinions?

Yes there is a lot of lag, but the government in the USA is representative of American attitudes in my opinion. Sometimes issues are confused, as in the fear and panic after 9-11, and I am in such times glad we have political inertia. However, the US government is rapidly finding itself at odds with public opinion at home and abroad. All the way to the top, the US government is quite nervous about this.

From my observations, what the media portrays as "the majority of public opinion" is often nothing more than their opinion of what public opinion should be, rather than what it is. The majority of people are cattle being led around by the nose, believing whatever they're told by the faction they consider to be more in line with their own opinions than any other.

The US is not a perfect democracy, of course. Sometimes we hold the reins a bit too loosely, and sometimes we lose some touch with reality. But Americans are becoming slowly aware. This will not be a successful war or occupation by any measure, because both are unjustified, will bring other intractable crises, and will suffer rapid loss of public support.

It'll more likely lose public support when the blood starts getting shown on TV, and the casualty count rises. When the fighting starts, you'll find that any philosphical "justification" will no longer be considered except as rhetoric to sway public opinion rather than out of any sort of real belief. That will be true of both pro- and anti-war activists.

Who is really in denial here?

Denial of what?

*edit - syntax.

wet1

02-11-03, 01:46 AM

More and more it appears that Washington and our leaders are arranging another Vietman. One that no one but the political leaders want. To go after Al-Qaeda, the primary mission that was stated for a war on terrorism, seems to have been left in the dust, while Shub goes to tidy up the mess that his father left.

If this has the backing of the UN ok. If it does not, then we have no business being there. It seems funny that Iraq is the single target when you have North Korea so busy flaunting their intent to do the same thing that Iraq is being accused of. North Korea is far more likely to present a problem in this aspect than is Iraq.

It bothers me that we are not addressing the problems that make it, in the minds of the terrorists, ok to call for a jilad against western countries (not just the US). How strange it is that they would look back over the centuries and think that they want to be the center of culture once again but have such backward views. Once again, religion rears its ugly head as the reason to be all and do all.

There are not many, I think, that would willingly take up the Taliban way, in the strict fundamental regilous sense. At least not the western counties. It seems like we deal with something out of our past history. World history at that. Makes one think that maybe the times of the Roman empire is not far off when swords and spears are the weapon of the day.

There is something inheritantly wrong with both sides of this conflict. One side wishes everyone to bow down to their way of life of face the nameless aspect of terror because they do not see eye to eye with what the new regime would be. The other seems to run helter skelter about stomping on match stems while missing the fire.

The Marquis

02-11-03, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by hypewaders
Marquis, you can't be serious when you say Saddam is a credible threat to the United States. I'm sorry, but that line of propaganda is completely bankrupt.

No. What I said was :

I also don't have a clue as to whether this war is "justified" or not, and frankly I don't care anymore, because it's going to happen (by most accounts) regardless of what anyone thinks.

That is the basis from which I have been writing. I have a feeling that they do in fact have something nasty up their sleeves, but I do not know it for certain. You don't know that they don't, either.

OK. If so: Why do you support this war?

I have never said that I do, Hypewader. I'm surprised that you didn't see little hints of that in my previous posts.

My contention is, that if the US gets involved in a war here, then they stand a very real chance of losing if they allow their political masters to dictate how it is fought. If they are overly concerned about civilian casualties, they will likely lose. If they allow themselves to be drawn into urban combat, they will likely lose. At best, you will see a long period of drawn-out fighting because it won't be fought as the US army is capable of doing.

My worry is that the political ramifications of them losing in Iraq might be severe, and long term. The concept of a "limited war" (by which I do not mean using nukes or whatever, before you accuse me of it) isn't a sound one, and yet it seems that is how the peaceniks are going to force this war to be waged. The US has made this mistake pretty much constantly since the end of WW2 and haven't had any convincing victories since.

If you don't have the will to thoroughly destroy your enemy, then you have no business fighting in the first place.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 07:58 AM

Marquis, not caring, or lamenting that we are not ruthless enough in unpolular wars like Vietnam is tacitly supporting this coming unpopular, ill-conceived, and disastrous war. As you said, "The majority of people are cattle being led around by the nose, believing whatever they're told by the faction they consider to be more in line with their own opinions than any other."

(ungh) I'm trying to (mmmfff) jostle this (ow! my hoof!) whole herd away from the entrance to the (moooooove!) slaughterhouse, Marquis! Don't be such a stupid cow!

The majority of us don't want to be hamburger! MY FELLOW COWS, W'ERE GONNA BE HAMBURGER IF WE LET THAT COWBOY SCARE US INTO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE! (head cowboy yelling "Terrorists!!" "Weapons of Mass Distruction" "Evil" "Hyah cows! It's safe inside my safehouse! Hyah!).

The Bushevik war will be a senseless meat grinder. It will leave the Middle East, the US economy, and US security in a shambles. Don't be such a stupid cow.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 08:34 AM

A senseless war is coming because not enough freethinking people are protesting wherever they go, with whomever they talk, and by contacting their representatives. If you are not resisting the coming regional Middle East War, what is your excuse?

If you are tempted to say "I don't know enough"- If I may suggest, you could begin here with a short history lesson.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

This review of US involvement avoids the subject of unconditional US support for Israel. This very explosive issue is directly related to any other US efforts in the region. If you don't know what "Nakba" and "Intifada" mean, then you could start here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

The Marquis

02-11-03, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by hypewaders
Marquis, not caring, or lamenting that we are not ruthless enough in unpolular wars like Vietnam is tacitly supporting this coming unpopular, ill-conceived, and disastrous war.

No, it's not. There's lots of wars, this one just happens to have the Americans as the starring attraction and a lot of people don't like the political America. They have neither my support nor my protest. If you're going to assume that if I'm not with you, then I'm against you, you're just being silly.

"unpopular" hasn't yet been proven one way or the other. "ill-concieved" might be appropriate, but we'll see when the dust settles. "Disastrous" remains to be seen also. I've said that I believe it'll be disastrous if you lose, yes.

Lamenting that you're not ruthless enough is saying that if you're going to be in a war, do it properly, or face a simlar situation again in ten years or so. It is not saying "USA! USA!" Kick the shit out of the damn towelheads!"
That "if" in there is very, very important. Pay extra special attention to it.

Have a look at the last bunch of American "politically correct" wars, and you'll see what I mean. You've been losing quite a few of them, it seems. Except maybe in the Gulf, and then y'all went home before finishing the job. Sloppy workmanship - Now we're back for round two... see?

As you said, "The majority of people are cattle being led around by the nose, believing whatever they're told by the faction they consider to be more in line with their own opinions than any other."

(ungh) I'm trying to (mmmfff) jostle this (ow! my hoof!) whole herd away from the entrance to the (moooooove!) slaughterhouse, Marquis! Don't be such a stupid cow!

The herd? I try not to pay too much attention to them.

