Anti-War voice being heard?

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 11:54 AM ACougar said this in Post #38 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658530#post658530)

     How can you even declare a war of terrorism when terrorism is a crime and terrorists are criminals?  We declared a "War" on drug but what has that gotten us?  Let's call a duck a duck and stop calling police actions wars.  Our "wars" are just an excuse for us to selectively police the world, picked and choosing those people who we percieve as a threat (threats who do not yet have nuclear weapons) and then acting against them. Selective Policing may not even be a bad idea, however we should acklowledge it for what it is.

 

Iraq agreed to the non-nuclear Proliferation treaty. They are not allowed to possess nuclear weapons by international law. They broke this treaty when they started their development program (which defectors tell us continue to this day). You have to answer the question WHY does Iraq desire to be a nuclear power?
 
Upvote 0

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 11:55 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #39 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658532#post658532)

I was aware of most of that, but that's a separate question from whether they are planning to strike us. 


Saddam's directive to his nuclear scientists to develop a working nuclear device within 6 months of his invasion of Kuwait is a hint of what he intended. (His original timetable was 2 years)


Today at 11:55 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #39 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658532#post658532)

I'm aware that this has been alleged. If it is indeed the case, why aren't we giving them an ultimatum like we gave the Taliban instead of all of this misdirection about WMD's? 


Iraq was ordered to disarm, but has still evaded accounting for massive amounts of anthrax, serin gas, and other biological agents it was known to have. Why won't they account for it?



Today at 11:55 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #39 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658532#post658532)

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of tactics, but I'm not really talking about tactics. I'm not talking about how we execute a war, I'm talking about whether we should start a war.

How we should start a war? We could EASILY overthrow him and his government with practically NO casualities. (Remember Panama and Grenada?)
 
Upvote 0

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 12:00 PM Jerry Smith said this in Post #40 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658544#post658544)

Any nation that has an unfriendly aircraft routinely violating their airspace will fire upon them. That's no justification for war. They are moving missil launchers toward the borders in preparation to fight a war that the U.S. has made clear it is going to start.


Now that I've answered  your questions, straight up: is there good reason to believe they are planning to strike? If not, is there any other provocation that would justify us striking them? I'm asking for your opinion. Is it your opinion that possession of WMD's is provocation enough for war? Do you think that the U.S. will allow Iraq to be democratic post-war? Have they done so in Afghanistan? Will the U.S. replace Saddam with another secular dictator who is more friendly to the U.S., or will we allow them to elect themselves an Ayatollah?

Iraq is banned from military flights in the North and South as well as FIRING upon military patrols within these regions. (which they do daily). Those missile launchers (we took out) which were moved to the border of Kuwait... Would you have rather waited until a chemical warhead had been dropped on our troops for justification? For the sake of our personnel there, I'm proud we struck first....

And ask the Kuwaiti's what the Iraqi's are capable of. They're the ones who suffered the atrocities of the Iraqi army after they invaded...

i.e. (rape, murder, pillaging)
 
Upvote 0
Today at 12:52 PM Smilin said this in Post #42

Saddam's directive to his nuclear scientists to develop a working nuclear device within 6 months of his invasion of Kuwait is a hint of what he intended. (His original timetable was 2 years)

Ok, since all we have is a hint, all we can do is guess. I'm guessing that he knew that there was the possibility someone would want to move against him in response to Kuwait, and wanted a nuclear deterrent to that. But lets make a more sinister guess: he wanted to use the nukes offensively against another party in the middle east. Can we go to war on the basis of a guess about his intentions of 12 years ago? 

Iraq was ordered to disarm, but has still evaded accounting for massive amounts of anthrax, serin gas, and other biological agents it was known to have. Why won't they account for it?

Again, you are asking for guesses. My guess is that Iraq posesses and wishes to maintain posession of chemical and biological agents, although other explanations could exist. I asked you before: does posession of weapons of mass destruction create a justification for war? In all cases, or in some? If some - which ones? 

How we should start a war? We could EASILY overthrow him and his government with practically NO casualities. (Remember Panama and Grenada?) 

I'm not as confident. Remember Gulf War I? We stopped short of a full invasion but suffered many casualties, as did Iraqi civilians. But this is beside the point. If war is justified and needed, then we should go and do our best to minimize our own casualties and Iraqi civilian casualties. But my question is not HOW, but WHETHER & WHY?
 
