The reason I now support war

Blindfaith · Feb 25, 2003

[nodis][/nodis]

If anyone has a problem with the decisions of the/a moderator, take it to the pm system.

Aurelius, your post has been edited and a warning issued.

Anyone else?

Red Panda · Feb 25, 2003

Can I ask a question about this?

I didn't read the preceding debate, I mean a question about this policy.

If someone disagrees with the politics, religious belief, views on evolution, etc. of a staff member, that's OK to do in the public forums. Right? I mean, the staff member is just another participant in the discussion under those circumstances.

It's just when the staff member is acting in an official capacity that the "no disagreements" rule is in effect.

Do I have that right? Or have I left part of it out?

Cheers. :wave:

David Gould · Feb 25, 2003

I have followed the debate with interest.

However, I have three points I would like to raise.

In relation to the motives of Bush and co, oil is indeed a major factor in the decision to attack Iraq.

While the US gets much of its oil from Saudi Arabia, this country can no longer be trusted to be friendly to the US. Much of the fundamentalist networks through South East Asia receive funding directly from the Saudis. The Taliban was financed with Saudi money and the Taliban modelled their morality police off the Saudis.

In addition, read up a little on the oil interests of the Bush family. They have a long history in this area.

I should also add that the motives of France and Russia in opposing this war are heavily tainted by their significant oil contracts with the current Iraqi regime, contracts unlikely to be honoured if Saddam goes.

 

My second point is that my support for the war stems totally from the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein.

The argument that I should be more concerned with other nations in this regard is a spurious one. There is the chance now that, for other reasons, Saddam will be dealt with. I am not willing to let that chance go just because the removal of other dictators would help more people and is more urgently required.

The US is not going to make a stand against human rights abuses in China, for example.

It is not going to bother doing anything about Mugabwe.

But Saddam is a different story. In this regard, my interests and those of Bush and co coincide. As such, I support the war.

 

Diplomacy has been suggested as a means of getting Saddam to stop killing his own people.

I would be interested to hear a few suggestions as to how exactly this could be done, especially as the UN would not back it as China and Russia have the veto and are both guilty of human rights abuses of the vilest type.

Zoe Girl · Feb 25, 2003

I think the misunderstanding here boils down to this.  You are thinking that I am labeling all the anti-war protestors as being anti-Bush, and if I wasn't clear then I apologize.  I was speaking of the people I go to school with and the rallies they have been attending.  I have been listening (for the past several weeks) to them complaining about what a bad president he is, and how no one even likes him, and how Clinton was the best, and that they would never support Bush.  They have said things that I refuse to repeat (and I'm sure would be edited out anyway), they say that they, along with the entire country, hate Bush, they say that this country has gone down hill since Bush became president, and that we're in the worst place we've ever been in because of him.  It just goes on and on and on...  I'm also not speaking of every single person at my school, I'm talking about the 40 or so that I spend every day with.  It's one thing to think you know what someone you don't even know is saying, it's another to listen to the same people over and over.  I have a pretty good idea what they believe.

For the bigger picture, I have issues with the anti-war protestors (especially the celebrities) who are doing the same thing, just saying very anti-Bush and anti-America things that really are uncalled for.  If they are going to be anti-war, tell me why!  (As for this specific forum, I know that there are a lot of anti-war people who have valid reasons, and I respect those, and share many of the same opinions-but I still have been leaning more to the pro-war side.  Just because I'm for the war doesn't mean that I don't share the same concerns as those who are against it.)   

As far as Rush Limbaugh, if you really want to know what he thinks, go to his website and find out.  His point (as is what I was noticing at school- hence me saying I was right) is that a lot of the protestors are holding up signs with derogatory terms on them about Bush, or disfigured pictures.  They have nothing to do with war, and they have nothing to do with opposing Bush's policies, they are just plain mean (and their argument loses complete credibility with me.)  Also, as has already been stated in a different thread, Clinton bombed Bosnia and Sudan, and he said it was necessary to stop Saddam.  Where were these people then?  They weren't protesting wars then, because Clinton could do no wrong in their eyes.  When I said I was right, it was because I meant that my suspicions were right about their motives (the people in my class).  I didn't mean that all protestors are anti-Bush. 