The Bushevik war will be a senseless meat grinder. It will leave the Middle East, the US economy, and US security in a shambles. Don't be such a stupid cow.

I have a feeling that a war is designed to leave the enemy's economy in a mess. Then you can come in later and pick it up for them, and incidentally open a few McDonald's outlets while you're at it. You never know, they might actually become happy over there in a generation or two, if you dig that sort of thing (And personally I believe that if that ever happens most of them will dig it just fine - most people I think hate America because they don't live there, and they think that's terribly unfair.)
Wes's idea about playstations isn't bad either... you could designed lots of first person shooters for Arab consumption, with the Israelis as the bad guys, and you might even find they're too busy playing them to shoot real people any more.

As for the US economy, I've heard it's already in a mess, or at least not entirely healthy. Wars are historically quite good for economies, from what I've heard (Unless overly protracted, or you lose it.). It'll be in even better shape if you can get a few of those McDonald's outlets I mentioned open, maybe snaffle an oil well or two while you're at it.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 08:58 AM

Marquis, I think where we disagree most is not in the nature of war, but in the facts on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region.

The US can fight any type war it wants in Iraq: Half-hearted, all the way up the scale to Total War. Without the necessary political savvy, vision, and credibility, the US can not achieve anything constructive through the coming war.

The Marquis

02-11-03, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by hypewaders
Marquis, I think where we disagree most is not in the nature of war, but in the facts on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region.

I'd say you're pretty much right about that.

You see "facts" about the situation, whereas all I see is that there are no "facts", just a big bloody mess of lies and decepetion on both sides. I'm not really all that disposed to trying to untangle it, which is one good reason for me never becoming a politician. I do, however, trust an "American world" more than I do a middle eastern one. I'm biased, but I like not being shot for disagreeing with dictators, and saying whatever the hell I like in places like this - not to mention playstations.

The US can fight any type war it wants in Iraq: Half-hearted, all the way up the scale to Total War. Without the necessary political savvy, vision, and credibility, the US can not achieve anything constructive through the coming war.

Unles they do it properly and rebuild Iraq afterwards, with a healthy dose of freedom and democracy. You never know, it might even work.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 11:18 AM

Well, we boiled it all down nicely. You place overriding trust in American motives and political skill in this coming adventure. I do not.

zanket

02-11-03, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by wesmorris
Why isn't it? Prove what this war is about. To me, it sounds like it is about ousting a piece of shit. It's about putting in a puppet government that might actually let it's people eat. That's the way it seems to me. Show me that it isn't?

It’s obviously about oil. I can’t prove that to you. But it only requires intuition and historical perspective. There’ve been a lot of threads here that have hashed through that; I won’t rehash that here. I do think the Iraqis will be slightly better off, but only slightly. We’ll install another piece of shit to keep the Iraqis in line and working for us. We’ll spend $50 billion bombing them, and less than a billion rebuilding bridges to the oil fields.

The sad part is that really, there is no way to tell eh?

You’ll be able to tell when the oil companies’ profits shoot up, and Bush lands on the Forbes 400 list. Don’t expect gas prices to fall below 2001 levels, though. This isn’t about cheaper gas for the consumer.

What war is "just"? To someone, war is always quite unjust.

Was it unjust to the French when the Allies landed in Normandy? A war to liberate people from a dictator is not only just, but you can expect the people to celebrate your arrival.

One at a time, [Hussein] seems like a good place to start.

He’ll be the finish too, unless North Korea discovers a mother lode of something we want.

How in the fuck is that anything at all the same? That was a few rogue soldiers who lost their minds fighting a war they didn't understand. This is the LEADER OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY doing the shit. You don't see a difference?

That was thousands of kids chucked into the jungle against their will by the leader of our country, even as the leader of our country knew it was unnecessary (as Nixon, for example, later admitted).

The best defense is a good offense. So what?

So there was no defense. The “defense” was a sham. GWI was for the purpose of stealing the oil. It didn’t take (there was no coup). Now we’re back to finish the job.

[Hussein] should have been taken down 11 years ago. Wellheads?

I agree he should have been gone a long time ago. This is not going to be another Vietnam, for the reason that we don’t need Baghdad or Hussein. To meet the goal we need only the wellheads secured and the logo changed to Exxobile-BP.

hypewaders

02-11-03, 04:32 PM

Zanket, I think you could be completely correct right up to the beginning of the occupation, and transitional government of Iraq. From there, on into the resulting uncertainties regarding the stability of Nearly every surrounding country, I don't see good chances for a success. Why do you think the Saudis announced (they're lying) that they will show all american troops to the border as soon as Saddam is gone? The Saudis and others are very apprehensive. The forces for change in the middle east that are flooding into every power vacuum are not "friendlies" to American interests.

I think using the term "Vietnam" to describe the only way this could turn sticky and smelly is unimaginative, and ignores the crucial political realities of the mideast.

twelveplanets

02-11-03, 08:38 PM

MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!
MARCH FOR OSAMMA!!! MARCH FOR SADAM!!!!

wet1

02-11-03, 08:43 PM

I think using the term "Vietnam" to describe the only way this could turn sticky and smelly is unimaginative, and ignores the crucial political realities of the mideast.

It does best address the reality of how the American public may feel of this event in the coming days...

hypewaders

02-11-03, 09:22 PM

Wet1, I do anticipate a large difference from the Vietnam experience. The attempt to hold together Iraq (and the other disintegrating regimes in the region) will be more like what the British experienced in Northern Ireland at the height of The Troubles, one hundredfold.

The real nightmare for American forces will begin when Saddam is dead.

So back to the thread: Realizing these and other ominous things, If you are not a propaganda parrot like 12planets (I should have provided you your own answer in the polls, 12p-sorry) well then

What is YOUR excuse???

Banshee

02-11-03, 09:58 PM

I think there is no excuse to not stand up against the absurdity of this all.

Maybe it is so that the American public will feel like with the Vietnam war in the days to come. Is that a bad thing then? Was it not so that the American public in majority was against Vietnam, once they saw the monstrosities?

Maybe, with all my hopes up, they will realise now, in time (hmmmm...), that they will have to try to stop this, before it becomes an even bigger catastrophe than Vietnam.

wesmorris

02-11-03, 10:27 PM

btw regardless of our disagreement, your avatar is badass. :)

Originally posted by zanket
It’s obviously about oil. I can’t prove that to you. But it only requires intuition and historical perspective. There’ve been a lot of threads here that have hashed through that.

