Virtual AntiWar march

[thanuk]

I didn't threaten you, i was making an analogy. The United States has been kicked in the face, while they weren't looking. Saddam Hussein is in the corner smiling, and you are calling us paranoid for being suspicious of him. If you can't even recognize an analogy, its no wonder that you can't give me a reason that the U.S. should not go to war with Iraq. I have given you numerous reasons that they should, and your response has been "war is bad" and "you are paranoid". Then when i turn the question onto you, as a person, you cry foul and then say you dont want to play anymore. You say yourself some want war and some dont, for various reasons. I have presented you many reasons why i want war, and i am still waiting for a legitimate reason that you don't. I suspect one won't be coming either, because you ignore reality to pursue ideals of peace, regardless of the facts.

[Sarvis]

Kolasi:

You missed Thanuks point. He wasn't threatening you, he was pointing out that if someone displays a certain behaviour you would expect them to do so in the future. Saddam had displayed a willingness to use biological weapons <i>on his own people</i>. It's not paranoid at all to assume he still has a willingness to use those same weapons, <i>especially</i> since he keeps trying to hide them from us. On the same token, Al Qaeda has displayed a willingness to have suicide bombers take out large numbers of American civilians. Furthermore, it has been shown that the two groups have worked together and provided support for each other. It's not paranoia to draw a line from A to B, it's simple logic.

[thanuk]

Anti-Bush. Anti-war. The two are so intricately wrapped up within one another.

So intricately wrapped, that you don't even realize:

Anti-Bush +Anti-War=Pro-Saddam.

[kolasi]

You said:

"I'd love to meet you. Id kick you in the face. Then the next day, when i came to see you again, and you were nervous about it, i'd call you paranoid. You're an idiot. "

I dont see a "It would be like" or something like that...even that would not be percieved very well.



As far as the war goes (again)... Im against it becasue it is a selective one(see: Iran, Korea, Turkey, Saudi, Kuwait, Pakistan), there is no proof of a link between iraq and alqaeda( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm ), the people of Iraq are going to suffer ( http://www.sundayherald.com/27877 ), and I really dont see how attacking Iraq would stop terrorists from attacking the US.
Are we feeling the love from the people of afghanistan or pakistan or saudi or the palestinians, i dont think that iraqis will embrace the us, as fundamentalist terrorists are agianst "liberal" secular saddam, much more against a US backed govt. Also, I believe that inspections can work.

And a side note, if the states didnt meddle in every counrties business and play the global cop, there would be no anti-americanism, just like theres no anti-luxemburgism

[Shevarash]

Code: Select all

if (GET_RACE(poster) == RACE_TROLL)
  flame_damage *= 2;

[thanuk]

You said:

"I'd love to meet you. Id kick you in the face. Then the next day, when i came to see you again, and you were nervous about it, i'd call you paranoid. You're an idiot. "

I dont see a "It would be like" or something like that...even that would not be percieved very well.


And a side note, if the states didnt meddle in every counrties business and play the global cop, there would be no anti-americanism, just like theres no anti-luxemburgism

Read the transcript of Powell's last U.N. address for your links between al-queda and Iraq.

As for your failure to recognize an analogy, i can only blame your teachers.

And your right, if we didn't play world cop there would be no anti-americanism, because there would be only two countries left; america and the USSR.

If you think inspections will work, then you aren't even looking at the results of the current inspections. If you aren't going to use reason, then there's no sense in arguing with you, because your conclusions are based on nothing except your own private opinions.

[Sarvis]

Interesting article about installing a new leader. Oddly enough, however, it contradicts this one, from the same news source, which claims we will be having an American military commander lead the country while they do a democratic election.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2631491.stm

[Zellin]

like I said....paranoid

I'd love to meet you. Id kick you in the face. Then the next day, when i came to see you again, and you were nervous about it, i'd call you paranoid. You're an idiot.


edit---
Just a reminder. The last time the U.S. was called paranoid, it was coming from the mouth of a Japanese embassador, 20 minutes before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Yeah, so the Japanese played dirty tricks and blew up a little bit of our stuff. Then we nuked them. How many times? Twice. Damn, what's wrong with you people? Where does this end?

