Case for War?

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

Excuse me for my little joke this morning, but since you guys like to make some conservative jokes I thought I would join the fun.

We all know Saddam is a "bad guy" and I'll admit that there are some reasons for a war against him -- though I'm still not toally convinced. There are still many things to be answered.

Saddam as a Terrorist:
There are some links, albeit very shakey, but in the middle East its a good bet that any country will have links to terrorists. There are very clear links to our "allies" in this region, yet they are not considered threats. What makes Saddam so special?
Anyone remember Al Queda? The elimination of Saddam will likely have no ill effects on Al Queda and may possibly ignite new fevor and life into terrorist recruiment. Contigency plan to prevent this?

Saddam as a Threat:
Iraq possesses chemical/biological weapons. They do not possess nuclear (nu-CLEAR, not nu - CU -ler Mr. Bush) -- however they may be interested in obtaining them.
They are many unfriendly countries in the world with larger and power powerful (nuclear) arsenals. So I still maintain: Why Iraq? Why Now?

Consequences:
I've heard alot about what America has to do, but not much about what we will have to give up.
Will we be safer after this war?
Is it worth straining international relations?
Casualty estimates: both US/coalition and Iraqi?
After-math plan: Rebuilding Iraq? How? Who? How much?
War cost? Deficit spending?


Now for the money question:
Does the attack on Iraq signal a new phase in our forgein policy: a policy of Preemption? Is this policy wise? Justified? dangerous? moral?

What I really want in the immediate future is a serious debate in this country of everything that this war will be. I want us to drop all the left/right rhetoric. I want the push for war or against war coming from congress b/c its their power. I want to know what they expect from this war and I want the truth.

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

oopsy - can a mod merge this into the "Mr. Bush's war" I made a boo boo and hit the new topic button. :D

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

You know you might have actually been taken seriously by me. But your irreverancy towards Bush by taking an unwarranted pot shot at his pronounciation of nuclear portrays your true bias towards anything you see come in the line of an argument. With such obvious indications of your closed mind, I do not even deem it worthwhile to engage in this debate. You've beaten yourself out of the gate.

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

ROFL - you can take pot shots at liberals all day long but one word towards out darling president and you disavow my comments. I'd like to see your record on making fun of Clinton. Presidents being public figures endure this all the time.

Please notice your sig.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Sure people make fun of people. I make fun of strategery all the time, but I don't needlessly incorporate it into my political arguments. Your quick use shows your closed mindedness. And I fail to see the connection with my sig...?

[-=C.O.P.S=-KOrruptED]

LOL, damn conservatives! :p The problem is everyone hates the USA cuz they're always stickn their noses into everyone else's business.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Kind of like sticking planes into towers in your own city?

[-=C.O.P.S=-KOrruptED]

Don't even know what the point of that comment was.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Valium folks...VALUIM...

Besides, pronunciation of words is largely based on the area that you grew up in. Bush is from Texas, and Nu-Cu-Lar could be the correct pronunciation of Nuclear there. Who knows? Ive heard it pronounced both ways. I've even heard New Orleans pronounced New Orleeeeeens, which, if you are from there, is like fingernails on a chalk board.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

As was yours. It's ridiculous to justify or rationalize actions against us by the way we are viewed by others in the world. It alls boils down to resentment to our success. And inherent to that success is the ability to defend yourself, which is what the US and the coalition of nations is moving forward to do. It's amazing to see how people weep for the fallen yet are content to stand idly by hiding behind a veil of supposed containment which produces more bad peace. How many millions of people died by "containing" Stalin in the 20th century or die today "containing" the Chinese and North Korean premieres now? Now I am not advocating action against them, but shouldn't the opportunity, when presented, to remove rather than contain be taken. Such is the case now in Iraq and such will the outcome be. Lest the united Nations fall completely into irrelevance.

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

My joke was not used to advance my agruement ... in fact I didn't even make any argunements. I asked questions. Sure those questions came from a particular POV, but nonetheless I was not arguing for anything but discussion.
Besides the joke was not important and was placed in parentheses for a reason. It is just something trvial for me to complain about. And the way I see it your sig contains jokes of a political nature which serve your politcal view. However I never took it to mean you were closed minded and not worthy of discussion. All of this not important.


