Reasons for WAR

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Alaric, it was sarcasim, not an accusation.  Next time I will use the <sarcasim> tag.  My point wasn't that it was wrong, my point was throwing out a number like that without context is pretty much useless and can be seen in many lights.

[alaric]

Okay, I get it now. It can be though to read sarcasm through text sometimes.

And I agree that tossing out numbers like this is foolish. Polls and statistics are worthless anyway. Knowing how many people are on which side shouldn't affect your decision anyway, it only shows that the sheep-herd mentality is as strong today as it ever was.

[kami]

I saw that poll actually, even voted on it, it was on the TIME webpage. The question behind it was really angled though so I don't think people who opposed it actually answered...

Bucc, I'm saying that right now, in mainland Europe (especially not in Scandinavia), there is no real terrorist threat. That's the naked truth.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, I'm saying that right now, in mainland Europe (especially not in Scandinavia), there is no real terrorist threat. That's the naked truth.

And I'm saying, so what.  Mainland Europe has had it's share of terrorism from Spain and France to Itally.  Does this mean it was the fault of their people or governments?  No.  So your pointing out that planes aren't going to be flying into your buildings was pretty stupid.  It sure makes it sound like you are saying terrorism is our fault, and it could be avoided if we were more like you.  Well, we avoided it a hell of a lot longer the Europe did, does that make us better?  NO.  

So stop (everyone) making it sound like the USA got what it deserved with terrorist attacks.  Terrorists are criminals.  NOBODY DESERVES THEM.  

Two years ago, you may have found an American dumb enough (or thousands of them) to make that same kind of remark about terrorists Kami, how quick things can change.  And that is also the naked truth.  So get off your high horse.

[kami]

Nobody deserves terrorism but it's not like terrorists jump against everyone for no reason.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Nobody deserves terrorism but it's not like terrorists jump against everyone for no reason.

No, they jump at whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.  You are right, they can't jump against EVERYONE, not all at once.  

But what's to stop them from painting a target, wrongly, on you next week?  

They are criminals.  You cannot defend their motives like they think logically and reason things out.  If they did, they wouldn't use terrorism, now would they?  They wouldn't use Islam or God or the Koran or the Bible to justify what they are doing (since Islam, the Koran, etc etc denounce it).  Stop acting like the US has brought it onto itself, and that it could never happen to you.  It could, and there would be nothing you could do to stop it.  All it takes is a couple people with extreme views that don't agree with you, and BOOM.  Right and Wrong don't make a difference.  

[tasty]

Virtually every country has terrorist problems. The US has had it relatively easy for a long time, but it now appears we are the primary target. No one can argue that we don't live the most decadent lifestyles in the world. I think that while each country will have their own problems, as long as we are on top financially we will be target #1.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No one can argue that we don't live the most decadent lifestyles in the world.

Oh, I can, I can.  I agree with the rest of what you said, but decadent is a very subjective term.  One the one hand, I could think that some of the seedier places in Asia were much more decadent, with the selling of 13 year old girls and boys into the sex trade.  I don't think that slavery has been erased from the face of the earth yet either.

So decident is all in the eye of the beholder.  We are a highly visible target, but saying we are the most decadent lifestyle is a bit much for me to swallow.

[Speech pt 1]

By US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech Wednesday, February 12, 2003:
 
 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?

[Speech pt 2]

There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

[Speech pt 3]

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

[kami]

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2003/0120/cover/view_eno.html

Just thought I'd stick this link in somewhere, I've been sitting on it for a while, please do read the American view as well. It's quite interesting.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

By US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech Wednesday, February 12, 2003:

Wow, that is a smart and well spoken man...I couldn't find one thing to disagree about in the whole thing.

As for the Time thing...this American side one has the guy whining about where Europe's compassion after 9/11 went...well, maybe they are human and thus were upset over the loss of life and honored it, but maybe they don't let that last forever and excuse problems that follow.  They have a right to have a problem with the US even though they were friendly in that time of hurt.