Oh, and Thanuk, your equation needs a little work. change the = to a >, and it would be a little more accurate. I don't support Saddam. I don't support war. I don't support Bush. I support removal of Saddam, not daisy-cutters and wedding bombings for all the evil evil people.

[thanuk]

Yeah, so the Japanese played dirty tricks and blew up a little bit of our stuff. Then we nuked them. How many times? Twice. Damn, what's wrong with you people? Where does this end?

Ends in Baghdad, in about 2 months. You would think that after the Japan incident, people would learn not to fuck with us, but people are stupid.

Oh, and Thanuk, your equation needs a little work. change the = to a >, and it would be a little more accurate. I don't support Saddam. I don't support war. I don't support Bush. I support removal of Saddam, not daisy-cutters and wedding bombings for all the evil evil people.

Okay, so you dont support bush, but you support his war plans. Thats good enough.

[Sarvis]

Ahh... isn't it great the way people can't understand the difference between war and dictatorships/terrorism? Zellin, we won't be bombing weddings, or blowing up citizens. That's what Saddam is doing constantly to his own citizens, and what we want to prevent happening to people in other countries.

But just to humor you... How _should_ we remove Saddam? Assassination is illegal under international law by the way, and considered an act of aggression. So even if we assassinated him, which is what I believe you hinted at earlier, we'd still be considered as starting a war.

[Corth]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0226/p11s02-coop.html

[Sarvis]

Bleh. Agreeing with christians? What the hell is the world coming to... ;)

[rylan]

Well, if things got dirty and it came down to it, I'd rather have Thanuk be my neighboor than some of you other guys. At least I know he'd be out there helping to defend the neighboorhood.

[Mplor]

Thanuk used the word "liberal" as a noun, and suddenly the whole thread turned into gibberish. Dammit, my gibberish translator seems to be on the fritz.

[Zellin]

Well, if things got dirty and it came down to it, I'd rather have Thanuk be my neighboor than some of you other guys. At least I know he'd be out there helping to defend the neighboorhood.

Are you going to blow up some other guy's neighborhood to protect your own?

[Daz]

Well, if things got dirty and it came down to it, I'd rather have Thanuk be my neighboor than some of you other guys. At least I know he'd be out there helping to defend the neighboorhood.

Are you going to blow up some other guy's neighborhood to protect your own?

god damn right i would

[Zellin]

Well, if things got dirty and it came down to it, I'd rather have Thanuk be my neighboor than some of you other guys. At least I know he'd be out there helping to defend the neighboorhood.

Are you going to blow up some other guy's neighborhood to protect your own?

god damn right i would

Then I'm glad you're not the man in charge.

[Corth]

I think there are four major reasons that people oppose an Iraq war.

1) Anti-Americanism

On a National level, you have the French and Germans who are trying to gain control over the EU and use it as a counterbalance to America, which they believe is too powerful, both militarily and culturally. What happens in Iraq is of little concern to them. While many people have pointed out that French oil companies have inked some fairly lucrative deals in recent months with Hussein, I don't believe profit is their motive. Whats at stake is balance of power in a new world order that is rapidly shaping. Anti-american sentiment, on a personal level, has been simmering for some time. Be it jealousy over American power and success, disgust at a perceived lack of high culture, or, on a more intellectual level, the same concerns motivating France and Germany. Whatever might be the motivation in each case, to the nations and people that fall under this category, acting correctly in regard to Iraq is collateral to damaging American prestige and influence. It is a very cynical and short-sighted view.