And I'm not assuming that they are all liberals.  I know they are.  They have told me they are, and likewise just assumed that I am too.  (Again I'm just speaking about the people in my class.)

I do think it is possible to be anti-war and not anti-Bush, my brother being the perfect example.  But I think I can conclude (and maybe I'm wrong) that when your reasons for being anti-war are because you think Bush is greedy for oil, or because Bush shouldn't be president to begin with (going all the way back to the election), or if you didn't have any complaints about Clinton's decisions to  bomb other countries, etc., that your reasons are ultimately anti-Bush.

About the objectivity of it all, I didn't say that, my brother did, and I think it was also a result of all the other conversations we had on the topic as well as this one.  I could have easily just said, well, yeah I like Bush so I'm going all out for this war (or I hate Bush so I'm going to protest), but I didn't.  His point was that I thought it through, and looked at both sides, and found more reasons for me to support the war than not.

Like I said before, I wasn't specifically looking at the pros and cons of this thread, I was looking at the pros and cons I've seen in my day to day life with the people I interact with.  I was just contributing to the thread by saying what it was that made me decide to support the war.  Some of my points do coincide with some of the points made on this thread.

I think because you misunderstood who I was talking about that you assumed I was labeling them unfairly.  I was just telling how it is in my class.  They haven't said anything negative about the war, its all been about Bush.  They proudly say they hate Bush, it's just when they go out into the community that they change it to being anti-war.

I didn't think telling everyone that my brother was anti-war was necessary in that post (in the name of objectivity.)

Jerry Smith · Feb 25, 2003

I would be interested to hear a few suggestions as to how exactly this could be done, especially as the UN would not back it as China and Russia have the veto and are both guilty of human rights abuses of the vilest type.

Exactly. If we are to solve the problems of all the world, then we must act consistently. We can't invade small and relatively helpless HR abuser A, while giving large and powerful HR abuser B most favored nation trading status. Whatever diplomatic efforts have hope to succeed (and therefore will work in the long term in Iraq), must be applied to HR abuses in China, Russia, and anywhere they take place, including our own back yard. When these do work, and we have HR friendly regimes in China, Russia, and in our own back yard, or at least have appropriate sanctions against the HR unfriendly regimes that we are most involved with, then we can attempt to export this sensibility to Iraq. To try to bomb HR abuses away in just those countries small enough to pose no military threat and those which have high oil-yields is to become the neighborhood holier-than-thou bully, and to be despised by the world. When that happens, the next weak oil bearing regime that flouts human rights (likely as not, the successor to Iraq's current regime) will not be a viable target for human-rights-invasion, because the "coalition" will then be against us, and un-willing to see us continue the course. We will be the subject of their sanctions or bombs.

Human rights diplomacy is probably the most difficult kind to implement. I believe that making our friendly economic relationship with China hinge on HR baby step improvements has ameliorated the situation somewhat in China, and has the potential to continue to move China in the right direction. I once knew a fellow who had been "re-educated" during the cultural revolution of the 70's. You don't see that happening now. It's progress.

Maybe we have to be satisfied with a little bit of progress with our nearest (economic or political) neighbors during the short run, in order to hope for larger gains with them, and the start of the process with nations we are currently hostile to.

NOTE: The term "oil" as used above is used in reply to David Gould's post, and as a proxy for a more descriptive phrase, such as 'all of the U.S.'s motives that are ulterior and/or cynical'. I DO NOT mean to reduce the U.S. motivation to nothing more than control of petroleum production.

David Gould · Feb 25, 2003

I certainly want something done about China and Russia and so on.