I understand your assertion, but you're presuming. I can't say you're wrong, but I think you are... regardless, it's impossible to say. You're expressing an opinion. I can't even comprehend how you think it's about oil honestly. How is that? Eh, I won't make you go into it I'll hunt the other threads... but I really can't see how the US benefits in terms of oil besides not having someone who hates the US in control of oil prices or whatever in the region. Same and only benefit from the first one, besides booting his ass out of Kuwait. I don't understand. It's not like the US owns the oil fields. Sure, maybe we get good deals from the country whom we saved, but uh... shouldn't we for saving them? Further, I'd have to see some graphs to believe you about the prices in 91 and how they changed over time. Eh, I just think you're paranoid, but maybe I'm just ignorant.
Originally posted by zanket

I do think the Iraqis will be slightly better off, but only slightly. We’ll install another piece of shit to keep the Iraqis in line and working for us.

You don't think that would be a huge benefit to the Iraqi people? I think you're WAY off. The press has done a pretty good job of convincing me that it's gistapo germany over there. I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I buy it to an extent.
Originally posted by zanket

We’ll spend $50 billion bombing them, and less than a billion rebuilding bridges to the oil fields.

Something like that I guess. Sure. That doesn't mean those who survive won't be significantly better off.
Originally posted by zanket

You’ll be able to tell when the oil companies’ profits shoot up, and Bush lands on the Forbes 400 list.

He's not already there? Money? He needs money? I really doubt it. He obviously digs power, but fuck, he's the leader of the free world. I believe he's attained his power goals I'd think. I seriously don't think the guy is greedy enough to go and kill a shitload of civilians to pad his wallet. He can do that with the stroke of a pen, he's a christian (not that I think that is good) so he doesn't want to go to hell. Don't you think it's kind of mean of you to talk about anyone like that? He's a relatively cool guy for a somewhat retarded rich boy. Didn't you see that thing on HBO where they followed him on the campain trail? He's kind of dopey and horny, but he really seems like a decent human. I hated him really, shit I voted for Gore on the basis that Bush was an idiot and part of some sort of twisted american royalty. Ack. Well, now I'm glad it's him instead of that scary dude Gore. Man, he's creepier than Bush by far, and seems like a serious asshole to boot. Okay... moving on.
Originally posted by zanket

Don’t expect gas prices to fall below 2001 levels, though. This isn’t about cheaper gas for the consumer.

I never thought it was. You think it's about more cash for oil compainies and Bush? *shrug* It could be. I guess it's a matter of if I choose to be paranoid or just skeptical, and I've not seen any real evidence to say he's in it for the money... oh, besides accusations which mean nothing to me because I've not seen substatiating evidence... (but I haven't gone far out of my way to find it either... have you? do you have actual evidence or accusations? I'm not being an ass, I'm really curious... have you questioned the motivations of your sources of information as much as you've questioned Bush's motivations? To me it doesn't seem like you've really questioned them at all, but assume inherently that he's a fuckwad and will kill your child for a dollar and get away with it because he's president. I think you're mean for thinking that.
Originally posted by zanket

Was it unjust to the French when the Allies landed in Normandy?

To the Nazis, I'm quite sure... yes.
Originally posted by zanket

A war to liberate people from a dictator is not only just, but you can expect the people to celebrate your arrival.

It's only just if you aren't the dictator or someone loyal to his cause.
Originally posted by zanket

He’ll be the finish too, unless North Korea discovers a mother lode of something we want.

Doubt it, China will handle NK because they really really don't like the idea of having Nukes in South Korea eh? It would be sad to have to ensure balance in the region in such a manner.
Originally posted by zanket

That was thousands of kids chucked into the jungle against their will by the leader of our country, even as the leader of our country knew it was unnecessary (as Nixon, for example, later admitted).

I don't know anything about that. If that was the case, the fucker should have been jailed for a long time on the spot. Fuck his sick child killing ass. That's simply wrong.
Originally posted by zanket

So there was no defense. The “defense” was a sham. GWI was for the purpose of stealing the oil. It didn’t take (there was no coup). Now we’re back to finish the job.

Stealing WHAT oil? That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. We gave it back to Kuwait after saving their asses in a thousand ways. How did we steal it? Convince me we stole it.
Originally posted by zanket

I agree he should have been gone a long time ago. This is not going to be another Vietnam, for the reason that we don’t need Baghdad or Hussein.

This won't be that because we will dominate him militarily. It'll be a lot like the prior show I'm sure, maybe deadlier.. but we'll kick his ass hard and fast.
Originally posted by zanket

To meet the goal we need only the wellheads secured and the logo changed to Exxobile-BP.

If you say so.

The Marquis

02-11-03, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by hypewaders
Well, we boiled it all down nicely. You place overriding trust in American motives and political skill in this coming adventure. I do not.

No, Hype. Not really.

justiceusa

02-11-03, 11:26 PM

Oil always has been and probably always will be our primary motive for everything we do in the middle east. One of our military objectives, listed in the newspapers, is to secure the oil wells in Iraq.

Venezuela, our third largest oil supplier is currently only sending us one third of what it normally does due to civil strife in that country.

I think, however, that there is also a bit of a pissing contest going on between Saddam and the Bush administration. Many of GW's advisors are the same people who were advisors to GHW (senior) Bush. They want saddam's head on a platter.

zanket

02-12-03, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by wesmorris
I understand your assertion, but you're presuming. I can't say you're wrong, but I think you are... regardless, it's impossible to say. You're expressing an opinion. I can't even comprehend how you think it's about oil honestly. How is that?

Yes I’m presuming. Here are some articles to check out:

In Iraq War, to the Victor Goes the Oil ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/NTL_oil_iraq_021004.html)
Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy ( http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,805530,00.html)
Iraqi oil, American bonanza? ( http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?0cb=-315114700&cp1=1)
Oil after Saddam: All bets are in ( http://www.msnbc.com/news/823985.asp?0cb=-115114700&cp1=1)

What am I to presume when Bush ran an oil company, the vice president is the former CEO of an oil services giant, and suddenly Hussein is in bed with al-Qaida and is a serious threat to the U.S. after 12 years of being no such threat?

You don't think that would be a huge benefit to the Iraqi people? I think you're WAY off.

You might be right. Some of the articles above support your claim. Time will tell. I look at Afghanistan as an example, where the warlords have returned to power and public executions have resumed. Granted we didn’t owe them anything, but neither do we owe the Iraqis.

He's not already there? Money? He needs money? I really doubt it. He obviously digs power, but fuck, he's the leader of the free world. I believe he's attained his power goals I'd think. I seriously don't think the guy is greedy enough to go and kill a shitload of civilians to pad his wallet.

He’s got $9 million. I think most who have that much aspire for more. He’s the richest person in the world now if power = money. But re-election is approaching, and he needs a wad of cash in his name for that (remember he’s not Mr. Popular). That cash will come only if he can reimburse his big corporate sponsors for 2000, or show the likelihood of that. He may honestly think he’s helping the U.S. to attain an oil source or free Iraqis now, but if he doesn’t get a payoff from Big Oil when he leaves office I’d be surprised.

To me it doesn't seem like you've really questioned them at all, but assume inherently that he's a fuckwad and will kill your child for a dollar and get away with it because he's president. I think you're mean for thinking that.

