Do you support the war on Iraq?

[Gavin]

I do, although I also think that the Bush administration is not exactly losing sleep over the fact that it will take attention of the economy. Still, Saddam needs to be taken out.

Your thoughts?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

I voted "other." Truth is, it's insufficient to simply say, "No, I don't support the war."

Support the war = not at this time, but that may change if chemical weapons are discovered, and it is shown that he plans to use them for aggression (as opposed to defense).

Support getting Saddam out = absolutely, but I believe war isn't the only way this can be accomplished.

[spl_cadet]

Uh, what other way is there?

[Hitch]

I think asking really really nice didnt work E

As for me. Im tired of hearing about 'innocent Iraqi's. Every young man wearing the uniform of the United States armed services is 'innocent'. And Im near the the point making Baghdad a hole in the desert woudlnt bother me

Hitch


That said, a short quote;

"And they remember with the love that only those who have shared the fears and triumphs of combat can know.
Notwithstanding the special grace that seems common to battle veterans that allows them welcome to former enemies. If there is a glory to war, this is part of it. For when called, these men answered not so much to kill and shoot as to serve and sacrifice, buying back with blood that which was sold into slavery in a land not their own"

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:02 PM post located here
spl_cadet:

Uh, what other way is there?

The fact that you even asked that question just serves to show how deeply the pro-war brainwashing has become ingendered in some people to the point they can't even imagine that there might be a way to solve problems without war.

[flipper]

Well, as the US and England are now immersed in said war, I reluctantly support it. Prosecuting it effectively to its end, even if it is a bitter one, is now incumbent upon us.

I should like to see it limited to Iraq though, and not extended elsewhere unless there is a clear threat posed, i.e. with clear evidence that is largely acceptable to the international community - ideally a majority of the UN or NATO and most of the security council at least. Some might argue that North Korea has posed that threat, but I would argue that pursuing war with NK would turn the possibility of nuclear war into a certainty, unless their strike capacity was utterly destroyed.

I would also like to see serious bridge building efforts made to repair damaged alliances, unruffle feathers, and depolarize the US and the world's opinion of us, especially in the muslim world as much as possible. The effective rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan would likely be an important part of this.

If we don't do it, it seems that we will be storing up worse problems for ourselves in the future. I am concerned that the global sympathy that the US received after 9/11 will be far more muted the next time such an instance occurs because "they brought it on themselves". I know that global sympathy won't in itself rebuild cities or lives, but it is an indicator of a larger antipathy that is highly concerning. I don't believe you can be globally isolated and still project your power across the world effectively. This go-around in Iraq has shown the limitations that can be imposed by reluctant allies.

[Ryokan]

I support the war, and more or less support Flipper's position afterwards, although I think the UN needs serious restructuring before it could ever become a legitimate collective security apparatus or defend the ideals set forth in its charter.

[spl_cadet]

Yesterday @ 08:49 PM post located here
Eireann:


The fact that you even asked that question just serves to show how deeply the pro-war brainwashing has become ingendered in some people to the point they can't even imagine that there might be a way to solve problems without war.

Ok Mr. Smartypants, why don't you tell me how we could have gotten rid of Saddam without war?

Oh, and I do believe that you can solve problems without war. This however is not one of them.

[Socrates]

Quite so, SPL. I can't think of anyone who supports this current war who actually LIKES war. Rather, we think that this war will SAVE more lives in the long run. Just as if the Allied countries had stopped Hitler earlier rather than fall for the well-meaning but misguided Chamberlainite appeasement policies.

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 03:14 PM post located here
Socrates:

Quite so, SPL. I can't think of anyone who supports this current war who actually LIKES war. Rather, we think that this war will SAVE more lives in the long run. Just as if the Allied countries had stopped Hitler earlier rather than fall for the well-meaning but misguided Chamberlainite appeasement policies.

That's probably not even true if you confine your calculus of lives only to Iraq, Socrates. But this will represent a considerable blow to US power in the world even if we are successful, since Bush has neglected his relationships in East Asia, where there are several places (the Himal, taiwan, the koreas, Sino-Russian border, etc) where conflicts threaten to blow up. Consequently, these nations are now reforming their own security policies. The threat of war has risen everywhere, while the US capacity for concerted action has fallen.