But I cannot see that as a legitimate argument for sitting around and doing nothing about human rights abuses that are occurring now in Iraq.

I also do not see that the "consistency" argument carries much weight. The situation with Iraq is different to that of China - Iraq is hated and is weak; thus, a military solution is viable now. Waiting for a diplomatic solution to become viable for Iraq means ignoring the tortures, deaths, rapes and so on that are occuring now.

China is not weak; thus, a military solution is not viable. However, a diplomatic one may be.

I can see the argument that a military solution in Iraq might do more harm than good, short term and long term.

But on balance and after thinking about it I think that not going to war will do more harm than good, short term and long term.

 

As an example, Afghan women are (in Kabul and Khandahar at least) a lot better off now than they were under the Taliban. To me, that is worth the 2,000 - 3,400 civilian civilain lives lost in the war.

War and its horrible costs were justified in that case (imo).

I think that they are again.

 

Outspoken · Feb 25, 2003

"But I cannot see that as a legitimate argument for sitting around and doing nothing about human rights abuses that are occurring now in Iraq.
"

china? What is usuallyl done is the application of political pressure to cause human rights to take effect.

ACougar · Feb 25, 2003

20th February 2003 at 10:16 PM David Gould said this in Post #5

Yes, there is potential for negative outcomes. But by what alternative would you prevent Saddam Hussein from ordering the torture, rape and murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of his own citizens over the next 5 years?

My reasoning is that if Saddam Hussein is no longer in power he will not be able to do things like that. Any alternative ruler is likely to be more benevolent that Hussein, given how bad that guy is. 

I on the other hand expect to see a struggle for power that will cost even more lives.  Who will assume the mantle of power once the Sunni Muslims and thier Baath party have been evicted?  I hope and pray I'm wrong, however if I am not hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost in the ensuing struggle. 

 

David Gould · Feb 25, 2003

Today at 03:06 PM ACougar said this in Post #48

I on the other hand expect to see a struggle for power that will cost even more lives.  Who will assume the mantle of power once the Sunni Muslims and thier Baath party have been evicted?  I hope and pray I'm wrong, however if I am not hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost in the ensuing struggle. 

 

Better the devil you know - is that it?

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/9CA0159B2008093B8025690000692FA3?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/B2272F921B65274B80256A2A003B34E8?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/167B2399A6F1C6BF80256AA8003BF823?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/49C75C9198197C82802569000069324E?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/78B6C1C0DB27CAD180256900006931D0?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

Just so Amnesty's position is clear:

Amnesty International's position on military intervention in Iraq

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Amnesty International wants to see a dramatic improvement in Iraq's deplorable record of systematic human rights violations. Grave abuses of human rights are taking place today in all regions of the world. We cannot choose to be outraged about some situations while ignoring others. The international community should pursue solutions which lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering.[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Amnesty International neither condemned nor supported the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan and our position is the same with respect to Iraq.[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]While our general policy is never to comment on whether the use of military force is justified or appropriate, we do comment on whether human rights and humanitarian law are being respected in the way a conflict is fought. We also oppose supply or sale of weapons, military equipment and military training to any government forces or armed group likely to be involved in human rights violations. [/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]Amnesty International calls on all governments and armed groups to ensure that the protection of civilians is paramount and that the human rights and humanitarian impact of any actions are carefully considered. We ask that due consideration be given to exploring all diplomatic and judicial avenues.[/font]

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]

 [/font]http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/BAF119108871E71580256C3E0068A25B?Open&Highlight=2,Iraq

Amnesty are annoyed by the fact that so little attention has been given in the past to human rights abuses in Iraq. They are also very worried about the suffering that any conflict will cause.

However, from the information they and others have provided I have come to the conclusion that there is not much that can be worse than rule by Saddam Hussein.

Even a civil war looks a jolly nice time by comparison, to tell you the truth ...