Though at the present moment I do not agree with military action in Iraq, I have not ruled it out - hence me wanting the discussion. But at times I have to wonder if some people in this country have ruled out peace? I do not have a closed mind, though I may dislike Bush.

War has never solved one problem without creating others. I just want to know what those problems will be this time around and whether or not they are worth it.

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

I guess Dirge, for these b00ns if they close their eyes and don't acctually see it, then it doesn't really happen or matter.
Maybe if they tap their shoes together they will also go to a magical land?

:slp : do you see ground zero, the WTC is not getting renovated!!,
People sensesly attacked us for our religon(majority)???

This is real life people, everything is not perfect!!
As long as there is money, politics, and religon...there will be war, history will prove this to you.

[wookie]

dirge, bigeasy, lets just shake hands, hug and have a few beers and let this go. political arguements arent a good thing here, lol.
ok, its all good.

[-=C.O.P.S=-KOrruptED]

Originally posted by LA_MERC_Dirge
As was yours. It's ridiculous to justify or rationalize actions against us by the way we are viewed by others in the world. It alls boils down to resentment to our success. And inherent to that success is the ability to defend yourself, which is what the US and the coalition of nations is moving forward to do. It's amazing to see how people weep for the fallen yet are content to stand idly by hiding behind a veil of supposed containment which produces more bad peace. How many millions of people died by "containing" Stalin in the 20th century or die today "containing" the Chinese and North Korean premieres now? Now I am not advocating action against them, but shouldn't the opportunity, when presented, to remove rather than contain be taken. Such is the case now in Iraq and such will the outcome be. Lest the united Nations fall completely into irrelevance.

Why is it ridiulous? Do you think other nations would have retaliated against the US if the US remained neutral in past world affairs?
Shouldn't other countries be allowed to govern the way they feel fit? Look at how little crime there is around the rest of the world compared to the US.
Should it be the "job" of the US to police the world?

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Very well then, I will give my best guess based on various readings and information from various sources of differing viewpoints.

1)
Saddam as a Terrorist:
There are some links, albeit very shakey, but in the middle East its a good bet that any country will have links to terrorists. There are very clear links to our "allies" in this region, yet they are not considered threats. What makes Saddam so special?
Anyone remember Al Queda? The elimination of Saddam will likely have no ill effects on Al Queda and may possibly ignite new fevor and life into terrorist recruiment. Contigency plan to prevent this?

There are actually very solid links between Al Queda and Iraq and the disruption of a source for their empowerment can not be a bad thing. The same things were said after the Taliban was attacked. We have successfully prevented further action so far and moving forward with ever-increasing diligence in this regard we are preventing more attacks. Can we stop them all? Maybe, I hope so. The problem with Al Queda is the very real links to Iran. There is still hope that the democratic movements within that country will take hold and pre-empt action there.

2)
Saddam as a Threat:
Iraq possesses chemical/biological weapons. They do not possess nuclear however they may be interested in obtaining them.
They are many unfriendly countries in the world with larger and power powerful (nuclear) arsenals. So I still maintain: Why Iraq? Why Now?

3) Actually the nuclear club is smaller than you think. Only a handful have thermonuclear weapons (US, France, Britain, Russia, China) and a small number more have nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea?). The main problem with nuclear weapons is knowedge of them. Their main purpose is twofold- 1) deterent to attack & 2) negotiating power The real threat and scare comes from countries that surreptitiously try to develop these weapons for some other reasons (e.g. terrorism or conquest).

Consequences:
I've heard alot about what America has to do, but not much about what we will have to give up.
Will we be safer after this war?

We will never be completely safe, but a murderous dictator which holds us in contempt will have been deposed, so yes we will be safer on that level.

Is it worth straining international relations?
International Relations can be strained by the smallest of measures. The coalition building occurring shows that the majority of the world agrees on this item.

