Saddam's a bad guy, so we should....

... start a war.Some random thoughts:I did not listen to Bush's state of the union pep rally, but I listened to several commentaries and "town meeting" discussions this morning.It seems that Bush aired a laundry list of atrocities committed by Hussein and his minions.I'm not terribly old, but I recall that the last time such a list was used to justify military action against Iraq, it turned out to be largely made-up. Is this one any different?
Don't get me wrong - I think Hussein is a lunatic and should go (should have don eit the first time - daddy Bush was too worried about re-election to do the "right thing"). But it should be for legitimate reasons, not trumped up nonsense.And whatever happened to that "proof" we supposedly have about his weapons of mass destruction? What are we waiting for? Are we waiting until maybe such evidence actually appears (shades of Borger...)?Am I the only one that remembers that press conference in which, after Bush laid out some weak Al-Qaeda links, he said, "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."?What ever happened to Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden?Campaign on a war, Rove said. Indeed - mainstream American voters are uninformed and gullible enough to buy it and forget about the economy and the debt and such...Is Bush just looking to avenge the plot against daddy and using the U.S. Armed forces to do it?Am I the only one embarassed and angry at the Bush administration's squandeing of the international sympathy and solidarity felt for us after 9/11?"Axis of evil"? Gigve me a break - that is B-move claptrap. Why are we letting right-wing, unelected, speech writers damage our international credibility?Amazing.... Simply amazing...

quote:

---

I did not listen to Bush's state of the union pep rally, but I listened to several commentaries and "town meeting" discussions this morning.

---

Translation: I listened to some left wing commentaries and anti-bush discussions this morning.

quote:

---

It seems that Bush aired a laundry list of atrocities committed by Hussein and his minions.

---

It seems or he did? There is a difference.

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong - I think Hussein is a lunatic and should go (should have don eit the first time - daddy Bush was too worried about re-election to do the "right thing"). But it should be for legitimate reasons, not trumped up nonsense.

---

You do a sufficient enough job to prove yourself wrong. No need for others to intervene. Actually, the Iraq campaign was stopped for two reasons (though I'm sure Bush was concerned about his job).1. Saudi-Arabia did not want the US to control that much oil. They are quite scared of the US no longer needing their services. Once the oil issue has been resolved, we will drop our ties with Saudi Arabia. They are not a US ally and have proven this consistently.2. Israel was going to drop a nuclear warhead on Iraq in retaliation. We were trying to disassociate ourselves with such an act. Political pressure from the US convinced Israel not to nuke Iraq.

quote:

---

Am I the only one that remembers that press conference in which, after Bush laid out some weak Al-Qaeda links, he said, "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."?

---

Some other quotes you might enjoy:"My point being, it is easy to come down on one side of an issue like this when you have no knowledge of the other.""Facts are stupid things."Look familiar? Those are quotes from you taken out of context. Do you really think facts are stupid things?

quote:

---

And whatever happened to that "proof" we supposedly have about his weapons of mass destruction? What are we waiting for? Are we waiting until maybe such evidence actually appears (shades of Borger...)?

---

The information is classified for a reason. The DoD does not want to reveal any information which would lead to a compromising of our informants and spies. This is a simple concept.The Hussein regime has killed our agents and informants before.

quote:

---

What ever happened to Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden?

---

I believe this was addressed just yesterday by the Bush Administration.

quote:

---

Campaign on a war, Rove said. Indeed - mainstream American voters are uninformed and gullible enough to buy it and forget about the economy and the debt and such...

---

The bell-curve theory proves the stupid will always outnumber the smart. Which part of the bell do you reside in?

quote:

---

Am I the only one embarassed and angry at the Bush administration's squandeing of the international sympathy and solidarity felt for us after 9/11?

---

International sympathy was produced by the media. The same countries who hate us still hate us.

quote:

---

"Axis of evil"? Gigve me a break - that is B-move claptrap. Why are we letting right-wing, unelected, speech writers damage our international credibility?

---

I don't know? Why are you letting right-wing, unelected, speech writers damage your international credibility?N. Korea admitting it was using the nuclear reactor it received in 1994 to research and produce nuclear war heads is part of the b-movie clap trap? Thanks Clinton, your legacy lives on!Perhaps a hands across america, we are the world singout orchestrated by the great Jimmy Carter will convince Iraq to disarm and preclude the need for war.

Wow... You're an angry fellow, aren't you?

quote:

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not listen to Bush's state of the union pep rally, but I listened to several commentaries and "town meeting" discussions this morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Translation: I listened to some left wing commentaries and anti-bush discussions this morning.