2) Suspicion About the Timing

Many people are suspicious of this war because of the timing. Such suspicion is well-founded. We had several years where Saddam was essentially ignored. He banished the inspectors and the Clinton/Albright cabal said hardly a peep. George W. Bush was just as bad. September 11, 2001 was a horrible day for Saddam because thats when everyone remembered that he exists. Its when we stopped being concerned about the ramifications of drilling for oil in Alaskan wasteland, and started getting interested in the important things happening in this world. If not for September 11, there would be no talk right now of ousting Saddam. Everyone knows this. Thats why, its justifiable to be suspicious that all of a sudden we demand regime change, immediately, when he didn't even have anything to do with what happened on September 11. All I can say in this regard is perhaps September 11 was a blessing in disguise. Consider it an early symptom of cancer that allowed for treatment before it reached the terminal stage. The fact that we did not confront the danger posed by Saddam prior to September 11 does not mean that we were right in failing to do so.

3) Idiotic Pacifism

Steven Den Beste argues, quite pursuasively, that pacifism is simply a utopian, and hence, impossible dream. I'm not going to bother summarizing his arguments, read it yourself. However, suffice to say, many people are reflexively against any war whatsoever, and such position is completely idiotic. I can understand being against a particular war, on the merits, but to be against all wars without regard to the circumstances is the moral equivalent of sticking your head in the sand to make the bad guys go away. The best example I have seen of this position was articulated by famed geopolitical analyst Sheryl Crow, who vaguely tells us that "war is not the answer", and that "the best way to solve problems is to not have enemies." Uh-huh.

4) Hatred of Bush

Like Anti-Americanism, this works on both National and personal levels as well. To the leaders of our favorite left-leaning 'old' European states, Bush and other conservative American politicians are an outmoded vestige of an earlier time. They are 'jingoistic cowboys' who have little patience for diplomacy. They believes in the rights of the individual, while Europe has been trending towards collectivism (or, more specifically, Transnational Progressivism). They do not recognize international goverment, and they refuse to cede American soverignty to international organizations. However, by far, the greatest sin of all is that despite the fact that they are barbarians, the values they represent are the source of America's great wealth and power. To everyone on the left, from the leaders of the 'old' European states to the hardcore communist protestors (A.N.S.W.E.R.) in America, the fact that America would elect a principled Conservative politician is a testament to their failures. Thus, many on the left are prone towards disagreeing with Bush just for the sake of disagreeing with him. Remember, "nation-building" is usually considered a leftist idea, and yet, Bush is condemned by leftists for proposing it in Iraq.

5) Honest Disagreement

This is not a major reason, but every once in a while you find an example of it. There are some people who have thought through all of the issues and have come to an intellectually honest conclusion that war against Iraq is a bad idea. People who understand the multiple goals of the proposed military action, and have come to a reasonable conclusion that they are not worth the potential expense. However, I very rarely see any credible positions that fall under this category. The pretextual argument du jour against war is that the UN inspectors can verify Saddam is not obtaining WMD's. When Colin Powell clearly demonstrated that the inspections were being undermined by the Iraq military, the response from France was to propose even more inspections. Germany, Russia, and China echoed this position. Inspections aren't working so... you propse more inspections. Intellectually honest? No.

The fact of the matter is that Hussein is more dangerous than al quada ever could be. He has already demonstrated that he wants nothing more than to conquer his neighbors in the middle east. A decade ago, a UN coalition had to be formed to kick him out of kuwait. Now imagine Saddam possessed nuclear weapon capabilities at the time. There would have been absolutely no way to force him out. And guess what, if not for a widely condemned preemptive Israeli air strike in 1981 against his french built nuclear plant, he would have had such nuclear capabilities. Under those circumstances, the world would have had no choice but to helplessly watch Saddam take Saudi Arabia as his next conquest. Many people validly point out that currently, North Korea is as great a threat if not more, than Iraq. The problem is that with North Korea, its too late. They have nukes. Do we really want to allow Saddam to join the ranks of rogue nations with nuclear capabilities? In November of 2000 (before the terrorist hijackings), the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons design program asserted that Iraq was close to having a nuclear bomb. If he were to get one, the Middle East would essentially become Saddam's playground. At least with Korea, the consensus is that they have no plans to use it as a means of conquest.