Casualty estimates: both US/coalition and Iraqi?
This is interesting and will ultimately depend on whether Iraq uses the chemical and biological weapons he claims not to have. If he doesn't then expect something similar to the Gulf War with possibly higher numbers on the Allied side and much higher numbers on the enemy's side.

After-math plan: Rebuilding Iraq? How? Who? How much?
War cost? Deficit spending?
Look towards Afghanistan for this model. Expect a democracy to be formed. There is some debate and speculation at this point as to whom exactly this may be, but one thing is certain: it will not be an easy process and will require assistance. As far as cost: After every war the USA has been in, they have been the biggest rebuilders of the conquered nations

By deficit spending I would like you to clarify your questions further.

Now for the money question:
Does the attack on Iraq signal a new phase in our forgein policy: a policy of Preemption? Is this policy wise? Justified? dangerous? moral?
This change in policy is significant and was first made in the September 20th speech to the joint session of Congress. The level of seriousness was established when bombs began to destroy the Taliban. It is what some have felt as a necessary reaction to the current threats facing civilization. And do not believe America has not attacked without being struck first. There have been a couple of occasions in our history.

:D

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

KOrruptED, please learn something from our forefathers:
I understand in your view as long as they don't touch you or your loved ones then, it is just a mistake, or they are sorry.
But in the real world, isolationizm does not work, please see WWI and WWII. Coming in after the fact makes things 10x worse than handling the problem before hand.
We do not police it is our duty as a voice of democracy to help those in need.

Mike

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Originally posted by [C.O.P.S]KOrruptED
Why is it ridiulous? Do you think other nations would have retaliated against the US if the US remained neutral in past world affairs?
Shouldn't other countries be allowed to govern the way they feel fit? Look at how little crime there is around the rest of the world compared to the US.
Should it be the "job" of the US to police the world?

It's ridiculous because it implies a form of neo-isolationism that is the antithesis to the world community being pursuded by most nations around the world. FOr example: The European Union, NAFTA, etc... As long as there is a global economy, there will be interactions with other nations which will lead to the need to protect interest at home and abroad against threats. Your crime statistic is laughable. Tell me the Taliban was a safe society. And that China is a model for society. Have you ever been to a thirld world country? Why do you think they have to keep armed guards around their McDonald's and other businesses? Because it is so safe? Tell the Russian people that their Mafia is not really a bad deal. It is not the job of the USA to police the world. And we do an admirable job refraining from doing more. Yet there are inevitable times when our hands are forced either through requests for help or out of our obligation as the defender of liberty and freedom to assist the weak and endangered.

[LA_MERC_Cowboy_From_Hell]

MERCY!!!! I beg you.......PLEASE CREATE A POLITICAL FORUM SO I DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS CRAP!!!!

You guys are buzz killers...ALL OF YOU!!!

Scott

[LA_MERC_Mercy]

hmmm...interesting idea and i have an idea for one...

[LA_MERC_Sniper]

all i want to say on this matter is DIRGE when you running for the White House man lol.... you got my vote you must have been a polisci minor or something.............. w00t DIRGE for Pres............

[-=C.O.P.S=-KOrruptED]

Hmm since BB and Mercy have entered this thread, I shall refrain from replying/posting anymore (don't wanna get banned :p)

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Because you would have to stoop to that level?!? LOL Look at who the moderator is!

[Rooster]

It's ridiculous because it implies a form of neo-isolationism that is the antithesis to the world community being pursuded by most nations around the world-Dirge
But in the real world, isolationizm does not work, please see WWI and WWII. Coming in after the fact makes things 10x worse than handling the problem before hand.-Diesel

I believe that this is the main reason why we have to be in this struggle against terrorism. Isolationism does not and will not work. The world community is getting smaller and smaller through tech and we can not wait for "them" to come to us, we have to bring the fight to them. I told my friends (Dirge, Yankee, etc) before 9/11 that the US will support countries that fight terrorism but until the US is hit on it's own soil then will it actively pursue and hunt down the leaders and perps of terrorism. I am sure the SF have been in and around every major terror network for awhile and sending ground forces was just the next step. Striking them on their homeland ismuch better than fighting them on ours, which is exactly what would happen if we just sat back on our hands and did nothing.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

America has been (for the last 50 years or so) breaking out of it's isolationist past. This is a good thing, and has to happen to every major world power eventually. That it has taken 2 world wars, several military altercations, and the senseless deaths of Americans at work to bring us into the 20th century is sad, but is also now history.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

spark sits back.....sips a beverage...... and proceedes to LOL all the way back to work!!!