---

Typical spinning by right-wing zealot.
No, I listened to, as I mentioned, some 'town hall meeting' type things. Interviews with average Americans. That sort of thing. The paranopia odf the right is all consuming.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Bush aired a laundry list of atrocities committed by Hussein and his minions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It seems or he did? There is a difference.

---

Did you have a point? Or. like most conservative know it alls, do you just like to hear yourself talk (so to speak)?
I'm sure you hung on the Texas Twits every last word - you tell me.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Don't get me wrong - I think Hussein is a lunatic and should go (should have don eit the first time - daddy Bush was too worried about re-election to do the "right thing"). But it should be for legitimate reasons, not trumped up nonsense.

​

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

​

You do a sufficient enough job to prove yourself wrong. No need for others to intervene. Actually, the Iraq campaign was stopped for two reasons (though I'm sure Bush was concerned about his job).

---

I do? Wow - more of that right-wing pseudo-omniscience.

quote:

---

1. Saudi-Arabia did not want the US to control that much oil. They are quite scared of the US no longer needing their services. Once the oil issue has been resolved, we will drop our ties with Saudi Arabia. They are not a US ally and have proven this consistently.

​

2. Israel was going to drop a nuclear warhead on Iraq in retaliation. We were trying to disassociate ourselves with such an act. Political pressure from the US convinced Israel not to nuke Iraq.

---

Which of those points has anything to do with what I wrote? Do you even know?

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one that remembers that press conference in which, after Bush laid out some weak Al-Qaeda links, he said, "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Some other quotes you might enjoy:

​

"My point being, it is easy to come down on one side of an issue like this when you have no knowledge of the other."

​

"Facts are stupid things."

​

Look familiar? Those are quotes from you taken out of context. Do you really think facts are stupid things?

---

No - but apparently Ronnie-retard did. Out of context? Hardly. Reagan just misread the teleprompter (or had a nice Freudian slip), and was too much of a dimwit to notice it until one of his yes-men said something. He then, of course, made a joke about it.What was your point?

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And whatever happened to that "proof" we supposedly have about his weapons of mass destruction? What are we waiting for? Are we waiting until maybe such evidence actually appears (shades of Borger...)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The information is classified for a reason. The DoD does not want to reveal any information which would lead to a compromising of our informants and spies. This is a simple concept.

---

So you are an international affairs expert as well? Wow - another right-wing polymath!

quote:

---

The Hussein regime has killed our agents and informants before.

---

As any government would do to spies. Ever heard of the Rosenbergs?

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What ever happened to Al-Qaeda? Bin Laden?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I believe this was addressed just yesterday by the Bush Administration.

---

Of cours you believe that. The talking heads have a way of trying to make everyone think that they are doing a great job. Apparently, it worked on you.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign on a war, Rove said. Indeed - mainstream American voters are uninformed and gullible enough to buy it and forget about the economy and the debt and such...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The bell-curve theory proves the stupid will always outnumber the smart. Which part of the bell do you reside in?

---

You mean that racist tome by a right-wing twit?
I always get a kick out of these implications by right-wing simpletons. If you only knew...

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one embarassed and angry at the Bush administration's squandeing of the international sympathy and solidarity felt for us after 9/11?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

International sympathy was produced by the media. The same countries who hate us still hate us.

---

Thanks Rush. Another brilliant observation.

quote:

---

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Axis of evil"? Gigve me a break - that is B-move claptrap. Why are we letting right-wing, unelected, speech writers damage our international credibility?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I don't know? Why are you letting right-wing, unelected, speech writers damage your international credibility?

---

it would be nice if you could concoct a coherent point now and then. I think I know which side of the curve you fall on...

quote:

---

N. Korea admitting it was using the nuclear reactor it received in 1994 to research and produce nuclear war heads is part of the b-movie clap trap? Thanks Clinton, your legacy lives on!

---

"Axis of Evil" is B-movie claptrap, no matter how you cut it. Apparently, such simplistic jingoism works wonders on sycophantic myrmidonic right-wingers.

quote:

---

Perhaps a hands across america, we are the world singout orchestrated by the great Jimmy Carter will convince Iraq to disarm and preclude the need for war.

---

I'd bet that your hypocritical arse is not running to the recruitment office to go fight...This is the first - and last - time I will reply to you. You are not even worth the effort.

quote:

---

This is the first - and last - time I will reply to you. You are not even worth the effort.

---

Excellent. I win.

LOL...We have a winner!