Perhaps, under the circumstances, its not surprising then that so few people hold intellectually honest positions against deposing Saddam. In order to do so, one would need to drastically underestimate the compelling evidence that weighs in favor of an invasion.


Conclusion

There are disparate and wide ranging reasons that people oppose the removal of Iraq's totalitarian dictator. Unfortunately, most of them cynically disregard the reality that Saddam poses a grave danger to the world.

[rylan]

Good post Corth :)

Now, how about that "interview" between Dan Rather and Saddam that aired last night. Anyone see it?
It was easily the most horrid piece of *cough* journalism I've ever seen. More like supported propoganda from Iraq. Talk about boarderline treason on the part of CBS and Dan 'I love Saddam' Rather. The entire thing was produced and edited by Iraq, there were no questions about biochem weps, no questions about Saddam murdering and torturing his people. Saddam was put in the most positive light possible, and Dan Rather helped it along. I'm so sick of the ultra-liberal media and their antibush agenda getting in the way of -real- jounalism.

[kolasi]

Journalist: "Mr. Powell, how are you so sure Saddam Hussein has all these terrible weapons?"

Powell: "We've kept the reciepts"


Why have all of you suddenly become so concerned about hussein killing his own citizens...did oyu know that Turkey has gassed many more kurds that iraq. And those kurds that you are supposedly going to free will have no say in a new iraqi govt because that was one one the main diasgreements with turkey to allow them to have you send your troops in.

Corth, nicely structured essay, but still, i think the US, CHina, Iran and N. Korea are much scarrier than Iraq...can blow up the worls 20 times over they can

[rylan]

The differance is, Iraq has the means, and the intent to use their biochem weapons.

As for the other countryies you listed who have nuclear etc:

United States: Has the means, not the intent to destroy the world
China: Same
Iran: Has the means to attack, probably not the intent
N. Norea: Has means, and intent, but who knows where its going (crazy man with nukes.. wonderful).

Its arguable which is the bigger direct threat to the US, Iraq or N. Korea. The differance is N. Korea has 0 economic backbone or resources, so they cannot support a war. However they will sell their weapons to other countries so their crazy leader can keep control.
Iraq can, at will, hold a vast amount of the world oil supply hostage. I don't care for Turkey anyway, we're avign to pay them off to use their airspace and base.

It all comes down to the fact that the so called governments over in the middle east don't understand diplomacy. Its been a tribal system of ruling for the past.. oh, forever. When one group detects weakness in another, they attack and become the power. Talking has proven time and time again to be essentially worthless in the middle east. You can't expect people who don't share the basic philosiphies of us to sit down and talk civilized and have peace and everything be okay.

[Sarvis]

Journalist: "Mr. Powell, how are you so sure Saddam Hussein has all these terrible weapons?"

Powell: "We've kept the reciepts"


Why have all of you suddenly become so concerned about hussein killing his own citizens...did oyu know that Turkey has gassed many more kurds that iraq. And those kurds that you are supposedly going to free will have no say in a new iraqi govt because that was one one the main diasgreements with turkey to allow them to have you send your troops in.

Corth, nicely structured essay, but still, i think the US, CHina, Iran and N. Korea are much scarrier than Iraq...can blow up the worls 20 times over they can

You act as if the world in general wouldn't cry foul just as hard if we went after those other nations.

[Sarvis]

Not to mention that if we did go after China, N. Korea or Iran it _would_ cause a nuklear war. And I don't believe the UN is trying to force them to disarm is it? (Well, maybe N. Korea...)