Obviously if you've heard my view in the past I agree with the Europe point that having the social programs is an advantage.  Anyway that isn't really the point of this.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Actually Bondo, I found a bunch to disagree with, but 99% of it is stuff we've covered.  Like his complete disregard for Iraq's responsibilities in this matter.  He paints the picture as liberal as it can be, and that's his right.  

But there is plenty there to disagree with.

And you have to love the old "a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children"  (again, sarcasim for those that don't recognize it).  massive?  unprovoked?  And why does it matter if 50% are children?  China could be 50% children and would pose a huge threat if they wanted to.  No, that was there just to provoke an image.  

Obviously someone that sees just as much of the truth as Bush, but from the other side.  Think about that.  (and you must remember, no matter what you accuse me of, I don't back or defend Bush.  I think neither of them see things correctly.  And no, this guy is no closer.  Bush just may blindly stumble into doing the right thing is what my story has been).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Since you question massive and unprovoked I'll touch on those.

Massive: Largest military buildup since Vietnam.

Unprovoked: Haven't seen Iraq attack or even pose a significant risk to our safety.  UN resolution breaking doesn't become a provocation because only the UN can choose to enforce that.

You commented before that Iraq is on parole and needs to prove their innocence rather than us needing to prove their guilt.  You are wrong on that when it comes to an attack without UN approval.  The UN resolution that puts them on parole is only for the UN to enforce.  If we plan on attacking outside of that, then we DO need to prove their guilt with more than "they broke the UN resolution".

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Since you question massive and unprovoked I'll touch on those.

Massive: Largest military buildup since Vietnam.

So, this buildup has already happened?

Second point, Massive was the mobalization in WW2 (something in the neighborhood of 4 million American soilders), Viet Nam never came close to that.  (Increasing the number of soilders past 200,000 was a huge deal back then).  It seems more "massive" then it was because of how long it lasted, and the increased frequency of replacing troops (compared to WW2).

Massive is relative.  And guess what, this politician was grandstanding.  SHOCK.  One that can talk out of his ass just like Bush.  GASP.  I can safely say that he was massively exagerating his case while understating or omitting the negative.  

Unprovoked: Haven't seen Iraq attack or even pose a significant risk to our safety.  UN resolution breaking doesn't become a provocation because only the UN can choose to enforce that.

And the current administration has been working within the UN as part of the UN.  OH GOLLY GEE WHIZ WALLY, DOESN'T ANYONE SEE WHAT STEPS ARE REALLY BEING TAKEN?

Oh, one other thing.  They are collecting intelligence that says Iraq is also a significant risk.  They aren't required to present that to the public (but to Congress), as telling people that their "phones are bugged" and other things kinda drys up the source of information.  I'm not saying they have enough yet, but they haven't actually attacked Iraq yet either, have they?

The UN resolution that puts them on parole is only for the UN to enforce.  If we plan on attacking outside of that, then we DO need to prove their guilt with more than "they broke the UN resolution".

Actually, that was a discussion on PBS this weekend.  Seems that the old resolutions may have been written in such a way as to make it acceptable for a country like the USA to act alone, or with allies, without the UN's direct approval, in the enforcement of this resolution.  Now, I haven't looked at them in a long time, or ever in that great of detail.  But, if they were right, you are wrong.  Better check it before you say it.

I mean, I understand you are taking the moral path in that argument, and that you also take into account the ideals of due process.  However, you need to read the fine print.  Remember, you didn't think they had any burden of proof in the first place.  You should look into exactly what the post Gulf War resolutions said before you say what's allowed and not allowed.  

[Precious Roy at work]

I feel dirty for having read this thread.  Unfortunatly I'm not near enough to a shower to wash the unclean off, so I'l instead try to add a little clarity to this thread (Though Byrd's speech did that too, thanks to whomever posted it)

Let me first say that I am, for those of you who don't know, rather liberal.  My views strictly on the war run accordingly.  I don't give a shit about whether Bush wants the war because of oil, or "National Security", or because he wants a beach to himself after he nukes it.  Hell, he could be doing this to create a world-wide utopia, one country at a time.  Motives are of no interest to me.  But the ends don't justify the means.   I simply can't stomach the idea of the "preemptive strike," particularly when the Iraqi government has no mechanism for long-ranged attack.  I have other problems with the war, but that's reason enough to mention.  If anyone has issues with that, well, then I have lost what little respect I had for them.