Outspoken · Feb 26, 2003

Amnisty internation is a little biased at times on getting their own agenda done.

Jerry Smith · Feb 26, 2003

Yesterday at 09:25 PM David Gould said this in Post #46

I certainly want something done about China and Russia and so on.

But I cannot see that as a legitimate argument for sitting around and doing nothing about human rights abuses that are occurring now in Iraq.

I also do not see that the "consistency" argument carries much weight. The situation with Iraq is different to that of China - Iraq is hated and is weak; thus, a military solution is viable now. Waiting for a diplomatic solution to become viable for Iraq means ignoring the tortures, deaths, rapes and so on that are occuring now.

China is not weak; thus, a military solution is not viable. However, a diplomatic one may be.

I can see the argument that a military solution in Iraq might do more harm than good, short term and long term.

But on balance and after thinking about it I think that not going to war will do more harm than good, short term and long term.

 

As an example, Afghan women are (in Kabul and Khandahar at least) a lot better off now than they were under the Taliban. To me, that is worth the 2,000 - 3,400 civilian civilain lives lost in the war.

War and its horrible costs were justified in that case (imo).

I think that they are again.

 

I think you did a lot toward supporting the "consistency" argument yourself in this post. It's true that "waiting" for a diplomatic solution to become viable means "ignoring" current abuses in Iraq. In much the same way, invading Iraq now because they are weaker than other abusers and because it suits our other interest means "ignoring" current abuses everywhere else around the world, and ignoring future abuses in Iraq and around the world, with our diplomatic hands tied. Ignoring the consistent diplomatic means we have at our disposal to address human rights issues around the world and especially with our bed-mates, while undertaking military intervention in an isolated case where our motivations are clearly not to correct human rights abuses robs us of any credibility. We lose credibility for human rights diplomacy, tying our hands around the world. We lose credibility for military intervention, tying our hands possibly against real aggression against us, or making our own defense more difficult. The rest of the world sees we don't care about human rights and increases their abuse. Saddam Hussein's successor knows that America does not have the political capital to excersise any kind of sanctions against his abuses, and has a blank check to torture and kill his own people at will. In a nation so ethnically and religiously divided, where western civil liberties are foreign, this is a recipe for disaster. And the U.S. will no longer have the moral authority or diplomatic credibility to say a word about it, or anything else happening to innocents around the world.

Nelzador · Feb 26, 2003

The issue of Iraq really should address a wider problem here and that's U.S. foreign policy, which is the bone of contention for many "un-friendly" nations opposed to the U.S. and its involvement on the world stage. Now I try and be as objective as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of war. In the case of Saddam Hussein, he's a leader whom the West used to love. A man the governments of America & Britain did good business with at the height of his human rights abuses during the Iran/Iraq war. Our governments of yester year are not without blame for helping to shape the political map of that region today. The problem is, are we doing the right thing by solving it with war, when war has in the past failed to bring about the change expected? For example, all the analysts said at the end of the Gulf War, that Saddam would be toppled in a coup. Well, it's not happened yet.

On the other hand, we can look back with as much anger and annoyance as we like at the way our governments handled Hussein in the past, but it doesn't change the reality of our position today. He is an enemy of our governments and he would, given the chance, use his position to bolster his forces and develop WMDs with designs on becoming the ultimate power of the Middle-East, which has always been his position. Effectively, what Bush & Blair are doing is rounding off 12 years of stalemate.

On a different front, I watched an interview with a woman who escaped from Iraq and she said that probably 90% of the Iraqi people would welcome a military invasion. The problem she said, is the military are so ruthless in their treatment of the Iraqi people. Apparently, when demonstrations have been made against Saddam, the Iraqi military goes into villages and burns them all to the ground as punishment, so when you see people cheering Saddam on, they do it out of fear, not out of loyalty. She also said that her Aunt tried to escape Iraq and the military caught her on the border and captured her. They killed her three year old son by setting fire to him and then they raped her and set fire to her. They do it by rubbing gasoline over the stomach and setting fire to that part, so that death takes slightly longer and obviously is more painful. She concluded by saying that Saddam has probably had executed nearly half a million dissidents since he came to power.