It seems like you really just want to see us countries with nukes fight it out, so that other countries can have more power. You're forgetting that any war between two countries with nukes will probably turn into a nuclear war, and destroy most of the planet.

[thanuk]

Why have all of you suddenly become so concerned about hussein killing his own citizens

We have been concerned about it since 1991, the first time we went to Iraq. but the UN prevented us from invading then, and forced us to leave Saddam in power. Oops!

...did oyu know that Turkey has gassed many more kurds that iraq.

Yes. Did you know the Germans gassed more Jews than the Turks gassed Kurds? Lets go after Germany instead! When the U.N. passes a resolution that requires Turkey to disarm, we will be right there on the front line. Alone, as usual, until the Brits and the Aussies get there. And as usual, we won't be expecting the rest of you to show up until the fighting is over.

And those kurds that you are supposedly going to free will have no say in a new iraqi govt because that was one one the main diasgreements with turkey to allow them to have you send your troops in.

Wrong. They will have as much say in the new Iraqi government as any other group. What they will not be allowed to do is rebel and form a new nation called Kurdistan from parts of northern Iraq and southern Turkey, which is what Turkey is concerned about after an invasion of Iraq. The Turkish kurds will have no say in the Iraqi government, but then again Americans have no say in the Canadian government either.

N. Norea: Has means, and intent, but who knows where its going (crazy man with nukes.. wonderful).

This is where most people get confused about the "threat" of North Korea. They have the means to attack South Korea, Japan, and possibly China with a nuclear weapon if they develop it. But they have no ICBM technology, hell they hardly have electricity there. So while everyone's screaming about what a big threat North Korea is in all their nuclear might, everyone seems to be forgetting that they have no way of actually using that weapon aside from taping it to the side of a bomb and launching it in the general direction of a country, and there is absolutely no way they could get it to fly all the way to the U.S.. Their only threat to us really is the fact that they could sell their nuclear weapons to terrorists or people like Saddam Hussein, but this again is not a real concern because the United States will be able to offer more money, aid and supplies to N.Korea to not sell the weapons, than any other country could pay to buy it. But we don't want it to come to that. Of course China thinks that North Korea is our problem, and that we have to deal with it. So much for multilateralism!


Edit ----
Just read the article on the tenets of Transnational Progressivism, heres some highlights:

1. We will eliminate racism by dividing all people into ethnic groups, and then having those ethnic groups compete for political power.

Uhm!?!

2. We will eliminate government oppression by allowing an elite selected by themselves to govern the entire world from their ivory towers.

So basically its the end result of imperialism, but we skip the bloody wars and expect everyone to just agree to be governed by a single ruling elite, even though most wars in the history of humanity have been based on the single principal that people refused to be governed from afar(this is why America was formed, what a strange coincidence).

3. Nobody who is in charge will be held accountable for their actions.

This is ALWAYS a good idea. Complete power, no one to answer to...but you can trust us to do what is right for everyone instead of just what is best for us.

4. Freedom of speech and individual rights are a bad thing, because individuals cannot be trusted, except the individuals who will decide everything, because they can be completely trusted. Why? Because they are smarter and better educated than you are.

Yeah, people always like it when you tell them to do things because "they said so". Especially when they tell you that they are better than you, so you should listen to them.

So transnational progressivism is basically a caste-system that is to be enforced through police power instead of military power. Its a dictatorship, but instead of leadership being determined by who has the most military strength, it is determined by who is the "smartest". Its a monarchy, except there's a number of kings instead of just one. And somehow, they are convincing people that this is a step forward, and not a recindence into the past. I guess they found a new word for communism:)

[kolasi]

Turkey has gassed jurds more recently than Iraq has, and the Kurds in Turkey live in as much misery as the Iraqi ones do.
Turley ally so its OK
Iraq enemy so its not OK

The states is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons? why should I trust them over the chinese or iran?