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

Originally posted by LA_MERC_Dirge
Very well then, I will give my best guess based on various readings and information from various sources of differing viewpoints.

1)
There are actually very solid links between Al Queda and Iraq and the disruption of a source for their empowerment can not be a bad thing. The same things were said after the Taliban was attacked. We have successfully prevented further action so far and moving forward with ever-increasing diligence in this regard we are preventing more attacks. Can we stop them all? Maybe, I hope so. The problem with Al Queda is the very real links to Iran. There is still hope that the democratic movements within that country will take hold and pre-empt action there.

What are these links to Al Queda? And if there are other countries more involved in terrorism why has Iraq come to the forefront?

The attack on the Taliban and Afghanistan is much different that an attack on Iraq. There was hard proof that the Taliban harbored and aided Al Queda.
However Iraq's involvement in terrorist activities (I mean this in the sense relative to our enemies, specifically those responsible for sept 11) doesn't seem to be substantiated, and if that is the case it cannot be the main reason for persuing our current policy. If the Bush adminstration wants fix an attack on Iraq in pretext of a "War on Terror" they should provide proof.
Furthermore, I would like to know how this war will effect our fight on terror specifically. Is it an important objective? Are there other more important objectives?



Actually the nuclear club is smaller than you think. Only a handful have thermonuclear weapons (US, France, Britain, Russia, China) and a small number more have nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea?). The main problem with nuclear weapons is knowedge of them. Their main purpose is twofold- 1) deterent to attack & 2) negotiating power The real threat and scare comes from countries that surreptitiously try to develop these weapons for some other reasons (e.g. terrorism or conquest).
Why has war become the only option in preventing him from building his aresenal of weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? He hasn't been sucessful in obtaining nuclear weapons nor has he been sucuessful in building a large chemical/biological aresenals in the 12 years since the Gulf War. Won't a watchful eye and further inspections can ensure this continues? As for what evidence we have found of WMD it seems paltry in comparision to what US intelligence has claimed they have and in comparions to other nations, which are actively building and maintaining arsenals of WMD.


We will never be completely safe, but a murderous dictator which holds us in contempt will have been deposed, so yes we will be safer on that level.
There are several of these in the world. What has pushed Saddam to the head of the class?



International Relations can be strained by the smallest of measures. The coalition building occurring shows that the majority of the world agrees on this item.

This I suppose needs some clarification. How will the attack upset the politics and operation of: the Middle East, Nato, the UN, and Europe. Don't discount the global anti-war movement.


This is interesting and will ultimately depend on whether Iraq uses the chemical and biological weapons he claims not to have. If he doesn't then expect something similar to the Gulf War with possibly higher numbers on the Allied side and much higher numbers on the enemy's side.
100,000 Iraqi soldiers died - civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000
US: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths (plus another 65 from other forces).
The above numbers are from CNN, but a debate rages over actual numbers. Does this sort of an estimate take in to account that we will be pursuing Saddam's forces until he is overthrown? I haven't heard much on this from the Bush Administration.


Look towards Afghanistan for this model. Expect a democracy to be formed. There is some debate and speculation at this point as to whom exactly this may be, but one thing is certain: it will not be an easy process and will require assistance. As far as cost: After every war the USA has been in, they have been the biggest rebuilders of the conquered nations.

By deficit spending I would like you to clarify your questions further.

Afghanistan at best is politically unstable. Granted democracies are not built over-night, but is it our now our policy to oversee the democratization of all our enemies? Can we handle this task in multiple countries? How will this affect Iraq's oil production? (An important question b/c of the importance of Iraqui oil to the rest of the world.)

