Now, American troops - how many? Let's say about 50,000 - just like Viet Nam?
There is always an alternative to launching a war. And that's not to launch a war.
To strike now without UN explicit approval is illegal, immoral, unjustified and just plain wrong. It will unite and galvanise muslim/arab opinion. It will ensure the deaths of thousands in future retalliatory attacks. To do it so blatantly for Israel and the control of oil is stupid and wicked. We export more oil than we consume in Britain. As for Israel, let them fight their own battles.
Today I was listening to the argument that the war against Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go, BUT once the troops are in place, we should not withdraw because it would send a bad signal to that bad man, Saddam. My response was (as I banged my fist against my car radio): The war against Iraq was a bad idea from the get-go and if we let this administration go ahead with its bad invasion it will send a bad signal to that bad man, George W. Bush.
Tartar, Glad to see some people's microscopes are clear to the eyes. So many are blinded by the propaganda. c.i.
"how many young US soldiers are we willing to sacrifice to the cause"
What cause is it Kara?
They will be sacrificed for profit, and the security of the rogue state Israel.
The American and British taxpayers will pay for the war and then the oil will be turned over to big oil companies to reap (or is that rape?) the profits!
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:TW wrote
"Of course, there's still the nagging question of whether not attacking is the best way to safeguard the most civilian lives, but I have had no success in engaging the anti-war people (as you called them) in that debate".
Yes I see exactly where you are coming from TW. The question of killing or not killing civilians is clearly a tricky issue. There are people here who could justify killing say 10,000 but not 100,000. Or should we just sacrifice a nominal amount? Yes its certainly a difficult one, one that must keep good people awake at night. Still it has to be done does it not, for the greater good?
Actually I have an idea. Why not ask the people of Iraq how many of them would like to be killed for that greater good?
Steve - I assume from your sarcastic response that you missed some facts I shared in this discussion back on February 5th. I'll reproduce them here for you:
Quote:There may not be sufficient, legitimate reasons to attack Iraq at this time, but the argument that doing nothing will ensure the peace is not supported by history or by facts. Far more people were killed during the 20th century by repressive regimes (115,423,000) than in wars (35,654,000). That fact alone suggests that not taking a war to Saddam will result in the loss of more innocent lives rather than fewer. Or to look at the numbers another way,
a civilian living in Iraq is over 3 times more likely to die because we left Saddam in power than because we went to war with Iraq to remove him.
WAR ISN'T THIS CENTURY'S BIGGEST KILLER
It is based on this information--that more innocent lives are lost by standing repressive regimes than in war--and on the fact that not one anti-war person in this discussion has chosen to acknowledge and comment on those statistics that I wrote the statement which caused you such amusement.
I'll be interested to see what your thoughts are on my comments now that you have a more complete understanding of what I was writing about.
BillW, Ever been screwed both ways? How about a first time? We pay for this war, then pay for the oil - at higher prices. ;( c.i.
BillW
Of course. Except that BP will be excluded from a decent share of the spoils. Despite shedding our blood for American oil, America will betray us. (The fighting starts Saturday btw)
steve, my question was rhetorical. The issue of the morality of war, or of solving problems with violence, is pretty much go or no-go. (Although I suppose a case could be made for partial, but we don't have all night to talk.) Either you believe initiating war is defensible or you do not. How you support your major premise can be either a priori or a posteriori, but no matter from whence you reason, you are unlikely to change that basic position.
That leave us with incidentals, some of which I enumerated. I was really being ironic, just so as not to be boxed out of the discussion entirely as a peacenik.
As tres pointed out a few pages back, everyone knows and has known for months that Saddam is in material (and materiel) breach of the UN resolution. Powell, in his UN speech, hammered the information into our heads if not our hearts, hoping to batter us into submissive agreement with the war plan by sheer numbers of we-gotcha's. If we have known it for months and maybe years, why are we attacking now? And if we have indeed known it for years, why have we not had our best minds and best statesmen and diplomats at work figuring out a way to contain one tyrant in one small country. Of course, he is deceitful and lying and hiding things. How else would a mini-tyrant act when confronted by the strongest power in the world that has, itself, towering stockpiles of WMD.
As you pointed out, Steve, it was a bad idea from the start. But, sadly, it is unimaginable that Bush, having massed soldiers and ships and guns, would now take the high road and send them home.
steve says:
Quote:(The fighting starts Saturday btw)
Can you betray, ummm - excuse me, relate sources?
tres, The US is not the upholder of morals in this world. We can barely provide equality in our own country (and still failing) without going out to other countries to demand equality for their citizens. By your utopian standards, we should be attacking North Korea first, because more of their citizens are dying and caused by Kim. Most people in this world, including our own CIA, thinks North Korea posses a greater threat than Iraq. c.i.
Even Schwartzkopf thinks the war is a bad idea.
Tres
I don't object to discussion of issues where information is fluid, but all I see are rehashes of the same primary arguments again and again. To the ramparts, I say; let the chips fall where they may.
Kara
Well said. Bush gave the order to attack Iraq well over a year ago. All Blair has done is bust a gut in getting him to go the UN route, which finally Bush will ignore anyway. I feel pretty sore about this. We are not threatened. British interests are not threatened. But my friend on HMS Ocean is threatened. When a soldier joins her Majesty's armed forces he/she is prepared to fight and die for interests pertaining to Her Majesty and Her Majesty's realm. Not to liberate a middle east country for the benefit of American oil companies. If Bush and the war criminal Sharon have a problem with Iraq, fine, let American and Israelis fight and die. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. And before someone jumps in and quotes Blair, as leader of my party, and someone I have a great deal of respect for, he's got it wrong big time on this one.
Steve, I you think for one minute that Blair has "it wrong big time on this one." How about GWBush? I don't think words will suffice. c.i.
BillW
I only said saturday because there is some talking to do at the UN tomorrow and Friday is the muslim holy day so if its going to start "now" then Saturday seems like a good bet. Can't be sure of the time exactly but 00.01 Baghdad time seems reasonable
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7268
ci
I think its outrageous that GWB is taking America into an imperialistic war and for not much more reason than a family vendetta. Or at least I would do if I were American. My real concern is that it has nothing to do with Britain.