[thanuk]

Turkey has gassed jurds more recently than Iraq has, and the Kurds in Turkey live in as much misery as the Iraqi ones do.
Turley ally so its OK
Iraq enemy so its not OK

The states is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons? why should I trust them over the chinese or iran?

This argument is flawed because it considers the gassing of kurds to be the only reason for a war in Iraq, instead of just one of the many reasons. Turkey gassed more Kurds than Iraq, but they don't also
1.support terrorism monetarily
2.harbor terrorists actively
3.develop weapons of mass destruction after specifically agreeing not to
4.attempt to acheive imperialistic goals through use of force.
5.actively preach hatred and contempt for Americans and the American way of life.
6. theres plenty more but i think you get the idea

The reason you should trust the U.S. with nuclear weapons is because if we wanted to use them to take over the world, we would have done so a long time ago. We didn't, and we never will, because we don't want anything to do with the rest of the world, except to maybe sell them things and buy things from them. Whereas Iran wants to eliminate worshippers of all religions except muslim, and then force all the remaining muslims to conform to their particular interpretation of it. I would not suggest trusting those people, unless you are one of them. I dont know why you shouldn't trust the Chinese though, they don't want much of anything to do with the rest of the world, either.

But it seems your missing the real point here. Its not whether or not you should trust the U.S., or China, or Iran with nuclear weapons, its that you already have to trust them. You don't have a choice in the matter; we already have nuclear weapons, and trust us or not, there's nothing you can do about it. Why? Because if you try to do something about it, we might use nuclear weapons on you! Now bad enough you have to trust us, and China, and all the other countries with nuclear arms, do you really want to have to trust Iraq and North Korea on top of that? We sure as hell don't plan on it.

[Sarvis]

Umm... we used them once. After we actually understood what they could do we never really wanted to use them again. Neither did any other country. Do you really believe for one second that China would have avoided using a nuclear bomb if they had developed one before the US? Or Japan? Or Germany? Hell no! Then they'd have been the only country to use one, and we'd all try our best not to let things get that far...

Which is part of what we are doing now, actually. Saddam probably wouldn't hesitate for one second to drop a nuke on your precious Kurds. Whether they be in Turkey or Iraq.

Also, could you explain to us how we can attack Turkey? Sure,maybe they are treating Kurds worse than Iraq. But are they disregarding UN resolutions? Are they developing WMD's? Not to the best of my knowledge. Yet when we try to attack a country that is doing this things, we get yelled at for an unjustified war. How much louder would those cries be if we attacked a country that wasn't doing those things? We _can't_ attack Turkey...

[Salen]

As for your failure to recognize an analogy, i can only blame your teachers.

Don't blame us teachers, some kids are just stupid.

[rylan]

Don't worry, all those pansy countries who don't want us to bother Iraq will be first in line when we have to decide what to do with all of their oil fields. Just wait and see how fast the French show up to post-war reconstruction and try to get control of some oil.

[thanuk]

Don't worry, all those pansy countries who don't want us to bother Iraq will be first in line when we have to decide what to do with all of their oil fields. Just wait and see how fast the French show up to post-war reconstruction and try to get control of some oil.

I can hear it now...
"Surely since you refused to act multilaterally in the destruction of Iraq, you will at least give the international community a chance to help you in rebuilding the Iraqi nation!"

How pissed are they gonna be when all the eastern european countries that should've "kept their mouths shut" are the one who are offered first opportunity to set up shop in a democratic Iraq? Chirac is gonna flip out:)

[Ragorn]

My thoughts on the matter aren't terribly organized, so deal with a stream of consciousness type post.

Reasons I support the war, in priority order:

1. I'm from New York. What happened was a tragedy, but it also greatly reduced my personal tolerance to deal with rhetoric from foreign countries who threaten American soil. I'm into this not only punish the people involved in that particular incident, who are now believed to be residing in Iraq, but also to prevent this incident from happening again. Saddam has openly condoned the use of terrorism against America, which I find unacceptable in and of itself. This alone is enough of a reason for me to support the war.