As for this utterly idiotic debate on Europe vs. America.   Backround: I was born in D.C., grew up/live in Maryland, and am currently residing in Maine for college.  done.  Now, Europe has had their fare share of terrorism.  Case in point: the IRA.  But there are plenty of other cases in Spain, Germany, Italy, and many parts of Eastern Europe.  Yet most of these are internal issues.  They are the residents of a nation-state acting against the government and/or infrastructure of that same nation-state.  They are, for good or ill, revolutionary acts, no different from many the pre-revolution events in Boston, except that they have bombs and automatics.  Needless to say, they've had their fair share die from terrorism.

And yet Mr. bin Laden hasnt sent his minions to bring ruin to Europe, despite their democratic, un-islamic, evil ways.  Why is that?  Europe is not particularly targeted by terrorists for three reasons.  First, their culture is not so insidious and subersive.  American culture is a powerful tool, and overruns  other cultures.  the islamic world is not down with that.  Also, our rhetoric is patronizing, condescending and anger-provoking.  I'd be pissed if I was labeled part of an "Axis of Evil."  There's more than just that, but a good example nontheless.  And of course, Isreal.  We fully support the Jewish state, who sponser some  pretty impressive terrorism themselves.  

So, all ya'll can bitch about the female's who don't shave their legs and pits, but a) they get terrorism, and b) they don't have plans flying into their buildings because they don't provoke such action, as unjustified as it may be.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

If anyone has issues with that, well, then I have lost what little respect I had for them.

And after some of the bullshit you just wrote, that feeling is mutual.  Here, I'll elaborate.

when the Iraqi government has no mechanism for long-ranged attack.  

So, when it's been pointed out that a major concern is that they have biological and chemical weapons, and it has also been pointed out that it's so easy to smugle a few kilo's of illegal materials into the US, how had would it be for him to ship over a suitcase of something pretty fucking nasty if he has it?

I'm not saying he has it, or that we have enough evidence.  What I'm saying is that our administratons seems to think he does, and that it should be explored fully.

And I'm saying that it's one hell of a mechanism for long-ranged attack, now isn't it?  The weapon may not be there (we will see) but the mechanism sure as hell exists.

Oh, but you can't respect me, or that idea, because it doesn't fully agree with you.  I see.

a) they get terrorism, and b) they don't have plans flying into their buildings because they don't provoke such action, as unjustified as it may be.

Now, let's see, are you actually saying that the US provoked this?  More so than say, the Brits?  The Brits, that have been much more involved historically?  The Brits, who's government often takes a harder line?  The Brits, who are part of Europe?

Pardon the sarcasim, nah, don't.  Sarcasim just isn't enough.  

According to many of those nuts, just our existance is cause to murder us.  

I'm just sick and disgusted by how many people here defend terrorism.  Yes, you are defending it.  Anyone that looks for justification.  Anyone that thinks that there is logic and reason behind it and it can't happen to them.  Anyone that thinks any country brought terrorism onto itself.  Anyone that thinks it could have been avoided by giving into demands.  You are all supporting the terrorists in some small way.  Sure, you don't agree with their methods, but they have a point.  BULLSHIT.  

Stop acting as if the USA brought this upon itself.  It didn't, anymore then those subway passengers in Tokoyo brought it on themselves when they were gassed.  Or how the guy that was walking next to the abortion clinic and found himself blown up brought it on himself, or how women and children shopping for food in a Isreal marketplace brought it upon themselves.  

Terrorists are thugs, gangsters, outlaws.  They are nothing to be respected or supported, no matter what their cause.  You can agree that the US should't be involved in some areas, that they don't do the right thing.  But there is NOTHING it has done to provoke planes being flown into buildings.  

Provoked, yeah, it was provoked alright.  Bullshit.  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

So Bucc, you think the effect of a terrorist attack has no cause?  There is no reason, no provocation for that attack.  No one is saying if it is a reasonable provocation, but to say there is none is naive.