Do we have the money we need? Where will it come from? Does Bush's domestic economic plan mesh with his foreign policy plan?



This change in policy is significant and was first made in the September 20th speech to the joint session of Congress. The level of seriousness was established when bombs began to destroy the Taliban. It is what some have felt as a necessary reaction to the current threats facing civilization. And do not believe America has not attacked without being struck first. There have been a couple of occasions in our history.

I realize this isn't the first time we are striking first, but it seems that the administration wants to write this into policy rather take things on a case by case basis. A policy of preemption is a much different situation than a handful of preemptive attacks. How does this change former policies and how will it affect our place in the wolrd?

Where does the over-riding necessity for war come from? The list of reasons so far are present in many nations and too a much higher degree of danger.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Big Easy, it has been documented by several about the very close ties between Iraq and Al Queda. David Rose from the Vanity Fair wrote an extensive, detailed article about their close ties. I would link to it, but you have to pay for it. Just a part was the hundreds of meetings between the 9/11 operatives and Iraqi intelligence agents working in the United Arab Emirates. Secretary Powell further shed light with his presentation to the United Nations on these two bedfellows.

We could dance around all day on this if you keep answering with questions. Throw out YOUR best guess on what you think may happen or counterargue against sopme of the points I have made. It's easy to just ask another question.

Your policy of containment is one that is easy to get lost in... until the containment is finally broken. When that happens the preemptive cost will always be less than the final cost.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Something else... Why do you believe the rest of the countries in the coalition are with us? There is a clear and present danger to humanity and civilization present in front of us. while by no means the only despicable regime or government in the world. Even the greatest building is built first from the ground up. Can we ever get there? Who knows? Do we have an obligation to try? Yes.

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

I ask questions b/c I want to better understand your view point, and the burden of proof should lie with those wanting to bring this war on Iraq.

And frankly, I'm not convinced. There certainly is a clear and present danger to society in "terrorism" -- does Iraq typify this danger ... I think only partially so. And there are certainly other countries who typify this danger to more dangerous degrees. I would like to read the article you mentioned or anything other info you have on the "strong" links between Al Queda and Iraq.

I don't expect you to sufficently answer all my questions, but I would like to see our administration do it. But I don't think they have and I am not alone.

[Disorder]

i dont like these threads. dirge has an outrageous amount of knowledge on the current world situations so this doesnt totally apply to him cause hes proved that he has a pretty good idea of whats going on. i have yet to see anyone be it on a forum, media, radio, etc, truly know what they are talking about. trust the people running the country sending your borthers, sisters, cousins, whatever into the field and stop acting like you are an expert on iraq, afghanistan, korea, because you watched a cnn documentary or something.

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

*I play Dirge's sound file*
Jeesh...someday, unfortunately, something will happen
that will cause this generation to wake up, respect what
those before us did to fight for the "world's" freedom, and
bring a call to national pride!
Not to have the people that whine, "why do we have to do this"
So when they detonate VX gas in downtown NYC, they say Sadaam wouldn't do that to us he only does that to Iraqi's that want to rise up against his tyrany. OMFG turn on the lights, don't let your political biasness, and your hope for 2004 blind our national security.

P.S. I know it may be hard to remember for you but we are at war with terrorism, and all those who support it.
-financially
-physically
-and emotionally.

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

Good statement Disorder.

Hey Big Easy

why don't you look at Disorder and Rooster's post.
These are men that are there and have been there.
These are the people of the red,white,and blue!
Again guys thanks for your service and courage!

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

Rooster's post was directed towards someone else's comments and I do not subscribe to a policy of Isolationism.

And I am not claiming to be an expert on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Though I will not blindly trust any administration based on the general idea "they know what they are doing". I will continue my search for information.

Please do not label me unpatriotic b/c I disaggree with you, the current administration, or the right wing. It is my right as an American citzen to do so.