Do weapons inspectors have mandate to inspect mass graves or interview torture victims?

ACougar · Feb 26, 2003

Yesterday at 11:04 PM David Gould said this in Post #49

Better the devil you know - is that it?

There is no bout that he's a devil, however I just don't see who they can put in power that will be much better.  A John Doe Hussain, an Ayatola, a Kurdish Warlord, there isn't really any acceptable alternative that I can think off except one.  The only way to leave Iraq better than we found it would be to occupy the country for at least a decade and establish a constitutional republic.

Just so Amnesty's position is clear:

Amnesty are annoyed by the fact that so little attention has been given in the past to human rights abuses in Iraq. They are also very worried about the suffering that any conflict will cause.

Amnesty International is a great organization that really does a lot for human rights world wide.  No doubt thay would like to see Sadam out of power like the rest of us. 

However, from the information they and others have provided I have come to the conclusion that there is not much that can be worse than rule by Saddam Hussein.

Even a civil war looks a jolly nice time by comparison, to tell you the truth ...

I fully agree with you on the short term, I simply have some reservaions regarding the long term results of our action there.

Aurelius · Feb 26, 2003

Finally, some clarification!

I think the misunderstanding here boils down to this. You are thinking that I am labeling all the anti-war protestors as being anti-Bush, and if I wasn't clear then I apologize. I was speaking of the people I go to school with and the rallies they have been attending.

Great. Now we know what you mean. Thankyou.

For the bigger picture, I have issues with the anti-war protestors (especially the celebrities) who are doing the same thing, just saying very anti-Bush and anti-America things that really are uncalled for.

Celebrities are not exactly known for their superior knowledge of global politics.

Although I'm curious to know how you define "saying very anti-America things."

If they are going to be anti-war, tell me why! (As for this specific forum, I know that there are a lot of anti-war people who have valid reasons, and I respect those, and share many of the same opinions-but I still have been leaning more to the pro-war side. Just because I'm for the war doesn't mean that I don't share the same concerns as those who are against it.)

Fine.

Would you like to talk about the legitimate reasons people have for opposing the war?

As far as Rush Limbaugh, if you really want to know what he thinks, go to his website and find out.

I did. He thinks that it's perfectly legitimate for him to accuse France of being opposed to the war on the basis of her oil interests, but that it's nonsensical for anyone to suggest that the same motive might also be playing an important part in America's current stance.

As it happens, I agree that France is motivated by her oil interests. However, there is a large body of solid, irrefutable evidence which demonstrates that the same motivation is one of the larger factors behind America's pro-war position.

Limbaugh also makes much of Chirac's relationship with Hussein, and accuses France of helping Hussein to build WMD in the past. This is probably quite true. However, it is equally true that the same assistance was provided by America, who supported him against Iran.

Here is an excerpt from a fascinating news article which was published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian on February 25, 1998:

"In the early 1980s the Reagan administration chose to support Iraq over Iran in their bloody war. Neither country was exactly an ally, but the White House considered Iran the worse of the two nations, and cold war politics (along with a U.S. desire to maintain control of oil supplies in the Middle East) put us on the side of Iraq.

In accordance with a long and continuing tradition and policy, that meant the U.S. would arm Iraq to the teeth -- without much concern for the long-term consequences.

According to a 1990 report, 'The Poison Gas Connection,' issued by the L.A.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, more than 207 companies from 21 western countries, including at least 18 from the United States, contributed to the buildup of Saddam Hussein's arsenal. Subsequent investigations turned up more than 100 more companies participating in the Iraqi weapons buildup.

The frontline cheerleader for America's corporate contributors to Saddam, the man who paved the way for Iraq to purchase millions of dollars worth of weapons and dangerous dual-use technology from U.S. corporations, was none other than the architect of Gulf War I, former president George Bush.