When Bush was governor of Texas and that state’s highest judiciary, he refused to review death penalty cases as was his responsibility. That’s a disregard for human life, especially since many innocent people have been found on death row in the past decade. Bush benefited from this politically. That’s mean.

It's only just if you aren't the dictator or someone loyal to his cause.

You’re right of course. I was excluding the Nazis and the Baath party from consideration.

Doubt it, China will handle NK because they really really don't like the idea of having Nukes in South Korea eh? It would be sad to have to ensure balance in the region in such a manner.

It seems clear that nobody cares about nukes or other WMDs unless there’s oil underneath them. China should likewise dislike nukes in Pakistan and India.

Stealing WHAT oil? That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. We gave it back to Kuwait after saving their asses in a thousand ways. How did we steal it? Convince me we stole it.

I mean that GWI was for the purpose of stealing Iraq’s oil. Hussein called up Bush I’s lackey and said “Hey if I take Kuwait, do you care?” (he’s not stupid after all). Bush I said “don’t respond.” Hussein naturally took that as a “yes.” GWI and its excessive force was designed to foment a coup and oil takeover with minimal U.S. casualties. If we’d have only wanted to free Kuwait there’d have been little need to target Baghdad proper; we already dominated.

If that was the case, the fucker should have been jailed for a long time on the spot. Fuck his sick child killing ass. That's simply wrong.

Check out No More Vietnams (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877956685/qid=1045026952/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6534812-4473603?v=glance&s=books) by Nixon. An eye opener.

This won't be that because we will dominate him militarily. It'll be a lot like the prior show I'm sure, maybe deadlier.. but we'll kick his ass hard and fast.

I agree. I wish we’d use these weapons to take out every dictator if peaceful solutions failed.

Persol

02-12-03, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by zanket
Yes I’m presuming. Here are some articles to check out
The majority of them are also presuming.

When Bush was governor of Texas and that state’s highest judiciary, he refused to review death penalty cases as was his responsibility. That’s a disregard for human life, especially since many innocent people have been found on death row in the past decade. Bush benefited from this politically.That’s mean.
While I agree with the disregard for human life, I don't think it was a political move.

China should likewise dislike nukes in Pakistan and India.
They do...

If we’d have only wanted to free Kuwait there’d have been little need to target Baghdad proper; we already dominated.
Same type of reason we went into Germany instead of just freeing Poland. If we didn't target Baghdad Hussein would have tried again by now.

I agree. I wish we’d use these weapons to take out every dictator if peaceful solutions failed.
Who determines who a dictor is and which to take out? This is what we are trying to do in Iraq, and people are fighting it.

zanket

02-12-03, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Persol
The majority of them are also presuming.

Granted. When most of the action is behind closed doors, that’s all they/we can do.

Same type of reason we went into Germany instead of just freeing Poland. If we didn't target Baghdad Hussein would have tried again by now.

Good point.

Who determines who a dictor is and which to take out? This is what we are trying to do in Iraq, and people are fighting it.

Simple. Minority rule = dictator. The people are fighting it like a cult follower fights deprogramming. Where there are no fair elections, the people’s choice is indeterminate and defaults to “help us.”

Bowser

02-12-03, 07:06 AM

Shoot, look at what I've been missin' while at work. You guys are smoking. Keep going...

VAKEMP

02-12-03, 11:19 AM

Zanket,
So if someone hands you a knife and orders you to kill a toddler, you do it?

Hmm...here's an e-mail I received:

Good Afternoon,

Friday of last week (we) attended a (meeting); Main topics covered was CHILD SOLDIERS AMONG OTHERS. There was a panel of experts, (1) doctor from the happy house, an Intel type, a chaplain and a few others.

Currently there are than 30 countries that have (more than 300,000 children under the age of 18 fight in armed conflicts) and recruit children under the age of 18 and some have kids as young as 10 in their ranks or in armed opposion groups.. Of most concern is Iraq, who in recent years has launched campaigns to introduce military training for school children between the ages of 12 and 17. The Iraqi authorities have arranged two sessions, "Raad" and "Anfal", for a total of 23,000 children. Children are reportedly taken to a boot camps for three weeks and are trained in light arms and Ba'ath ideology.

Semi-automatic rifles are made light enough and simple enough to be stripped, reassembled and used by a child of 10. These weapons are not expensive. In some countries at war, an AK-47 may be bought for as little as US $20.00. Both governments and armed groups use children because they are easier to condition into fearless killing and unthinking obedience.

The floor was later opened for questioning. Some of the question that were posed to the panel were;

What is the government doing to prepare the US people for the possibility of Us forces confronting and killing these child soldiers? Are they going to treat us like the Vietnam Vets, spiting and calling them "Baby Killers"?

Rules of engagement was brought up. What do you do when confronted by an armed combatant who happens to be a child? DEFEND YOUR SELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REMEMBER WHY YOUR THERE. Remember the laws of war and the code of conduct.

When our (people) come back and they will, what type of support is out there for their mental well being in the civilian sector beside the VA as some of them will be getting out.
(people) these are just some of the subjects and question that the panel hearded and answered. Something to think about as we prepare to do battle.

Now, I copied this word for word. This guy is no english professor, ok?

Anyway, it would be difficult to just lay down your weapons and let a 10 year old girl cap you in the head. Unfortunately, our service members might have to face these young combatants and kill them...or be killed. I don't think anyone would agree to take a knife to an innocent child's throat.

Yes, Iraqi children may die from a stray bullet, or might simply be in the wrong place. It's not their fault. But as another poster pointed out, it will be Saddam's decision where the battles take place. He is choosing to place mobile SCUD launchers next to Mosques. It seems to me his hold on power over his people is more important than his people's lives.

An excerpt from an interview with Said K. Aburish:

What insights can you give us into understanding him?

Well, the first thing to remember is that Saddam Hussein spent twenty years creating a personality, an image for himself. And since the Gulf War, his opponents have done the same--created a completely different personality, of course. So you have to sift through what Saddam created and what his opponents created to reach the real person. The real person has no ideology whatsoever. That is the most important thing to remember about Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is into realpolitik. He wanted to take Iraq into the twentieth century. But if that meant eliminating fifty per cent of the population of Iraq, he was willing to do it.....

One of the re-occurring things in your book is the idea that he's imposed Stalinism on a tribal society. What do you actually mean by that?

Saddam Hussein borrowed from Stalinism. He had his security people trained in Eastern Europe, particularly East Germany. Then he brought them back to Iraq and he taught them how to use the tribal linkage to eliminate people. So whereas they used Stalinist methods to discover people who were opposed to the regime, after that came the tribal factor, when Saddam said 'don't get rid of Abdullah, get rid of his whole family. Because one member of his family might assassinate us.' And that made it a perfect system for Iraq. It is practically fool-proof.