Upvote 0

Blindfaith

God's Tornado
Feb 9, 2002
5,775
89
57
Home of the Slug
✟7,755.00
Faith
Non-Denom
To my fellow brothers & sisters in Christ here;

I have the assurance, as does any other Christian who trusts in the Lord, that nothing happens without God condoning it.  I'm sure this could spark a whole new thread here.  Remember that whole debacle of the Presidential race?  I had no worries whatsover because I knew that whoever God wanted in office, was going to be in office.  I also have the assurance that God cannot abide evil.  He's never condoned an evil country to reign. Remember Pharoah?  Even with his heart hardened, God used him to bring His children through the Exodus, and showed His Sovereignty, Power, Mercy and Grace.  That brings me peace to my soul, knowing that He is in control of all things.  He too, is in control of this.  Saddam isn't in control, and neither is President Bush.  God is.  Please allow this truth to penetrate your soul, and give you rest in Him.

I realize this is the News forum, but there are Christians here that are participating and reading, and need His peace beyond all understanding while participating :).

Smilin', you mentioned (I believe it was you), that France sold to Iraq it's first nuclear reactor.  Do you, or anyone else here, believe that another reason why France is doing its typical side-step is because they have a high population of Muslims?

Rae :), I don't want to see innocent people die.  I really, truly do not.  I don't believe for one second that President Bush wants that either, my dear.  It would be great if Saddam and his henchmen (not victimized henchmen) could just be taken out without anyone else being hurt.  But that's the problem.  Saddam is a slimy, unstable coward, who uses his own people and "stunt doubles" to protect himself.  He can't even be a "real man" about it; he has to use human shields.  What a coward and a jerk. 

I believe down to my soul, that Americans (pro and anti war Americans), value life.  Whether or not you're a Christian,  we value life in this country (and others as well).  Nobody here wants to see a loss of life, but there are many of us that would like to see Saddam outta there. 

How can there be peace if evil is ruling an entire country and oppressing its people?
 
Upvote 0

Smilin

Spirit of the Wolf
Jun 18, 2002
5,650
244
57
Appalachia, The Trail of Tears
Visit site
✟15,906.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Today at 11:54 AM ACougar said this in Post #38 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658530#post658530)

     How can you even declare a war of terrorism when terrorism is a crime and terrorists are criminals?  We declared a "War" on drug but what has that gotten us?  Let's call a duck a duck and stop calling police actions wars.  Our "wars" are just an excuse for us to selectively police the world, picked and choosing those people who we percieve as a threat (threats who do not yet have nuclear weapons) and then acting against them. Selective Policing may not even be a bad idea, however we should acklowledge it for what it is.

 

Tell that to the surviving family members of the attack on New York, the attack on the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the family member of the Marines slaughtered in Lebanon, and the US servicemen killed in Saudi Arabia when they're barracks was blown up.

And you obviously weren't aware of how close Iraq was (and still is) to developing a nuclear weapons production system.

Tell you what,
When you serve your country in uniform, take an oath to defend the constitution... and then have to help fill bags with body parts of your fellow Americans... then you can whine to me about 'police actions'.....

When you're held captive in Grenada like those students were... then you can whine... (after the military comes in and saves your rear end)

When you're held captive in Lebanon by radicals... then you can talk about our 'police actions'.....

When you're an embassy worker in a foreign country and held prisoner by radicals... then you can whine....

I'm sure you would have labeled a 'pre-emptive strike' against Bin Ladens forces in Afghanistan a 'police action' as well.... even if it had saved the World Trade Centers...

I guess the blood shed for your freedom of speech means nothing to you...
 
Upvote 0
Today at 12:57 PM Smilin said this in Post #43

Iraq is banned from military flights in the North and South as well as FIRING upon military patrols within these regions. (which they do daily). Those missile launchers (we took out) which were moved to the border of Kuwait... Would you have rather waited until a chemical warhead had been dropped on our troops for justification? For the sake of our personnel there, I'm proud we struck first....

And ask the Kuwaiti's what the Iraqi's are capable of. They're the ones who suffered the atrocities of the Iraqi army after they invaded...

i.e. (rape, murder, pillaging)


On our military patrols in their air-space... you can ban them from firing on unfriendly craft in their skies all you want to. The fact that they are (of course) going to continue to do so doesn't indicate (to me, anyway) that they are planning a military offensive.