[LA_MERC_LaTech]

Blind trust of ANY organization is not right, I agree. As they say on the radio "Trust no-one"

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

You can trust me! lol Hey big easy I take it that you were similarly opposed to action in Kosovo and Somalia? What about the invasion of Southern Iraq after Kuwait was liberated? Seems the situations in those were about as well known factually as the current if not less so.

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

The following link contains a letter of resignation from John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Read it ... don't read it, but it is a good summary of objections to this war.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

LMAO No offense, but that is a laughable effort by a blind idealist.

1) To attempt to portray us an imperialistically driven force- preposterous. Raise a shred of evidence where we have done this. In fact there are tons of times when we have not.

2) We are blind as Russia is to Chechnya and Israel to the occupied territories? If you mean protecting ourselves from murderous terrorist regimes, then count me among the blind. I guarantee I won't go in a ditch.

The sad thing is that this guy really means well, but he has lived in self-denial so long he cannot see the forest for the trees. I GUARANTEE you this is an ardent supporter of Jimmy Carter and loudly spplause his laughable receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize. Give me a break! While this guy is at it, why doesn't he move to France or one of the countries he agrees with? He sure doesn't care enough to try to stick around and make a difference for "his" country.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

And that's just a quick off the cuff response... I gott go EAT!

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

I heard a great response last night from a WWII vet:
"Freedom is not free, it cost lives, money, and heartache; and it is worth every bit"

So many people always want something for nothing!!!!!
Peace, Protection, and sense of mind are not found by ignoring what is in front of you that just makes it hurt worse when it slaps you!

So many times it is this "x" generation, which has not had to work at any of this, they say "lets protest war, its so bad and some one might get hurt (in a baby whine tone), but it would never be me because I am too much of a wussy to ever even care about my country." So many times I am embarressed to be associated with this generation, who could not even hold our forefathers jocks!!!!!!:mad:
My answer is just like Dirge said, that guy can go to France cause we don't need ya!

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

To attempt to portray us an imperialistically driven force- preposterous. Raise a shred of evidence where we have done this. In fact there are tons of times when we have not.

1. Is not the "You are either with us or against us" attitude put forth by this administration coupled with our ecomonic foregin ploicy (by this I mean our foriegn adie spending) an establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations?


We are blind as Russia is to Chechnya and Israel to the occupied territories? If you mean protecting ourselves from murderous terrorist regimes, then count me among the blind. I guarantee I won't go in a ditch
2. His point that is agressive military action has not solved the problem of terrorism in eithero fthose situation. Advice we have given to both Russia and Israel.


The policies being currently pursued in my mind will not make the world a safer place. Instead I fear it will only make the world more unstable.


Oh and yes Diesel you are right. I oppose the war because I am lazy, scared, and unmaly. How do you know me so well? [/sarcasm]

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

Originally posted by [Cajun] BigEasy
Instead I fear it will only make the world more unstable.

Are you scared??? Trust me it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure you out. So when the Clinton admin started the ball rolling on our current foriegn policy and he turned a blind eye toward terrorism, did you feal the same way then???
Good thing you live in a city that they would never commit a terrorist act in, I am sure the tail b/w the legs theory will work just fine for you.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

Hey big easy, your questiopns remind me of a question I asked you earlier.
"I take it that you were similarly opposed to action in Kosovo and Somalia? What about the invasion of Southern Iraq after Kuwait was liberated? Seems the situations in those were about as well known factually as the current if not less so."

And as for your implications of political and economic hegemony over other nations... That does not imply imperialism. Imperialism implies taking over other countries and adding them to your own in their entirety. Reference the Roman empire, British empire, etc...

And as far as Russia and Israel, yes those are military actions, but they are defensive actions and limited. Both their hands stayed against further violence and are paid back in kind with more violence. I presume you would rather let the violence committed against those countries in the first place stand?