[quote] by jdean+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
by SPLx-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first - and last - time I will reply to you. You are not even worth the effort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Excellent. I win.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++My girlfriend has a little sister that used to argue all of the time, making no sense at all with anything she said.Everyone was usually annoyed and frustrated because it was more like she was just making noise, than trying to make sense.Eventually in a heart to heart talk with my girlfriend she admitted that she never knew what she was talking about. In fact, she was often sure that the other person was right. But for some reason she felt she still had to win the argument.So ultimately the only way to win, she thought, was to annoy people until they stopped arguing, because the last one arguing is considered the winner.Once this was admitted, and she was made aware that the last one arguing isn't actually the winner, she became more reasonable.jdean, unless you are as young and naive as my girlfriend's kid sister, you need to get a better definition of what "I win" means.holmes

quote:

---

My girlfriend has a little sister that used to argue all of the time, making no sense at all with anything she said.

​

Everyone was usually annoyed and frustrated because it was more like she was just making noise, than trying to make sense.

---

Yes, I am quite sure you argued Deep Space Nine was superior to Voyager many times with her. Or perhaps she thought Babylon 5 was no good.

quote:

---

So ultimately the only way to win, she thought, was to annoy people until they stopped arguing, because the last one arguing is considered the winner.

---

Did you even read SLPx's response? It was the same thing repeated over and over: condemning the right wing. He refuted nothing I said with anything of substance. SLPx stated he is not going to post to me again, by default I win.

quote:

---

jdean, unless you are as young and naive as my girlfriend's kid sister, you need to get a better definition of what "I win" means.

---

Define girlfriend? I'm guessing it differs from most definitions.I win.

This is an apolitical post, and only concerned with the welfare of the United States, so please no Right/Left wing replies.First of all, everybody be quiet. Anybody on this forum who has ever worked for the government or knows anybody who has ever held a security clearance knows that nobody outside the White House knows *anything* about what is really going on. That makes *anybody* who is not Bush, Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or senior intelligence staff rushing to judgement about this issue a fool, plain and simple. My impression is that nobody in the House or Senate knows anything substantive. Certainly nobody on this board or in the media knows anything.To think that all these men (besides Bush) all signed on to a march to war because Bush is angry or his feelings are hurt minimizes them and the responsibility they have been given to protect the US, and it doesn't make any sense besides. Any reasonable observer would conclude that their haste and insistence about Saddam Hussein indicate that they know something that they are unable to divulge at the present time, something that is pretty terrible and scary. Bush intimated in his state of the union address that Iraq may have nuclear weapons already. Certainly news outlets have published articles hinting that portable nukes from the former Soviet states have "disappeared". We also know that al Quaeda are capable of slipping into the country in shipping containers and through the porous US-Canada and US-Mexico borders. This is serious business and it would behoove Americans to shut up and sit tight.Nobody has fired a shot yet (except the Iraqis, who continue to fire SAM missiles at US airplanes), and for those Americans out there -- to try and hobble your own President in time of war is foolish, regardless of your politics.

Hey Zip, long time no see.I come from a long line of US Navy officers and must agree with the suggestion that we don't know the whole picture. But, it is clearly the job of the President to sell the American people on the need for combat before he asks us to send our fathers, mothers, sons and daughters out into harm's way. That is only reasonable.Simply to trust that they will automatically do the righteous thing is to deny the potential for abuse of the office and a long history of leaders doing things for reasons other than the good of the people they supposedly serve."Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is an axiom we should all be aware of when dealing with issues so weighty.
(That is not to say that this administration is doing anything particularly corrupted; only that we must inspect what we expect.)-Shiloh

Hi Shiloh, I agree. I would hope that before any significant military action takes place, it would be clear to the American people that such action is necessary. At the same time, I accept that on a 'need to know' basis I do not necessarily need to know or approve of every action the President or the military, acting under his direction, takes. The President is granted certain powers by the Constitution for this reason.What I object to mainly is the Hollywood 'elite' and pacifist organizations and figures making an outcry against a war against Iraq that has not even begun. My question is, how does Susan Sarandon 'know' that Iraq is not prepared to supply nuclear arms to terrorist organizations? Give me a break.[This message has been edited by zipzip, 01-31-2003]

jdean, it really made no difference what topic she argued about. Thats the point. She wouldn't restrict comments to Voyager or Babylon 5. She would argue about anything, including things she knew nothing about.Her feeling was that as long as the other person stopped talking first, she won by default.This is wrong, and as I was trying to point out with my analogy, it is childish.I'm not even going to get into the fight you had with SPLx. The point is your stated condition for claiming victory... rather than a recap of the points you had successfully defended... was to say SPLx had given up (in frustration) trying to communicate with you.That is not a victory at all, though unfortunately many on the EVC forums seem to hold that belief.It is only by building consensus toward a conclusion or at the very least delineating the differences between valid conclusions (and showing evidence why each could/could not be true)that there is a victory.Otherwise we might as well all just post "yadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadada" until someone gives up.My definition of girlfriend is the same as most other people's, though the boundaries of that relationship differ from the majority. Why does that matter in this discussion?Oh, and since I wrote last... I win?holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2003]