As for all terrorists being thugs...I remember back after the 9/11 attacks when a few media outlets refused to use the word terrorist but use freedom fighters.  Perhaps hard to swallow about 9/11, but what about those who led the American Revolution...are they merely terrorists...thugs...whatevery negative term you choose to use for terrorists?  Or is their provocation a noble one that allows them to be though of kindly by us because we appreciate the fruits of their actions.

As for the Brits being part of Europe...that is debatable...they aren't on the mainland, they aren't in the EU.  They are however part of UEFA (european football association) which does link them.  But basically there are reasons to group them with Europe and there are reasons to say they aren't.  When someone talks about Europe to make a point about differences, they can either be including or not including the UK.

Either way, you talk about historically, yes, the UK is responsible for a lot of the mess in the middle east which is land they controlled.  But the primary country with its nose in everyone's business in the past quarter decade is the US, not the UK or any other country.  That is what makes the US the prime target and makes the other countries avoid being a large target.  They haven't been as visible.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

So Bucc, you think the effect of a terrorist attack has no cause?  There is no reason, no provocation for that attack.  No one is saying if it is a reasonable provocation, but to say there is none is naive.

Unreasonable provocation is no provocation is what I'm saying.  Is it saying that since Ace is catholic, and wears a cross, that cross was provocation for a terrorist to murder him, since he was anti catholic?  Bullshit.  By calling it provocation, you are in some little way legitimizing it.  That's what I am saying.

As for all terrorists being thugs...I remember back after the 9/11 attacks when a few media outlets refused to use the word terrorist but use freedom fighters.  Perhaps hard to swallow about 9/11, but what about those who led the American Revolution...are they merely terrorists...thugs...whatevery negative term you choose to use for terrorists?  Or is their provocation a noble one that allows them to be though of kindly by us because we appreciate the fruits of their actions.

Ok, differences and problems with that attitude.  How many innocents were targeted in say, the Boston Tea Party?  Yep, a lot of tea got destroyed.  Ships too.  Yep, lots of property damage.  

Ok, not every action before the USA declared independence (and started a WAR, which is different from that point forward for many reasons) was bloodless.  Nope, soilders died too.  

But now let's look.  Did a bunch of Americans go over and put bombs in London markets?  Start killing British office workers in their buildings?  I think not.

Did they do things that they shouldn't.  Yep.  I can probably name more then you (like rounding up and executing as traitors some land owners that didn't agree with the revolution for example).  But, I'm sure as hell not justifying these actions in any way.  

Do I agree with demonstrations of civil disobedience?  Sure.  I think that trashing the tea was a great example.  Just like the PETA people that break in and rescue test animals (but not the ones that spray paint furs).  It doesn't even bother me that people burn the American flag in the streets.  They have the right to demonstrate (I don't respect them in their methods).  But, there are lines.  And excuses like "let's give them a taste of their own medacine" just don't cover it.  The IRA bombed people in London with the excuse that the English were killing the women and children in the streets of Blefast, so they want to show them what it's like.  They weren't provoked into those actions.  And even if I agree with what they stand for (a free Ireland) I cannot, in any way, defend the PIRA.  I cannont agree that even when British soilders killed innocent women and children, and pretty much got away with it, was any provocation for bombing airports or markets.  

Go further even.  Someone called them freedom fighters?  What freedom were they fighting for with those planes (or bombs)?  Targeting innocent women and children going to help their cause?  Get them freedom?  I can't stop someone from calling them Freedom Fighters, but I can sure call it BULLSHIT.

Either way, you talk about historically, yes, the UK is responsible for a lot of the mess in the middle east which is land they controlled.  But the primary country with its nose in everyone's business in the past quarter decade is the US, not the UK or any other country.  That is what makes the US the prime target and makes the other countries avoid being a large target.  They haven't been as visible.

I call BULLSHIT again.  The UK has been just as vocal.  They have stuck their nose in just as many peoples business.  And what about Russia?  Or China?  Nope, I disagree with you that the US makes themselves the large target.  I mean, have all these terrorists in history acted in a reasonable mannor?  I think not.

Have to run, but I could rant on for hours on this.