Do we know whether or not Saddam has actually studied Stalin's tactics?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Saddam studied Stalin. Stalin is his hero. Stalin came from a humble background. Stalin was brought up by a mother. Stalin used thugs. Stalin used the security service. Stalin hated his army. And so does Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein models himself after Stalin more than any other man in history.

He has a full library of books about Stalin. He reads about him, and when he was a young man--even before he attained any measure of power--he used to wander around the offices of the Ba'ath Party telling people 'wait until I take over this country. I will make a Stalin state out of it yet.' People used to laugh him off. They shouldn't have. It was a very serious proposition indeed....

----------------------------------------

The defection of his sons-in-law was the point that undermined Saddam the most. It was the point that eliminated any chance of the sanctions being lifted--without a truly clean bill of health, and we assume that is impossible--Saddam will always try to keep some of these weapons to protect himself. So it's a never-ending circle.

Why would he want to? What's the point?

It is protection for Saddam to have biological and chemical weapons, because, in the final analysis, if pressed, if he is surrounded in Baghdad, he will threaten to use them. He's capable of that. This is a sort of Samson complex--if you push me too hard, I'll bring the house down, on myself and on everyone else. Washington realizes that this is a possibility. For obvious reasons, it's not talked about openly. No one in Washington wants to tell the American people that Saddam is still capable of blackmailing us. They're acting as if he is capable of blackmailing them, but they are not going to admit it openly.

Complete interview with Said K. Aburish (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html)

hypewaders

02-12-03, 11:31 AM

Marquis- I have been enjoying and learning from your posts, and so I'm picking our conversation up again:

Hypewaders: "You place overriding trust in American motives and political skill in this coming adventure"

Marquis: "No, Hype. Not really."

OK, Marquis, sorry I didn't pay attention, or maybe put words in your mouth. Allow me to try again:

Your reasons for not opposing this war are that it will result in little gain, little loss, just one more little episode as the world turns. I'm probably still way off, but I'm trying to understand. I never wanted to say you're either with us or against us (facile political talk, don't you think?) but the question is: What's your excuse for not opposing this war?

ibadreamer

02-12-03, 11:33 AM

i would vote if there was a slot for me. since when did cnn ever agree with anything bush had to say or do. i see why you think like you do, you are still in school. you are surrounded by liberals. wait until you get out in the real world.

hypewaders

02-12-03, 11:45 AM

I hope I am still learning, although I'm not in school. I have an expired Republican Party card, and Honorable Discharge, and am an aviator with no college degree. I don't know when the "liberals" hijacked my brain, because I associate in my career mostly with "conservatives". It may be something the Communists/Terrorists/Anti-Americans (choose your favorite) are putting in the water.

Iba, you don't need a "slot", speak your mind: Why do you not oppose the coming war?

wesmorris

02-12-03, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by zanket
Yes I’m presuming. Here are some articles to check out:

Thanks for the articles.. I haven't had time to read the stuff yet. I'll try to read some of it.
Originally posted by zanket

What am I to presume when Bush ran an oil company, the vice president is the former CEO of an oil services giant, and suddenly Hussein is in bed with al-Qaida and is a serious threat to the U.S. after 12 years of being no such threat?

Well, you're right about the first stuff, but I have no idea why you think he has been no such threat for 12 years. He has been a threat since he took power.... it's just that he used to be usefull, now he's playing with fire.
Originally posted by zanket

You might be right. Some of the articles above support your claim. Time will tell. I look at Afghanistan as an example, where the warlords have returned to power and public executions have resumed. Granted we didn’t owe them anything, but neither do we owe the Iraqis.

Well, public executions are part of the muslim way as far as I can tell. They have done it in Saudi for long time as far as I know. I don't know anything about the warlords, but let's consider the flipside... if the US were to involve itself to the level of removing the "warlords" specifically (who aren't terrorist related, and really... even in they were) how do you think the rest of the world would react? Even YOU would probably (from what I can tell) would be on here complaining about how the US is fucking with business that isn't theirs. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by zanket

He’s got $9 million. I think most who have that much aspire for more. He’s the richest person in the world now if power = money. But re-election is approaching, and he needs a wad of cash in his name for that (remember he’s not Mr. Popular). That cash will come only if he can reimburse his big corporate sponsors for 2000, or show the likelihood of that.

Man, he's likely already reimbursed his sponsors... it's called pork. Have you read all the shit the legislature has passed since he came into office? I would imagine he's legislated his "friends" into "hog heaven" if you will. I have just accepted over time that this type of behavior is inherent to the political scene. It's not to my taste, but if you think about it... sadly, it's neccesary.
Originally posted by zanket

He may honestly think he’s helping the U.S. to attain an oil source or free Iraqis now, but if he doesn’t get a payoff from Big Oil when he leaves office I’d be surprised.

He's not looking at this as an oil source. We can't steal his oil or we'd never EVER live it down on the world stage? Isn't that obvious? This is politics.. you have to cover your ass. We'll figure out something to our advantage from this, but we'll not "steal" his oil. We simply can't. Fuck, the internal dissidents (sp?) alone would make it impossible, let alone the rest of the world. Think about it?
Originally posted by zanket

When Bush was governor of Texas and that state’s highest judiciary, he refused to review death penalty cases as was his responsibility. That’s a disregard for human life, especially since many innocent people have been found on death row in the past decade. Bush benefited from this politically. That’s mean.

I don't think it's mean. I think it's irresponsible. He probably just didn't want to deal with it on a bunch of different levels. Doesn't make it right for sure, but I'm sure he figures the bastards got put on death row by a jury so they must deserve it. That's my guess anyway. I mean think about it, I sure wouldn't want to deal with the shit... I probably WOULD if in that position.. but I certainly wouldn't WANT to..
Originally posted by zanket

You’re right of course. I was excluding the Nazis and the Baath party from consideration.

Just making a point. Whether you think moral relativism is right or not, it simply IS. Everyone has different views on the shit and to THEM they are right.. thusly morals are relative. I think morals SHOULD be relative as well, otherwise we're as bad as bin laden... he thinks he has the authority to assert absolute correctness. That is his problem. Eh, maybe that's a whole different thread that's been done a thousand times. :)
Originally posted by zanket

It seems clear that nobody cares about nukes or other WMDs unless there’s oil underneath them. China should likewise dislike nukes in Pakistan and India.

Yeah, they do as Persol said but there's a critical addition to the story.. the US doesn't control the nukes in Pakistan and India. I would guess that US nukes in South Korea would be even more disconcerting that the Pakistani or Indian Nukes... wouldn't you?
Originally posted by zanket

I mean that GWI was for the purpose of stealing Iraq’s oil. Hussein called up Bush I’s lackey and said “Hey if I take Kuwait, do you care?” (he’s not stupid after all). Bush I said “don’t respond.” Hussein naturally took that as a “yes.” GWI and its excessive force was designed to foment a coup and oil takeover with minimal U.S. casualties.