In a stunning July 27, 1992, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, House Banking Committee chair Henry Gonzalez drove the Bush connection home in no uncertain terms:

'The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories,' Gonzalez said. 'Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.'

Gonzalez, who was accused by administration officials of jeopardizing national security for going public with his gritty revelations, also stated: 'The president misled Congress and the public about the role U.S. firms played in arming Iraq.'

Documents gathered by Gonzalez and other independent investigators show that despite U.S. intelligence reports dating back to 1983 documenting Saddam's mass gassing of the Kurds and Iranians in the ongoing Iran-Iraq war, Bush pressed for support of the Iraqis. In a damning Oct. 21, 1989, cable from Secretary of State James Baker to then Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, only a year after the mass gassing of the Kurds, Baker assured the Iraqis that the United States was very eager for a close working relationship with Saddam Hussein. 'As I said in our meeting,' Baker wrote, 'the U.S. seeks a broadened and deepened relationship with Iraq on the basis of mutual respect. That is the policy of our president.'"

The full article can be found here: http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

It is important to realise that I do not actually care who was president at this time. History relates that it was George Bush Sr, but as far as I am concerned, that's just an interesting piece of information. As an Australian, the political leanings of the president in question are totally irrelevant to me. So please understand that this is not about George Bush Sr, but about the previous support for Iraq (and supply of Hussein's war programme) by the United States of America.

You might also be interested in this citation from a Newsweek article, which was later quoted in a Congressional Record in September, 2002:

"The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe.

It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened.

America's past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the 'grave and gathering danger' described by President Bush in his speech to the United Nations last week. It may also be true that 'whoever replaces Saddam is not going to be worse,' as a senior administration official put it to Newsweek.

But the story of how America helped create a Frankenstein monster it now wishes to strangle is sobering. It illustrates the power of wishful thinking, as well as the iron law of unintended consequences."

The entire document (complete with the Congressional Record) may be viewed here: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

You will see that I have highlighted the essential points. I have done this partly to bring them to your attention and partly to remind you that this is not about politics qua politics. I am not looking to pin the blame on any politician in particular. That is not a goal which falls within the purview of my argument.

In other words, this is not about whether the Republicans are better than the Democrats or vice versa, but about the simple fact that America supplied Hussein with many of the weapons she is now asking him to destroy. Britain, France and Germany (whose involvement was extraordinarily high) were also contributors to Hussein's little arsenal.

But it was the Americans who (during the Clinton administration) supplied the bacteria with which Iraq was able to produce her own biological weapons. Newsmax reported on that story (here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/23/213349.shtml) making much of the Clinton connection, as you would expect. But for me the issue is not about personalities; it's about the actions of the past and their role in creating the crisis of the present.

To cut a long story short, this means that when Mr Limbaugh points his finger at France (and quite legitimately too, I might add), he should realise that in doing so, he points a number of fingers directly back at the USA (and quite legitimately, too.)

So you see, I'm not really interested in playing the "Who's more to blame?" game. I just don't like hypocrisy.

Aurelius · Feb 26, 2003

Continuing my response to Zoe:

His point (as is what I was noticing at school- hence me saying I was right) is that a lot of the protestors are holding up signs with derogatory terms on them about Bush, or disfigured pictures. They have nothing to do with war, and they have nothing to do with opposing Bush's policies, they are just plain mean (and their argument loses complete credibility with me.)

In the latter section of your post, you provide evidence that these people are definitely anti-Bush, so that's fine and I accept that they are.

But believe it or not, some people will do what they have done even when they don't really hate the person who's face they're um... defacing. Politicians are figureheads, and when their causes suffer, their reputations suffer. People like to grab hold of symbols to take their frustration out on, and a poster with a politician's head on it is a very powerful symbol indeed.