Additionally, everyone has seen the obvious lesson: that if Hussein had been able to develop nukes, he would have been invulnerable like Pyongyang is. That will only encourage the fence-sitters to build nukes. It is not a stretch to argue that in 20 years E Asia could be filled with nuke-armed powers all facing each other, along with other nations that the US dislikes elsewhere similarly pursuing nuke programs (see Pakistan and IRan, for example). By trashing the multilateral organizations necessary to maintain security, Bush has made all this possible.

Of course, the long occupation, the drain on our treasury, and the debasement of the army are all a severe possibility. Bush might end up causing a lot more deaths merely by reducing the US capacity to intervene and prevent conflicts elsewhere. Do you really think the US can support war and occupation in Afghanistan, Iraq and China/Korea all the same time? Vietnam alone was enough to nuke the US economy for a decade afterward. And what if in the next India/Pakistan tiff the US isn't there to pressure the defenders with credible international prestige and power?

Brrr...Chilling times ahead.

Vorkosigan

[Ryokan]

Vorkisigan: If you factor in the number of lives saves within the US, and the end of sanctions in Iraq, plus the end of their secret police, assuming the country doesn't plunge into chaos after the war, then it is almost certainly saving lives.
I fail to see how international organizations, who thus far have completely ignored Korea, could prevent proliferation. The only way to prevent proliferation is to tie serious consequences to it.
If we were to fight a war with China, it would become a total war pretty quick, and as far as that goes, the US can and has fought on mutiple fronts in those kinds of wars. And after we Occupy Iraq, we could probably take out N.Korea, although its not something I think would be to smart.
And Europe doesn't want a India Pakistani war. The world would back our leadership to bring peace there.

Cadet: Eirean believes that assasination, blockade, or pressure would be a better answer. I think he is wrong, but he does offer options.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:51 AM post located here
spl_cadet:



Ok Mr. Smartypants, why don't you tell me how we could have gotten rid of Saddam without war?

Oh, and I do believe that you can solve problems without war. This however is not one of them.

Well, the idea is to get Saddam out of power, not to destroy his country, right? Covert assassination wasn't tried, as far as I know. At least, it wasn't tried enough. Until only very recently the targeting of an enemy head of state was illegal, according to what I had earlier called the Kennedy Law (although someone suggested it was not Kennedy, but someone else who actually enacted the law). Although legality has never been much of a deterrent in keeping our government from engaging in assassination, it has been a deterrent in the case of heads of state (it's much harder to hide an assassin of a president or other head of state than for someone lower on the ladder). Believe me, if you can get Dan Rather close enough to interview him in person, you can get an assassin close enough to take him out or take him down. We could have taken a page from Saddam's own playbook and hired a suicide bomber. Don't think for one minute that the US would be above doing something like that. And those are just two possibilities that come immediately to mind. And before you give the predictable response, "We already tried that," be aware that I will expect you to prove that we tried it enough. In what little support the Bush administration has provided to Iraqi opposition, they chose the most inept group of all to fund - the INC, who are about as ineffective as a water pistol.

[$cirisme]

Saddam is just one man of a giant regime.

If just so happen to get him and not one of his doubles, someone from below will step up and take his place. We will just be replacing one bad dictator with another.

[spl_cadet]

We've tried assassinating him a bunch of times and it didn't work. Plus he has a bunch of doubles. And killing him alone wouldn't work. You also have to deal with his family.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:46 PM post located here
spl_cadet:


We've tried assassinating him a bunch of times and it didn't work. Plus he has a bunch of doubles. And killing him alone wouldn't work. You also have to deal with his family.

I told you that I would expect you to prove this predictable statement. I expect that you can comply? And I'm not talking about the US funding a rag-tag bunch of half-witted, untrained INC wannabes to become would-be assassins, I'm talking about sending our well-trained covert ops people in to do what they are trained so well to do. We did the former numerous times, with understandably disastrous results. How many times have we done the latter?