Excessive force? Enough force to win totally and expiditiously is the kind of force I want in a war (at least when I'm on the winning side.. :)). Definately not excessive. If it WERE excessive, there'd be no Iraq.
Originally posted by zanket

If we’d have only wanted to free Kuwait there’d have been little need to target Baghdad proper; we already dominated.

That's simply untrue. We wanted to cripple his military. Bagdad is the main target. Why do you say that? Ack.
Originally posted by zanket

Check out No More Vietnams (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0877956685/qid=1045026952/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6534812-4473603?v=glance&s=books) by Nixon. An eye opener.

I will, that sounds horrible. Oh man I can't believe the fuckers got away with that shit. I'll check it out.
Originally posted by zanket

I agree. I wish we’d use these weapons to take out every dictator if peaceful solutions failed.

I'm with you on that one... but Persol did bring up a relative point, to which I liked your response... though I'm sure we all realize it's not quite that simple. International politics is a serious bizness and it's very very complicated, so determining who and what and when to take fuckers out is a risky business.

Oh, and for the record thought it may sound like it, I'm no republican. I'm pretty much an independent. I hate party politics with a passion. Assholes let it remain the fraternity it's always been rather than making something new like oh.. independent thought, saying "fuck the party, I'm doing what I think is right". What are there like 3 guys (random number) in washington who do that? Ack.. sickening.

I should add however, that though it does make me sick I do feel very fortunate to be a US citizen. I think that however jumbled and jacked up it is, it works for the most part. In that vein of thought, I'm literally amazed. I can't believe out of all the variables (300 million or so, to start with) we manage to have a half-assed stable society. Simply fucking amazing. I like it. :)

hypewaders

02-12-03, 02:32 PM

I'm glad to be a U.S. citizen too, wesmorris.

You say "I can't believe out of all the variables (300 million or so, to start with) we manage to have a half-assed stable society."

I don't know if you are going to be able to hold onto that article of faith much longer.

This war is going to bring economic and societal disaster for all Americans. Like the British, we have outstayed our welcome and are simply being told that we have to go home now. It is a bitter pill for a such a self-confident nation as the USA to swallow. It is also more confusing when there is a veneer of unsteady friendly governments over a sea of resentment. Now, we are about to pop the surface tension of several mideastern governments. We can go home the hard way (as is apparently the choice so far) or the easy way.

Then we buy our oil like everyone else does. And Israel will stand or fall on her own merits.

To put it even more bluntly, Osama's audiotape ghost has more clout in the Middle East than George W. Bush. No amount of destruction the US rains on the region will change this fact.

So why do you not oppose this war?

wesmorris

02-12-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by hypewaders
I'm glad to be a U.S. citizen too, wesmorris.

right on
Originally posted by hypewaders

You say "I can't believe out of all the variables (300 million or so, to start with) we manage to have a half-assed stable society."
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hypewaders
[B]
I don't know if you are going to be able to hold onto that article of faith much longer.

Of course you don't, no one does... on one EVER does. You seem to be scared, fear regarding this type of shit is pointless. You can only really control the way you react to it. Relax and enjoy the ride, try to make a positive difference if you can.
Originally posted by hypewaders

This war is going to bring economic and societal disaster for all Americans.

You're just talking shit. You don't know that. You shouldn't contaminate your mind with crap like that. Have a fucking positive attitude ya bastard. :)
Originally posted by hypewaders

Like the British, we have outstayed our welcome and are simply being told that we have to go home now.

What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Whatever it is it has no bearing on the point. I'll tell you why in an minute.
Originally posted by hypewaders

It is a bitter pill for a such a self-confident nation as the USA to swallow.

Man you're just negative.
Originally posted by hypewaders

It is also more confusing when there is a veneer of unsteady friendly governments over a sea of resentment.

Okay. If you say so.
Originally posted by hypewaders

Now, we are about to pop the surface tension of several mideastern governments.

As we should. You might have missed the underlying point here. This is about fundamental opposites. Fundie muslims believe that islamic law is the only valid law, therefore all who do not practice it should die. Do you understand the implications? We have to fight and kill them, or they'll get us. Simple as that. Do you get that? It's BAD man, bad. We've got to minimize the threat and keep it minimized.
Originally posted by hypewaders

We can go home the hard way (as is apparently the choice so far) or the easy way.

The easy way? You must not realize the gravity of the problem. It's not with Iraq directly, but they'll do. We have to get the region "stabalized" and have troops occupying the area for, well, until technology allows us not to. Too much risk. Have to control it. Fundie bastards gotta die before they kill us, simple as that. I don't like it but I didn't choose it, THEY did.
Originally posted by hypewaders

Then we buy our oil like everyone else does. And Israel will stand or fall on her own merits.

We don't buy our oil like everyone else does now? Cool, free oil. Can I have some? Oh, and have you been to Saudi? Check this: Did you know that in Saudi all books are scanned before entering the country and if the word "israel" is in it, it is blacked out with a pen. They and the rest of the countries in the region want to erase Israel becuase they are jews and because they are free. I think we make the whole middle east the same fucking way. I think we should get imperialistic and just take the whole fucking region, install puppet governments and control the region behind the scenes. Fuck them and their freedom hating asses. (I'm not saying hurt civilians, but destroy their governments and start over).
Originally posted by hypewaders

To put it even more bluntly, Osama's audiotape ghost has more clout in the Middle East than George W. Bush.

That is stupid. Man, your brain is malfunctioning.
Originally posted by hypewaders

No amount of destruction the US rains on the region will change this fact.

See prior comment.
Originally posted by hypewaders

So why do you not oppose this war?

Because I'm not an idiot. Oh, and you really really really should take into account what I told you before. It's true. I love my "freedom" which generally I have. I can do most anything I'd want with little fear of being fucked with. If the fundie muslims had their way though, I would NOT have a choice. Do you realize that if you're born in Iraq you're a muslim. Isn't that WRONG? Shouldn't it be if you're born in wherever you're whatever you choose to be? You want the fundie muslims to win? Why don't you just get the fuck out of my country then? Go to them. They are awaiting your arrival.

Oh, and I don't see anyone on rickety rafts trying to escape the US because they're religiously or politically opressed... they can just leave if they want. Can you say the same for most of the middle eastern countries? Oh, and uh.. did you forget that any leader who is remotely fucking human would be evacuating his cities rather than putting his civilians as human sheilds? That's fucking barbaric. He could have ended this at any point in the last TWELVE FUCKING YEARS, but he didn't. He is now going to pay. I'm glad of it myself. The world with be a somewhat better place.

Your fear has got the best of you my friend. You are weak minded. You are lucky you have a government who will defend your weak ass. I am too. I'm thankful that I'm taken care of and that apparently the people in charge aren't stupid.. cuz this has to be handled now or mayhem's the limit. This war will happen one way or the other, now or later. I vote NOW while we can still win it with ease. I think we should take full advantage once we win too. Set up hardcore ops in the region, ensuring that the fundie jackasses are dead or contained.