2. Iraq has continually tried to exert dominance over both the Middle East region and the world arena. I've heard plenty about Saddam bombing and gassing both Iraqis and other Middle Easterners, and I've heard about him burning oil in the Persian Gulf, using bio/chem weapons, and lying to the UN. I tire of the attitude of the Iraqi government, who takes bits and pieces of whatever it can get while nobody's looking. And now Saddam wants to threaten the United States? Fine, I'm willing to call his bluff. American patience and tolerance are all that keeps Iraq on the map as it is. Give us provocation and see what happens when America stops being the world benefactor for a change.

3. Paying $1.75 a gallon sucks. Our culture and economy is dependent on oil, and that's that. My job is 20 miles from where I live, and there is no public transit available to that area. Blame whatever you like, but those are the circumstances. Part of my support for the war has to do with oil prices.

Most of what has been said in this thread pertains to #1 above. The USA has supplied more than enough evidence to convince me that Saddam is not interested in cooperating with the rest of the world's resolutions. He was given an IF-THEN ultimatum... IF you do not disarm yourself, THEN we will disarm you. The IF condition was not met. It's time for the THEN condition.

Agreeing with Thanuk, we haven't heard any solid reasons against the war. The anti-war sentiment breaks down into a very few select and invalid arguments:

1. We don't have enough evidence against Saddam. Complete nonsense, particularly after Powell's address this month. Saddam has continually turned away inspectors, pushed inspection dates back, and closed off inspection sites. He is not cooperating with the UN in any sense of the word, and the fact that we haven't found significant concrete evidence of the weapons' existance is due to the fact that Iraq is unwilling to allow the UN to inspect the proper containment sites.

2. The US only seeks to preserve its own oil interest. Clearly untrue, simply a poor political, bleeding-heart spin on the situation. "Don't trade blood for oil!" is their slogan, which addresses only one aspect of the motivation for war, and a very minor one at that. The war IS partially about oil, and I feel no shame for that fact. It's not the primary motivation, nor do I feel bad for wanting my gas prices to be lower.

3. All war is bad. Yes, all war IS bad. But war is not the worst thing that can happen. There are far worse consequences than war for allowing Saddam to continue along his present course of actions. Protesting war because it's war is asinine. Of course, the same people who take this approach also refuse to eat animals just because they're animals, so I can't say I honestly expect any more from them.

4. I can only characterize this argument as "diversionary tactic." Claiming we shouldn't attack Iraq because of what's going on in Turkey, North Korea, or what the US did 60 years ago in WWII. This doesn't hold any water. The bombing of Hiroshima has very little to do with what's happening in Iraq right now. I don't feel like a hypocrite, if that's what you're trying to accomplish with this. I don't feel that bombing Hiroshima 60 years ago strips of us our ability to act in the 21st century. And the number of Kurds dying in Turkey has absolutely no bearing on what measures need to be taken in Iraq. I'm sorry, if you want to argue about the war in Iraq then talk about Iraq, and not the price of tea in China.

And for what it's worth, France's support for the war is almost completely irrelevant. France's contribution to the events that will take place in the next year will be the same whether they offically support the US or not... they'll sit on their behinds, doing a lot of talking and acting very little. The only difference is what they'll say. France's support will constitute a single tick mark in a ficticious column of who's behind us and who's not. France's opinion sits in the same catagory as Uruguay's and Sri Lanka's... a footnote in the history books, a "by the way" in the records. France, your opposition has been noted, thank you.

[Sarvis]

Is it just me or did an entire page just go missing from this thread? I don't even know if Zellin responded to (or saw) my last post. I'll just re-ask the short version then:

So what are our options for removing Saddam from power? Since you don't believe this is a "last resort" situation...

[Arilin Nydelahar]

Think Shev mentioned that all of today(sundays posts) were gone in the switch over.