Should we bomb/strike Iraq

[Adam Y.]

BTW I am sick of people make the US to be the bad guys in this situation, and Saddam the viticitm. Tell me again, who gasses their own people? And what's with bashing the US all of a sudden, don't you like the way you live? Have somemore respect for the country in which you live, and the freedoms you enjoy.

Actually thats what makes our country great. It's all the people who point out the faults in our country that improves it. People must ask questions and not be afraid to disagree.

[Sean Conway]

Has anyone else noticed that FotoPlasma, Bill, and Michael are guilty of that which they accuse other Americans of being. Your posts are the most condescending, arrogant drivel imaginable.

To top it off, the ethics they propose do not necessarily apply to them, as far as they are concerned. Jon's post saying that Bill had every right to tell tjrage to grow up was done because of a direct request from Bill! Yes guys, you got busted. The original thinkers are posting at the request of their friends. Not only was it requested, but it was then decided which of the group should post it to nake it seem more genuine.

Doanie, look back to the beginning of this thread, and tell me who has been doing the bashing. It seems that this group is all for the free exchange of ideas, as long as those ideas agree with their own.

One question. There has been much made of the American media and its biases. Where do you get your news? Since anything from an American source is tainted in your eyes, I assume you simply disregard it in its entirety and have some other source of independent, reliable news.

[Madison]

Originally posted by Sean Conway
Has anyone else noticed that FotoPlasma, Bill, and Michael are guilty of that which they accuse other Americans of being. Your posts are the most condescending, arrogant drivel imaginable.

There's more in this thread that I'd like to reply to, but since I was just deemed arrogant and condescending, I'd like to address this first.

Thank you. You have done more to further prove my points than anyone else, and you deserve to be commended. How's that for condescending?

This is an exchange of ideas, and I have done nothing whatsoever to curb the free flow of those ideas. I have, however, provided my commentary, thoughts, and opinions with respect to those ideas in a fashion that is both intelligent and unapologetic. I will not now, nor ever, apologize for my beliefs. When you can prove that I have taken steps towarding inhibiting another individual from posting - or, better - from replying with intelligent, logic driven criticism of my writing, style, or opinion, then you can fairly and justly say that I am being condescending or arrogant.

Until you can do that, or until you can provide a legitimate addition to this discussion, please take your utterly useless, transparent passive-aggressive tactics elsewhere. Your attempt at villifying myself, Bill, and Jim further reeks with the same brand of hyprocrisy that drives your criticism of us.

When you can intelligently compete with the words and ideas of another, you win a debate. When you cannot, personal attacks and emotional pleas are the order of the day. Your post, Mr. Conway, and the myriad others like it, that offer no real contribution to our debate, serve only to appeal the ignorant masses, and represents the real drivel here.

Good day.

[Brandon Martus]

And...........we'll take a break for a few. This thread is turning into too much of a personal-attack type thread than anything constructive.

I'll re-open it later. Send me a message on AOL to remind me.


EDIT: OK, open.
Please be civil, and also read this thread, if you haven't already.

[Mike Rush]

Just a little humor to lighten up this thread (maybe).....

The following is a Pascal Function which describes a method for convincing a passivist there is a time for violence...

Function ConvincePassivistOfTheNeedForViolence():Boolean
begin
Find Passivist;
While not convinced do
begin
Throw_Passivist_On_Ground;
Help_Up;
Brush_Off_Clothes;
Apologize;
enddo;
return true;
end;


Have Fun!

[Wetzel]

Mike: You show your age through your code. (Age = oldfart)

Someother things to consider about attacking Iraq.

Only about 10% of the United States oil comes from the Middle East. Most comes from South America and from within our own borders. That can be overcome by increased production at current facillities.

Who is dependent on the Middle East for oil?
Japan, but Europe gets a significant amount of oil from that region as well. We want them as allies, they have other things to consider then what the US has to consider.

Many other governments in the region are not firmly in power. The biggest is Saudi Arabria, but also Bahrain and others.

Why we choose to go certian places but not others.
Why Somalia but not Rwanda.



Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~
Not a sermon, just some thoughts.

[Mike Rush]

When did I mention anything about oil? I have only posted to this thread in philosophical terms. Oil is brought up only when the discussion turns to 'blame the terrible US' for the worlds' troubles.

Do you think the terrorists who killed ~3k civilians in NY did it for oil? Did they want to protect thier oil so we can't get it? No! They could care less about oil. Oil to them is $. A way to finance thier evildoing.

Thier ultimate goal is the destruction of the US. Why? US support for Israel? Why? Arabs hate Jews. Why? Read your Bible. (I know this is asking a lot of some of you but you shouldn't blame God for mans troubles, blame man)

As for showing my age (you will probably be saying I've heard this before), I was right where you are several years ago (philosophically speaking). I wanted to blame the 'bad policies of the US' for everything. We're the bad guys. What are we thinking. Blah, Blah Blah.

The simple fact is if it were not for the US, even with all its faults, the world would have been far worse off. Throughout history, the only country to come to the aid of distressed peoples was the US. You should be proud of this, not detest it. I know... what about the slaves? Well answer this. What country in the world went to war with the US to abolish slavery? You know the answer.

I'm tired of this thread. You all know where I am coming from, and I know that some of you agree and some are still lost. Please think about your positions and thier outcomes. Consider other positions and thier outcomes. Pick the outcome which is best. THis will lead to the best position not the one which you think is cool or think is the way a rebellious person should think. Once you do this I will say welcome!