Zipzip, sorry but you are WRONG.I worked for the government, and though I did not have a "security clearance", I was privvy to some info many did not know. So what? Here's the biggest secret kept by the US government: everyone working there is HUMAN.They have personal agendas, they have party agendas, they make mistakes, they lie, they argue needlessly like children, hell they even fart or puke at embarrassing moments.To say they have more intimate and exacting knowledge of certain subjects should not be news to anyone. To claim that that is a reason no one else's opinons should matter is foolish.The vietnam war is a prime example. It was wrong. It has even been admitted as such by one of the people "in the know" at the time.Hitler and Tojo's governments were in the know, so everyone kept quiet and obeyed. That was a pretty good idea right?Say, King George and his crew knew what was going on, I guess the colonists should have shut up and paid their taxes (he kept them safe from the Frenchies and indians after all).History has shown that governments allowed to be run in secret, with a populace that submits to the "greater knowledge" of the government, are prone to corruption and ultimately the destruction of freedom.If ever an argument for transparency in government has been made, it is what you just wrote. If the government has facts it should be shared with the public so that the public can make good decisions.Clearly governments can't give everything out all the time (physically impossible, and some info may compromise source networks) but the people do not have to be treated as pawns, and they should be given enough info to take part in forming the overall strategy.The President's duty is to help lead the nation, in great part by delivering accurate and compelling information to the public, so that they see why his course of action (or that mandated by congress) is the best choice of action.Telling people to "shut up and do what your told, because the people in government know more"... well then why didn't we all just move to Russia back in the 50's?In fact, doesn't the Republican party, during all that flag waving they do, tell people that government is dumb and should NOT be trusted? Oh, I guess that doesn't count when REPUBLICANS are in power.If you really think people should shut up and act like drones, be my guest. And then maybe those who voice their opinion will get heard and policy will change and then you can start acting like a drone for us.If you think ignorance is my problem, then give me knowledge. Do not merely ask that I obey.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2003]

I should probably add a couple other points.First of all, the CIA knew about specific terrorists entering the US and withheld that knowledge because "people didn't need to know". That info alone might have prevented 9-11 from happening (or at least one of the flights). Knowledge is power, so empower the public and do not let secret agencies horde it. The results can be catastrophic.Second of all, there is not one bit of knowledge that the President could have that removes some very specific and real problems that a war with Iraq poses.Let's for sake of argument say Hussein is trying to give WMD's to terrorists, let's say they are even nuclear devices.1) Going to war encourages his activities, rather than making him less likely to do so (and if devices or technologies have already been exchanged a war is pointless, other than to push the terrorists to use them now rather than giving law enforcement agencies the time to find them).2) Going to war increases the chance for such exchanges temporarily (during the Fog of War), and permanently with respect to exchange of technologies. "Freed" scientists can just as easily go to work for, or continue to work for, terrorist organizations (or the other regimes we choose not to punish militarily) after the war, unless we are going to imprison or kill all of their scientists.3) There is absolutely NO reason to believe that any succeeding government, or organizations within the country after our puppet government is installed, will be less hostile to the US or supportive of WMD technologies (even if just for profit as mentioned above).4) Greater instability will occur in the region (especially by empowering Kurdish autonomy) and so war, or violence anyway, will likely spread into neighboring countries.All of the above has been noted by intelligence and military leaders. Bush may know certain tactical and strategic plans of Saddam or terrorist groups which the rest of us do not know, but the above FACTS remain problematic regardless.Those alone are reasons not to go to war, besides touchy feely pacifist notions or ideas of protecting human life. BTW, I am NOT a pacifist. I'm still of the opinion we should send those troops into Afghanistan to finish the job there!I'm still waiting to hear any one of you warmongering right-wingers address those problems! Going to war is easy. Killing people is easy. Using such things to solve issues of WMD proliferation and the general spread of terrorism is hard and problematic.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-01-2003]

quote:

---

3) There is absolutely NO reason to believe that any succeeding government, or organizations within the country after our puppet government is installed, will be less hostile to the US or supportive of WMD technologies (even if just for profit as mentioned above).

---

This is the biggie for me.Here is a good article about the history of America's relationship with Saddam Hussein, and show why we are partly to blame for the current situaton.Page not found - Truthout

History is rife with wars being started by leaders with personal vendettas.Do I 'know' this is what is hapopenbing with Bush?Of course not. But it doesn't take a genius to see that there may certainly be a little "I'll get him for you, Daddy" going on.I, too, served in the military, and I know for a fact that "classified" information isn't really all that classified. If we have all these 'smoking guns', it seems reasonable that some of the info would have leaked by now. People like letting other people know how important they are.