Taking out their defenses before the invasion is definitely a good tactical move. If I were calling the shots militarily, I would have taken out those missile launchers too. The question is - would those launchers be there if we were not staging an invasion? Should we invade their country? Is there any indication they are preparing for any offensive measures against us or our allies?

It would be good to go back to the part of the conversation where you were pointing out their funding of terrorists in Palestine. If the reason for this war is to stop their funding of terrorism, why can't we come out and say so, give them an ultimatum similar to the one we gave Afghanistan, and if they fail to respond,then go to war?

If the war is to stop terrorism, then it makes zero difference whether they are in compliance with resolution 1441. They could bring in the inspectors to watch them destroy every chemical or biological agent, all of the delivery systems for them, then take the country apart inch by inch looking for more, and it would make no difference if our reason for war is that they support Palestinian terrorists. Are WMD's the reason for war? If so, what other wars must we prepare for? Must we prepare for our defense when the world wages war to disarm us?
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,074
5,546
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟272,888.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
*sigh* I have the solution that will make everybody happy.

What we need to do is nuke Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, and every other city in the continental United States with a population of 500,000 or above.

This should be done with multiple re-entry vehicles on each target, carrying a payload of 7 to 12 megatons each, and programmed to detonate approximately 1/2 mile above ground zero, thus assuring maximum blast damage and a vastly increased fallout yield.

Prevailing winds will take care of the bulk of the surviving population within one to two weeks, and at the end of ninety days at the most, that will that.

Since the Great Satan will be gone forever, there will be no more problems for the rest of the world to worry about, save the nuclear winter that our self-destruction will inevitably bring on......but then, eight or nine years of living in a coal mine at subzero temperatures is a relatively small, and certainly acceptable, price to pay to be rid of The Source Of All That Is Evil.

At least nobody will have to worry about us attacking Iraq.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Um...

*sigh* I have the solution that will make everybody happy.

What we need to do is nuke Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, and every other city in the continental United States with a population of 500,000 or above.

This should be done with multiple re-entry vehicles on each target, carrying a payload of 7 to 12 megatons each, and programmed to detonate approximately 1/2 mile above ground zero, thus assuring maximum blast damage and a vastly increased fallout yield.

Prevailing winds will take care of the bulk of the surviving population within one to two weeks, and at the end of ninety days at the most, that will that.

Since the Great Satan will be gone forever, there will be no more problems for the rest of the world to worry about, save the nuclear winter that our self-destruction will inevitably bring on......but then, eight or nine years of living in a coal mine at subzero temperatures is a relatively small, and certainly acceptable, price to pay to be rid of The Source Of All That Is Evil.

At least nobody will have to worry about us attacking Iraq.

...why do some people here so frequently respond with hyperbole and straw men when all we're looking for is a reasonable dialogue? First we get "OK, America should pull out of the UN and NATO, and withdraw all humanitarian aid." Then we get the ironic "Why don't you just nuke America?"

Sure, it's much easier to post something like this (above.) Anyone can do that. But what about dealing with the facts? What about addressing the relevant issues in a meaningful way? Engaging with the complexity of the situation in a rational discussion? Sitting down and considering both sides of the issue in a calm and sensible fashion?

Is that really too much to ask? :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Jerry -

Still trying to puzzle out the point behind the last two posts.

As am I.

Are we back to "everyone who doesn't support this particular war hates America"?

Apparently.

Come on guys.. if you support the war, lets hear about your reasons. Please don't sling mud.

Amen to that. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Ryder

Whatever was the deplorable word
Jan 13, 2003
5,383
261
42
Michigan
✟15,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Even though my first post was a joke, Isreal isn't a bad reason right there. Saddam has invaded his neighbors before, Saddam has hid terrorists, Iraq is predominantly muslim, Saddam rewards/applaudes suicide bombers attacking Isrealies, Saddam has chemical weapons ( give me a break, a few hundred pounds of anthrax go missing, what do you think he did, ate it? ), Saddam has and is trying to develope nuclear weapons, Saddams scuds can reach Isreal (the few better ones anyways), Saddams remote jets on a tank o' fuel can also deliver bombs to hit Isreal, Saddam is NOT all there (sanity/morality)&nbsp;despite so many of you just about to invite him for dinner &amp; a party, Saddam kills people ---alot of people --- HIS people too, Isreal is suppossed to be our friend, Saddam evades inspectors (to some degree at least this is unavoidably true) I'd say a GREAT degree, Saddam shoots at our planes (those missiles don't pack a 'please leave' message, they're trying to kill the pilot &amp; wreck the planes --- thank goodness they've got mostly&nbsp;crapy rockets), Saddam will burn thousands of oil wells and do dastardly damage to the enviroment ( like I care :rolleyes:&nbsp; ) but it's still amazing to see so many liberals (who normally rush to save bobo bear) against stopping this guy ?! his oil well fiasco was the worst enviromental disaster in like 50 years (well, maybe chernoble.... ) There are probably MORE signs that this guys needs to go NOW , with war, NOW, than Hitler gave us prior to 1939. Are you guys just scared of war itself r something? Look I'm scared of the dentist but you still gotta go sometimes ---That was in no ways intended to belittle armed servicemen, BTW
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
There has been no proof that Hussein has nuclear weapons. That's the whole point.