So now I ask, how can you possibly be "against" this war? What's YOUR excuse? I really doubt that you have one. You probably don't even realize the fundamental problem I brought up before. I figured that out about 2 days after the WTC attack. Did you?

spookz

02-12-03, 04:17 PM

i think once again things will be left unfinished. this iraq war aint
gonna solve nothing. saddam does not tolerate groups having their own agenda in his country (islamic terrorists). this is the one secular country in the mideast and by taking him out, have we lessened the threat of terrorism? will the imams role in iraq get a boost? the regional warlord shit in afganistan might be an indication of just how much control the usa can have once the battle has been won! i think the real objective should be to make moderates outta every arab. we might achieve just the opposite if this war goes badly.

i recommend propaganda, oodles of backsheesh, charitable efforts, political manipulation, assasination, blonde blue eyed hookers for the rulers, blah blah...

war is for kids silly georgie

:D

that was the first one. the second excuse is i gotta take gran to the hospital

:(

hypewaders

02-12-03, 04:40 PM

Thanks for the reply wesmorris, I knew there was still some fire in yer belly :)

I'm going to avoid making this a long volley, taking on too many points, so I'll just address a couple of things that got a rise out of you.

Hype: "Like the British, we have outstayed our welcome and are simply being told that we have to go home now."
Wesmorris: "What? I have no idea what you're talking about."

Just a little history- Our national ambitions and superior attitude are not unlike a former empire (that was our our parent country) in many ways. You can look at Brittannia's loss of any colony for insight. I suggest the American war for issues of resources and sovereignty. I suggest the african wars to look at "high tech" versus "terrorist". I suggest the collapse of the British Mandate in the Middle East to learn more about the costs of attempts to sort out Mideast issues as foreigners lacking impartiality. There are many more examples that can enlighten you for hours.

Wesmorris: "We don't buy our oil like everyone else does now? Cool, free oil. Can I have some? Oh, and have you been to Saudi?"

I lived there for several years. Everyone else in the world buys oil on the free market, and has no need to replace capitalism with imperialism. As a matter of fact, this planet is cursed with much too plentiful oil, in my opinion. This world will be better off the sooner the US is weaned from a silly, unnecessary dependence on oil that the Busheviks wish to prolong. That inevitable subject (oil WILL be exhausted) is, well, another subject.

Wesmorris: "So now I ask, how can you possibly be "against" this war? What's YOUR excuse? I really doubt that you have one. You probably don't even realize the fundamental problem I brought up before. I figured that out about 2 days after the WTC attack. Did you?"

My excuse for being against this war? I have several: My country has no right to intervene violently in any part of the world with a hidden agenda. It is contrary to democratic principles for my government to deliberately deceive its citizens about the justification for this war. My own experience in the Middle east, and with history and human nature, have shown to me that our decisions and directives for the region will not be accepted by the effected parties.

I assume this is the fundamental problem that you say still eludes me:

Wesmorris: "Fundie muslims believe that islamic law is the only valid law, therefore all who do not practice it should die. Do you understand the implications? We have to fight and kill them, or they'll get us. Simple as that. Do you get that? It's BAD man, bad. We've got to minimize the threat and keep it minimized."

If there was no Islam to use (abuse) as a vehicle for these issues, America's enemies would find another. On both sides of what many Arabs are likening to the third Crusades, I am of the opinion that dominant religions are fanning the flames. I am against fundamentalism of any kind. I am also against the notion that we can influence what anyone thinks on the subject at gunpoint.

"Jews believe that Torah is the only valid law, therefore all who do not practice it should die. Do you understand the implications? We have to fight and kill them, or they'll get us. Simple as that. Do you get that? It's BAD man, bad. We've got to minimize the threat and keep it minimized." Sound familiar? Perhaps we should be taking trains, poison gas, and ovens to the Middle East to assist our Anti-terrorism Army in it's work. Or of course we can whip out the ol' nuclear weapons, I mean, we haven't had a chance like this in 58 years!

If you ever wonder if your ideas about another group of people might be prejudiced, try a little substitution on for size. Fundamentalist Anythings do not give a crap what Americans think if we leave them alone. Groups of people, even fundamentalists, are free to go live in enclaves at will. They can demand that all members walk on their hands with umbrellas in their butts and I don't care. We only need to get uppity when they demand everyone in our country act like them, and that we sell them them cheap comfy umbrella handles. Just as we demand of the Arab World to accept our culture as we ram it down their throats, accept our supremacy, and the supremacy of our Mini-me Israel- oh, and give us cheap oil.

zanket

02-12-03, 05:08 PM

Y’all – I have to get some other stuff done before I can reply. I really want to now! The debate in this thread has been excellent and made me think about this.

spookz

02-12-03, 05:11 PM

dont mention it. i am glad to have made a difference in your life!

wesmorris

02-12-03, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by spookz
dont mention it. i am glad to have made a difference in your life!

That's a modest mutherfucker right there. YOU BEAUTIFUL BASTARD!!!!!!!

I'll get my digs in later too.. busy at the moment.

The Marquis

02-12-03, 07:52 PM

originally posted by Hypewader
Your reasons for not opposing this war are that it will result in little gain, little loss, just one more little episode as the world turns. I'm probably still way off, but I'm trying to understand. I never wanted to say you're either with us or against us (facile political talk, don't you think?) but the question is: What's your excuse for not opposing this war?

Hmm.. Ok. To correct you, I wont say little gain or little loss. It probably will result in that if this thing is done in the half-hearted fashion the US has become accustomed to, but we'll just have to see about that. I've already made my points there.

As to why I do not oppose it? A few reasons.
Some here will say that this war is all about financial gain in some way, whether it be oil or whatever, and that the Bush administration's reasons for it are gloss. I don't agree. While I will not deny that there is the possibility that they will in fact gain economically if they do it right, I can't accept that it is the sole reason for them going in. The USA has always liked to be seen as one of the good guys. Most of the wars they've been involved with they've been seen by their own public as doing pretty much what needed to be done, even if that same public was protesting about why it had to be them doing it. Even in Vietnam... did not the protest movement only really start to hit it's straps when the bodybags started coming in for what was seen as little gain? I don't believe that the people of the US really disbelieved in that little jaunt until they saw it's lack of results.

Now here, the USA is risking that image dangerously. While I still don't think that the "majority" oppose it, there is a lot of anti-US sentiment floating around at the moment, and yet still they are going in. The question I ask myself is "why?". To date, we've been offered little proof of anything. Again, I think this is the US protecting their "good guy" image, and simply not wanting to admit that they do in fact know exactly what Iraq has, or is supposed to have, because as someone else rather amusingly noted they kept the reciepts. So rather than outright admitting it and spoiling their already-tarnished reputation, they're finding a myriad of little ways to convince Joe Public that they are morally right for going in. While I think that's ridiculous, I can understand it. The people on this board tend to think a little more than most, but they are not a majority. The Bush administration is appealing to what they thought was going to be the majority... the lesser-informed Joe Public. What they might have underestimated is the level of information that is actually available to said public now, hence the lack of support.