Here in Australia I have seen people defacing the posters of politicians for whom they voted in the last election and will vote for again in the next. It doesn't mean that they're directly opposed to those politicians qua politicians, but only that they're currently enraged by the decisions of those men (and women.) I have even seen fervent patriots burning their own flag in a fit of pique.

So not everybody who defaces a poster is necessarily anti-Bush/Blair/Howard, although I agree that many of them probably are.

Also, as has already been stated in a different thread, Clinton bombed Bosnia and Sudan, and he said it was necessary to stop Saddam.

This is true, and I addressed it on another thread.

Where were these people then? They weren't protesting wars then, because Clinton could do no wrong in their eyes. When I said I was right, it was because I meant that my suspicions were right about their motives (the people in my class). I didn't mean that all protestors are anti-Bush.

I don't know where these people were then. Some of them might actually have been protesting against Clinton and Blair's decision. But it is important to take note of the vast differences between Clinton and Blair's offensive, and the one which is currently proposed by Clinton and Blair.

You can review these vast differences here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=675006#post675006

I do think it is possible to be anti-war and not anti-Bush, my brother being the perfect example. But I think I can conclude (and maybe I'm wrong) that when your reasons for being anti-war are because you think Bush is greedy for oil

No, that is not my only reason. It is one of my reasons, and it is not even the primary reason. Also, I have good reason to believe that oil is playing a very important part in this war; not only for France but also for America.

Ralph Nader has made this very clear, as someone already pointed out on the forum, here: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/36225.html

If you're not keen on Nader, I have no doubt that there's a wealth of alternative information sources which will confirm the point in no uncertain terms. A Salon.com article (here: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/02/04/bush_oil/) presents a fair summary of the issue, while Britain's Guardian newspaper argues that Kuwaiti oil (not Iraqi oil) is the actual target (here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html) Of these two, I find the Salon.com article far more realistic.

I also have a Pravda article which addresses this question, but I'm not sure if Pravda is really your cup of tea.

or because Bush shouldn't be president to begin with (going all the way back to the election)

Excuse me, but I'm an Australian. I have absolutely no personal interest in any of your country's politicians. I didn't vote in your election, and just for the record, I believe that Bush won it legitimately.

or if you didn't have any complaints about Clinton's decisions to bomb other countries, etc., that your reasons are ultimately anti-Bush.

No, it is a gross oversimplification to say that if I didn't have any complaints about Clinton's actions, I must necessarily be anti-Bush. This allegation fails to address the political complexities of either case. Also, Operation Desert Fox was not just a Clinton offensive, it was a Clinton/Blair offensive. Clinton is not the issue here; the offensive itself is.

And as I said before, you can see my post on the subject (here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=675006#post675006) if you're interested in knowing why I supported Desert Fox while opposing the current offensive.

About the objectivity of it all, I didn't say that, my brother did, and I think it was also a result of all the other conversations we had on the topic as well as this one.

Fine.

I could have easily just said, well, yeah I like Bush so I'm going all out for this war (or I hate Bush so I'm going to protest), but I didn't. His point was that I thought it through, and looked at both sides, and found more reasons for me to support the war than not.

The problem is that I saw no evidence that you had looked at both sides. In your email you only presented one side of the story without addressing the international politics (or any other significant factor) relating to the issue.

Like I said before, I wasn't specifically looking at the pros and cons of this thread, I was looking at the pros and cons I've seen in my day to day life with the people I interact with. I was just contributing to the thread by saying what it was that made me decide to support the war. Some of my points do coincide with some of the points made on this thread.

I think because you misunderstood who I was talking about that you assumed I was labeling them unfairly. I was just telling how it is in my class. They haven't said anything negative about the war, its all been about Bush. They proudly say they hate Bush, it's just when they go out into the community that they change it to being anti-war.

Yes, I think I misunderstood you, and for that I apologise. A little more clarity from both us would have helped, I think.