Also, would you care to explain why Hussein hasn't raised a finger against the US ever since the Gulf War?

Just why, exactly, is he a threat to America?

There are probably MORE signs that this guys needs to go NOW , with war, NOW, than Hitler gave us prior to 1939.

In numerous posts, on numerous threads, I have openly stated that I agree he needs to go. However, this does not justify a war on Iraq, nor does it explain who you're supposed to be putting in Hussein's place.

Perhaps you could provide me with a list of possible candidates?

Are you guys just scared of war itself r something?

No. Fear of war is not the issue. Clearly, American fear of Iraq is the issue - and that issue is being exploited by politicians, in their lust for Iraq's oil. Both France and America are guilty of this, IMHO.

I should also point out that I am not a pacifist.

You might want to keep it in mind. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Magisterium

Praying and Thinking
Jan 22, 2003
1,136
99
47
Kansas
Visit site
✟1,813.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juicy topic.

Well, from my observation, most people oppose war out of indifference or because they believe that the US will "bomb the women and children" indiscriminately. Both of these are erroneous in my humble opinion for so many reasons. However, I also oppose an offensive against Saddam, but perhaps for a slightly more substantial reason.

In Iraq, you have the Baath and Shiite (shi'a) Muslim groups (among others). Much like democrats and republicans, the Baath party is more liberal and secularized, while the Shiite party is conservative and fundamental. However, these parties differ from American political parties because of religious, righteous, indignation. This indignation drives members of opposing parties to take up arms and seek to destroy each other.

Saddam's iron fisted dictatorship serves to suppress and contain this opposition. Of course dissention remains, but any open opposition is quickly and brutally dealt with. Removal of Saddam's regime serves to remove the container from this powder keg. This is why I believe many say that removing Saddam would serve to "hurt the stability of the region". Of course any stability gained from a murderous dictator is bound to be short lived. However, many seem willing to just let it run its course like a bad virus and hope for the best. The ostrich approach as I see it.

In the event that an offensive is launched, I have no doubt that it would successfully remove Saddam and his regime. It would not come cheap however. As I understand it, Many of Saddam's Military positions are located in densely populated civilian centers. Urban warfare in Iraq will likely be like Vietnam x10. Add to that the opposition from the world's civilians and you have a nasty mess. Any allied support we would manage to retain would undoubtedly desert us once we begin to take casualties. What’s worse, unlike with Vietnam, if we withdraw from someplace like Iraq, they'll see it as a sign from God and pursue us. Engagement of this enemy will HAVE to end with complete neutralization. Assuming we overcome the logistics of a military offensive, we have bigger problems.

The violent tendencies of the socio-religious parties would render true democracy not only useless, but a catalyst for ongoing bloodshed. Obviously theocracy removes rights from the individual (especially in the case of Islam). So what's a country to do? Well, long term occupation and "peace keeping" gets sour pretty quick to a nation and world that didn't want the war in the first place.