Anyway, back to the point.. why are they risking this? Now here is the crux of why I do not actually oppose this war. In spite of the "lack of evidence", the USA is risking a lot in doing it anyway. This is something I'm not sure they've done to this level before... disregarding the UN, disregarding half of their own public, risking their image. Why? There might well be something going on in Iraq which the US are very, very worried about. You have to admit, they have access to a lot more information than they ever reveal to us. It's interesting that they've chosen to have in depth talks with both Australia and the UK, and both have come onside in spite of protest from half their own people, in spite of it meaning those respective leaders probably won't be re-elected as a result. Again, Why? Are they afraid of something they've been shown? It takes a little more than trade concessions to make a leader do something which will almost guarantee they won't be re-elected, in my experience. They're not so altruistic, those pollies. While I don't like John Howard much, especially in his handling of things like the Tampa incident, I do think that however sometimes misguided, he's always acted as he sees as doing the right thing by Australia. I don't believe that Bush or Blair are all that different when we get down to brass knuckles. They may have their bad points (and plenty of them) but they aren't going to do anything for personal gain where the safety or well being of their respective countries is at risk. Even if it means destroying in part the reputation of said countries.

While the above is by no means any reason to support them going in to kick a little Iraqi butt, it is enough to engender misgivings on my part. Hence my fence sitting. It's not exactly that I don't care (as I rather stupidly said before) but more that I don't have enough information to support one faction or the other. I don't subscribe to the notion that "war is wrong" or "peace under any circumstances". Those two things, especially the latter, are a recipe for disaster. Until the US comes up with solid proof that Iraq has WMD, I cannot in all conscience support them. Until the peaceniks come up with solid evidence that they don't, I cannot support them. Let's face this question... if the middle eastern nations gain nuke capability, or WMD's in general, who is more likely to use them... the USA, or them? Who has the fanatics? That's how it is. The thought of the free world being destroyed as we know it by some disease or nukes simply because we didn't have the guts to go in and fight for our own way of life sickens me.

There's more, but this post is far too long already.

hypewaders

02-12-03, 08:18 PM

All very cogent. However, I find it hard to believe the Iraqis are concocting the Ultimate Weapon form our decades-old hand-me-downs in some secret underground factory. I find it even harder to believe that Saddam's recent acquiescence does not prove he can still be made to "heel". I find it hard to believe that the level of military monitoring now going on would not notice Saddam erecting a bottle rocket in one of his back yards.

Here is what I find more probable, if you want to talk shadow-government conspiracies: This administration has been a most unfortunate amalgamation of frustrated Republican has-beens, who want to turn back the clock to times when they think they almost would have sorted out the Mideast if not for the annoying short attention span of constituents. Also in the mix are some unusually strong corporate ties to energy corporations, and unusually strong sentimental and religious ties to the right-wing elements of Israeli politics. They have decided that this time around they will waste no time in completely changing the political landscape of the Middle East. I believe they are making a catastrophic miscalculation regarding Arab reaction throughout the region. No James Bond stuff, no Dr. Evil. Just a bunch of old chickenhawks that don't understand what they're messing with, and one stuffed-stetson figurehead.

Former American administrations that seemed inscrutable in realtime were found in historical hindsight (the slow leaking of truth) to be just as surprised at bad outcomes as the rest of us. The Busheviks are not masters of prediction as they puch forward Peace through War abroad, and Freedom through Police State at home. They are dinosaurs lead by a monkey. It's nothing new in world history to have fools rise to power, and feed on that power until great calamity. Like the Emporer's New Clothes.

I'm not impressed with them.

justiceusa

02-12-03, 08:38 PM

We can blow the hell out of Iraq, make a lot of new enemies, keep Iraq occupied with troops for the next 50 years, and nothing will really change, except we get the oil.

In 1988 Saddam gassed his own people with weapons we helped him build! We didn't care then. Why do we care now?

Since 1988 it has been revealed that iraq sets on top of the worlds second largest oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia's.

The terrorists that we need to fear are here in this country and on this continent right now. They have been here for years, just waiting to do further dirty deeds.

I must leave to go out and buy more duct tape and plastic sheeting.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/09/29/MN116803.DTL

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/04_Oil.html

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnm24049.htm

wet1

02-12-03, 09:05 PM

I must leave to go out and buy more duct tape and plastic sheeting.

What is with the duct tape and plastic sheeting? This is the second time today I have heard this phrase. The first one was on CNN. They didn't just come out and say what they were referring to though.

The only thing that comes to mind is using it for thermal barriers at windows. So what did I miss here?

justiceusa

02-12-03, 09:13 PM

Several links

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/national/2_11_03alert.html

http://www.nbc6.net/news/1969849/detail.html

hypewaders

02-12-03, 09:28 PM

Wet1: Tom Ridge was watching the movie "Signs", is the only explanation I can think of.

But that's no excuse for the subject at hand:

What is YOUR excuse?

I still want answers:
" I am not going to demonstrate this Saturday, February 15 wherever I am for at least 15 minutes because________"

The Marquis

02-13-03, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by hypewaders
All very cogent. However, I find it hard to believe the Iraqis are concocting the Ultimate Weapon form our decades-old hand-me-downs in some secret underground factory.

They don't need to. Chemical weapons are quite easily manufactured with little remaining evidence if you know how. Biological too.

I find it even harder to believe that Saddam's recent acquiescence does not prove he can still be made to "heel".

He's played for time before.. He could very well be doing it again. Boy who cried wolf anyone?

*edit - resulting from his prior playing for time, he's now had plenty of it to eliminate and/or hide any evidence of or actual weapons by now.

I find it hard to believe that the level of military monitoring now going on would not notice Saddam erecting a bottle rocket in one of his back yards.

Maybe they already have. Maybe the US saw it, or evidence of it, but when the weapons inspectors went in there was nothing to be found. That's exactly the type of scenario which couldn't be presented as proof of WMD research or production, and yet would remain a major concern to the US.

What if someone stole your wallet, you saw it, but when you told the authorities where to look he no longer had it? What would you be thinking? "Bad record-keeping"? I think not.

Just a bunch of old chickenhawks that don't understand what they're messing with, and one stuffed-stetson figurehead.

I've seen this type of argument before from several anti-war posters. One question I have for you is, if you don't believe that Iraq has WMD, then what exactly are you referring to when you say "don't understand what they're messing with"? None of you claim to believe that Iraq has WMD, and then you all say the US doesn't know what it's getting into. I'm at a loss to understand this.