I didn't think telling everyone that my brother was anti-war was necessary in that post (in the name of objectivity.)

It would have been better for you to do that, just so we knew that you had an anti-war advocate in your family. This would have been a great way of demonstrating your objectivity.

Zoe Girl · Feb 26, 2003

Aurelius,

I've got a migraine coming on from a long day of school and I have to be at work in 20 minutes, so I'm sorry if this isn't as in depth as you might like...

I have to disagree that your knowledge of my brother's stance on this war has anything to do with my objectivity.  It seems it has more to do with your objectivity at looking at my post.  That said, I think the objectivity thing is dead and we'll have to agree to disagree.

I also think that you might respect my opinions a little bit more if you remind yourself that I am an American and American politics are important to me.  My email was about my observations and what I drew from them to help form my opinions.  I think there is a misunderstanding where you think I am referring to you (or whatever group of people you associate yourself with) personally, but I'm not.  I haven't really thought much about the rest of the world on this issue yet (selfish of me, maybe, but I'm being honest.)  That's not to say I won't think of other countries and what it means for them, after all, I'm not done thinking yet.    :idea:

I think I already said this, but I'm not sure now, and I don't have time to go back to check right now, so I'll say it anyway.  I posted on here to show why I now support the war.  That doesn't mean I now have an obligation to debate every point that every person on here has already said.  I just wanted to add my opinion.  You are certainly free, and it doesn't bother me at all, to debate my points, but at the moment, I don't have much interest in debating a lot of the other points on this thread that weren't a part of my thinking.

Oh, and about the celebrities... just turn on the tv.  They won't shut up about it.  For whatever reason they think they are high and mighty.  They make great movies, but I wouldn't want them running my country.  (Seems like a lot of them were supposed to move to France, but they never did.  It's too bad, really.)

kathaksung · Feb 26, 2003

Bush and his cabinet successfully made US the enemy of Islamic world. He successfully seperated US from its old allies and most people of the world. He also successfully put US people in constant alert of colour code.

Bush and his cabinet always use terrorist to frighten people. "Bombing is inevitable." "We are at war." Because they benefit from war. High approve rate, fat military budget, and more police power. But when you try to use 911 to intimidate, answer a question first: What's the motive of 911? It's a revenge of US Mideast policy which is biased on Israel. American people suffered the attack they are not deserved to. A good government policy protects people. A bad one leads them to the war and dictatorship.

TheBear · Feb 26, 2003

Yesterday at 07:23 PM Red Panda said this in Post #42 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675752#post675752)

Can I ask a question about this?

I didn't read the preceding debate, I mean a question about this policy.

If someone disagrees with the politics, religious belief, views on evolution, etc. of a staff member, that's OK to do in the public forums. Right? I mean, the staff member is just another participant in the discussion under those circumstances.

It's just when the staff member is acting in an official capacity that the "no disagreements" rule is in effect.

Do I have that right? Or have I left part of it out?

Cheers.

You are 100% correct in that disagreements with a staff member, at the level of normal discussion and debate on topics, is perfectly acceptable.

However, if the post of a staff member is of an official capacity, such as asking participants to tone it down, posting reminders of the rules, or anything along those lines, any public questioning, mocking, undermining or disagreement is strictly prohibited.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/36626.html

Notice, the ammended rules are not restricted to public disagreements with staff.

Outspoken · Feb 27, 2003

"Because they benefit from war."

That is very untrue. Do you think he doesn't see the poles? The man is standing up for what he thinks is the right course of action based on the information he has available. We benefit from war in only that it serves the interest of america and the world as a whole. We didn't want the watchman job, but we have it.

The reason I now support war

God's Tornado

Active Member

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Active Member

Fish out of water

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Standing in the Gap

U.S. Army Retired

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

Standing in the Gap

Fish out of water

At the music heist, I met the gourmet man with alu

U.S. Army Retired

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

NON-WOKED

Standing in the Gap

Similar threads