[bighead]

All i say is... Erase the Hate :C)

[[Cajun] BigEasy]

Diesel, How you derive, "Let's welcome terrorists into the US" from "I do not think we should go to war with Iraq" illustrates you are missing (chosing?) to ignore a major part of my arguement. It's an insult to claim that I have no iterest in protecting this country and preventing further terrorist attacks. I don't feel the administration has provided enough proof to undertake this war in the pretext of our fight against Terrorism. Further more I feel that labeling and pursuing our enemies like Iraq as part of the war on terrorism may only serve to strengthen groups like Al Queda. They feed off of anti-americanism. I ask you is pursuing a war that is creating anti-american senitiment amoung our allies a wise choice? What affect will this war have on our enemies? I fear that it will serve to galvanize terrorism.



Dirge, the defintion of imperialism includes the context which I used and I believe it is that definition that applies to the article I linked.

The impending war in Iraq holds vastly different consequences than the conflicts in Somalia and Bosnia.

I do not condone the violence of the terrorists. And yes at times the actions of Israel and Russia have been limited and defensive. But also they have branched out and become more aggressive. In either case the violence has not stopped. The cycle just continues. But also keep in mind that their situations differs from ours.

Let it be known that I hold no ill will towards any of you. In fact I like all of you. It is a pleasure to visit these forums everyday,and to play on your server. I'm sure it will also be a pleasure possibly attend Armegeddon (those plans are in the works - provided you don't quartantine me to a liberals only section :P ) I can sense temperatures rising and I don't want that to happen.

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

No dislike or hate here, I am just feeling the pain of your yearning to learn the truth, to step into the light. lol

I disagree with not only your definition of imperialism, but your views you have of the Us's "economic and political hegemony." But that is something we could debate all day.

As far as Bosnia and Somalia... You had stated before that you did not see any reason to go into Iraq. This was based on no ties to Al Queda, no imminent threat to the USA, etc.. Were those reasons there with either Somalia or Bosnia? And the consequences to those conflicts were not so vastly different as you believe. Fears of destabilization in the Middle East exist as they did in Africa and Bosnia! In fact more human rights atrocities occurr in Africa than almost anywhere else in the world. The threat of destabilization is a hyped up myth evidince by the support the coalition has in the Arab league AND OPEC! The only destabilization risks are asssuaged by Israel's nuclear power. Remember, the same "fear" arguments were made before Afghanistan. Now it is not to say Afghanistan is now an idyllic place, but it is 1000x better than it was. That is unless you like foster hate, turn soccer stadiums into public executions, and stone women for wlaking down the street alone or trying to read...

[LA_MERC_Diesel]

You are right Big E, there are no hard feelings, it is the great part about this country, maybe those in Iraq will have that oppertunity as well, you are allowed to voice your opinions!!

I just hope the first site we attack is the oil refinery, that several american anti-war protesters have positioned themselves as "human shields", or hold them when they return for treason.
As that is crossing the line from free speach to suport for the enemy.
Hope they wore Target Department Store shirts. :devil

[CrAzYbOnEs]

LOL where was i in all of this. i didnt read half of the post cause u guys type to much and its really late. but i think cajun has dirge running for his money in this post hahahaha. hes much more caught up in this discussion than i was . woot woot. go cajun go! lol whatever happens , happens. im still gonna live my life and hopefully enjoy it.even if i have to pay $1.75 for gas

[LA_MERC_Dirge]

weeee Who me?

[Rooster]

I say the people who are there as "human shields" should be treated as such. A shield is there to block a blow from an opponent, so let them see if they can block a cruise missile. I have no compassion for poeple who do crap like that, you wanna be there? Fine, don't come runnin back with your panties around your ankles saying you gotta booboo. You know the risks, suffer the consequences.

[LA_MERC_Spark]

thought those human shield freaks came back..... claimed they didnt have enough people involved....

[Rooster]

https://www.disasteralert.com/join.asp
what kinda crap is this?

[Rooster]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/2020/iraq030310_poll.html

God I love this country.

"We don't need anyone's permission" Big G.W.

[Lt.Dan]

hey that phone alert thing is kinda cool, i think I am going to sign up for it, now maybe my cell phone will ring and people will think I am important, " wow look at him, he is getting a phone call, and it looks important, we should go and talk to him and offer our selfs as his servents , " :))))))