[Joel Glidden]

Ok. I'm going to back up a bit and try to be a bit more constructive (edit) than I have been in earlier posts (/edit). This is the situation as I see it.

• Iraq, in the hands of Saddam Hussein, poses a serious threat to American interests and American allies in the middle east. These include, but are not limited to Israel and U.S. military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar.
• Saddam has a very well known reputation for his cruelty and willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction against any reachable target that opposes him - military and civilian alike.
• There exists a great deal of intelligence that suggests that Saddam has continued development in his illicit weapons programs in direct violation of the U.N.
• Saddam has a track record of supporting terrorists. With support from Iraq, a terrorist network could deliver a significant attack against an American city with chemical or biological weapons.
• If Saddam is allowed to proceed in the development of his weapons programs, there exists a significant probability that terrorist networks with his support may obtain nuclear weapons for use against American targets.

That having been said, I'll admit that I know none of this first hand. I have not been to Iraq. I have not interviewed Saddam or any Iraqis that were taken prisoner during Desert Storm. All I have to go on are statements and documents released by U.S. and British intelligence agencies. I could choose not to believe these sources. But what reason could they have to lie to me? If they are being untruthful about Iraq, then who should I believe? Saddam?

Certainly, attacking Iraq will have consequences. But it is my belief that allowing Saddam's power to grow unchecked will have far graver consequences. If the day were to come that Saddam handed a suitcase nuke to Al-Qaeda, do you think he would urge them to try and come to a diplomatic solution before leveling DC?

I'll hang up and listen for a while now.

-Joel

[Joe3]

well, regardless of what we all think, The House of Representitives just gave Bush power to take out Saddam

[Jon K.]

The house did yes but not the Senate so he may not get the power he wants

[Joel Glidden]

Here is a link to some historical details I found on the UN's web page. Interesting read

-Joel

[Sean Conway]

First things first. I'd like to apologize for the tone of my original post. It was completely out of line, and I should know better.

Michael, your posts are not drivel. They typically contain well-written, thorough, sound reasoning. My reaction was to what is sometimes contained at the end of your posts. You sometimes address others in a demeaning tone that seems intended to intimidate. This is contrary to the idea of this forum.

It is possible to get our ideas across without the venom. I lost sight of that and wrote with emotion rather than reasoning. It won't happen again.

Now, my views on this subject. I believe we should allow the inspectors another shot at monitoring Iraq. Why start a conflict when it may be possible to avoid one in a relatively simple manner. Having said that, I do believe Saddam is a threat to the region, and one that is not likely to go away. If he reneges on his promise to allow access to inspectors, the UN and US need to seriously consider what the next step should be. I would prefer that we not be forced to intervene repeatedly as he invades his neighbors.

I don't believe in the implicit trust of government officials, nor do I believe in the implicit distrust of them. I use the best information available to me. Yes, this typically does mean the major US media.

It also means watching some foreign news via satellite. While the commentary and editorials differ widely, the reported news is fairly consistent, with the possible exception of Palestinian News, which rarely makes a distinction between news and editorial.

So my question for some of the posters here is this...if every independent media source is beholden to their advertisers, and therefore lies to us, whom are we to believe? Do state-run media outlets have more credibility? Even donor supported stations such as NPR have people who donate to them, and these people have an ideology that NPR caters to. Does this make them untrustworthy? As a young person preparing to enter the workforce, would you sacrifice your morals to work for these media companies? If not, why do you believe that everyone who works for these companies has?

My 2 cents. I hope it's a little more constructive than the 'drivel' I posted last time.

[Wetzel]

Mike, by old I ment you used Pascal, therefor old.
Suppost to be humor.

I apologize if I offeneded.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~
Mea culpa, mea maxima chalupa

Originally posted by Joel Glidden
Here is a link to some historical details I found on the UN's web page. Interesting read

-Joel

Hrm thats interesting....Saddam is kind of breaking that rule, unless it has been modified in the last few years...


The worst part is that they [Iraq] agreed to it..

[Marc P.]

[me] pokes his head into this thread...[/me]

I've been following (kind of) the building tensions in the middle east since early last year as part of a current issues class in school. (It was only a half year course and I've since graduated). Speaking stictly logically, it seems to me there are a few things happening here-

The essential core of the violence is not rooted in political interests- rather religion. Power driven enthusiasts such as Osama bin Laden use a religious clause to declare war on the US- Jihad. Through the jihad they declare the US what would be considered "satanic" from a christian perspective, despite the millions of Muslims living in the US. Thus resulting in the attacks of 9/11.

Similarly, this stereotype is applied in reverse to Muslims and Arabs from an "American" perspective. Particularly since 9/11, Americans have generally thought of the arabic/muslim people as terrorists, resulting in ethnic stereotyping and discrimination. I was in a class where 95% of the students could write or speak nothing more than "bomb the muslims, they should all die." (rendering me politically and socially alone in the class, to the point where it was literally me on one side of the room, 28 on the other)

Throw in some political issues such as oil, weapons of mass distruction, paranoia (natural side effect of 9/11), and you have Saddam. I can't speak for the US government, since I know not very much about the specifics of the situation, but it seems to me like America is using everything combined as leverage to be rid of a pestilence which has been around for years. Again, I don't know enough about the situation to pass judgement, but from an "uninformed civilian" watching the story unfold through short media bits, rumor and speculation, it seems such to me. Personally, I think Saddam should be dealt with, but a hardcore all out bombing operation may not be the best method or solution, based on any number of side effects in all the previous posts, positive and negative alike.

Just my half a cent, let me know if anything makes any sense, I typed all this running on 4 hours of sleep.