However, I propose another solution. I suggest that a UN/US forces should deliver Food, medicine, clothing and other humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people directly. At the same time, imposing even more sanctions on Iraq’s government for any continued breach of resolutions. This serves two very important functions. First, it demonstrates to the world, the US and the UN's desire to help the Iraqi people. However, on the other hand, if (more likely when) Saddam attempts to intercept or otherwise obstruct the delivery of aid, it demonstrates his contempt. Of course, the US and UN would be completely justified to engage and neutralize all opposition to the humanitarian aid delivery. In the event he decided not to commit political suicide and try to obstruct the aid the lies that he tells his people about America being the reason they suffer would melt away. Either way, the objective of swaying public opinion and removing Saddam's dictatorship is accomplished.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Today at 04:27 PM Ryder said this in Post #53

Even though my first post was a joke, Isreal isn't a bad reason right there. Saddam has invaded his neighbors before, Saddam has hid terrorists, Iraq is predominantly muslim, Saddam rewards/applaudes suicide bombers attacking Isrealies, Saddam has chemical weapons ( give me a break, a few hundred pounds of anthrax go missing, what do you think he did, ate it? ), Saddam has and is trying to develope nuclear weapons, Saddams scuds can reach Isreal (the few better ones anyways), Saddams remote jets on a tank o' fuel can also deliver bombs to hit Isreal, Saddam is NOT all there (sanity/morality)&nbsp;despite so many of you just about to invite him for dinner &amp; a party, Saddam kills people ---alot of people --- HIS people too, Isreal is suppossed to be our friend, Saddam evades inspectors (to some degree at least this is unavoidably true) I'd say a GREAT degree, Saddam shoots at our planes (those missiles don't pack a 'please leave' message, they're trying to kill the pilot &amp; wreck the planes --- thank goodness they've got mostly&nbsp;crapy rockets), Saddam will burn thousands of oil wells and do dastardly damage to the enviroment ( like I care :rolleyes:&nbsp; ) but it's still amazing to see so many liberals (who normally rush to save bobo bear) against stopping this guy ?! his oil well fiasco was the worst enviromental disaster in like 50 years (well, maybe chernoble.... ) There are probably MORE signs that this guys needs to go NOW , with war, NOW, than Hitler gave us prior to 1939. Are you guys just scared of war itself r something? Look I'm scared of the dentist but you still gotta go sometimes ---That was in no ways intended to belittle armed servicemen, BTW

If we are going to save Israel from the Palestinian terrorists who are propped up in part by Saddam, then I don't see why our government doesn't just tell us so &amp; do this one like we did Afghanistan. At least then we would be debating the merits of the real reasons for war right now, instead of those of a smokescreen..

Your post was full of reasons we all detest Hussein,&nbsp;&amp; would like to see him gone. You didn't make clear which ones were reasons for war. He has screwed the environment? I don't think that's reason to go to war. He has WMD's? If that's it, lets talk about it. Is possession of WMD's a sufficient reason for war? We can discuss that! He shoots at our air-craft when they violate his air space? Is that our reason for war? We can discuss that! What's the reason? Up until now, I've been asking, where's the evidence that he plans an offensive against us or our allies. Now I'm just asking what the reason is to go to war with him.&nbsp;There's been complete silence on evidence that he is staging an offensive, so I take it that this is not a pre-emptive strike against a known threat. I don't think a pre-emptive strike against an imagined threat is self-defense: I see that as unprovoked agression.

He's a bad man &amp; Iraq &amp; the world would be better off without him. The question is, why do we go to war?
 
Upvote 0

Ryder

Whatever was the deplorable word
Jan 13, 2003
5,383
261
42
Michigan
✟15,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
----written in-response to a-b-liever

&nbsp;

Well written, not a bad argument at all. Of course, I would point out that the&nbsp;TON of help the US offers worldwide as a nation and through private organizations hasn't helped it's image worth squat lately. If the Iraqis (much like Germany :rolleyes:&nbsp; ) don't want to believe the US can do good, they won't. They'll blind themselves and come up with some reason why the suggested&nbsp;food drops don't credit the US. It just happens this way. How come No-body remembers the parts about the US funnelling money into Germany and Japan to rebuild them, only hiroshima gets remembered. The food airlifts into east Germany? Nope, US is hated there too. I Like your idea, but it likely won't work. Where there's a will to disbelieve, ....

Still a good idea, but I'm not very optimistic here (or convinced Saddam won't blow something up while we 'woo' his people)

Still, good argument a-b-leiver, no bs, better written than mine
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hank

has the Right to be wrong
May 28, 2002
1,026
51
Toronto
✟16,926.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Yesterday at 10:26 PM Jerry Smith said this in Post #10

Do I think Saddam would cooperate with inspectors (to the extent that he has)&nbsp;without the threat of force?

No. I don't think so.&nbsp;Now&nbsp;what?&nbsp;

Since&nbsp;Hussein did so for twelve years, how would you end this?
 
Upvote 0