The US, The UN and Iraq

Absolutely agree, Joe. This op-ed article gives answers to many questions of those that hesitate regarding necessity of the Gulf War-2. BTW, my screenname is SteissD, and not Strssd...

S t e i s s D Got it. Typing too fast. I might be reading too fast too, I don't think Keller said the war was a necessity. I'll go back and re-read.

Oh, timber, Marie-Ange was my second wife !! Swords at dawn!!

Joe

Blatham wrote:

"The call to war is easy, really no trick at all. You just say "There's the enemy, he's the enemy because he's evil, therefore you must go to war to beat him". It clearly doesn't matter whether this reflects any kind of reality, there will be lots of folks ready to follow along, and then it is real. They'll be slapping each others' backs and telling the old hero stories over and over and everyone will have purpose. It'll be life and death, bravery and cowardice, friend and enemy. No art, no play, no music, no sporting event can move our spirits like a good war. It clarifies. It gives meaning"

Your cynicism is vengeful Blatham----you insist that anyone calling for war is blind to the horrible consequences of war and is merely seeking glory. Those of us who have experienced war are the first to know there is no glory, only suffering and death. Have you read nothing of what we have written here.

13 MYTHS ABOUT THE CASE FOR WAR IN IRAQ

Myth 1: Removing Saddam Will Prevent 9/11 Repeat
Myth 2: Powell Presented Strong Evidence
Myth 3: Saddam May Soon Threaten US
Myth 4: Experts 'Discover' Prohibited Missile
Myth 5: Bin Laden Tape Proves Iraq Connection
Myth 6: Iraq Still Has Large Nuclear Program
Myth 7: If US Pulls Out Now, It Looks Bad
Myth 8: A Cheap, Easy War
Myth 9: Wartime Press is Free and Unbiased
Myth 10: Goal is to Free Iraqis, Not to Grab Oil
Myth 11: War Solves the Energy Crisis
Myth 12: UN Commitments Don't Really Matter
Myth 13: Protesting a War is Unpatriotic

perception

Cynicism? Yes, I have suitcases full (and of course I haven't said 'anyone calling for war is blind').

But if soldiers are the chaps most aware of the ugliness of war, then it's a startling oddity that it is mainly (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not) the folks here with military backgrounds who are supporting the push to war. You'd think it would be the other way around. So, why is that? A particularly acute and deep understanding of world history or social processes gained through basic training or in a military academy? A truer vision into the hearts of men, passed on my a mentoring corporal?

How many - you know, looking back to the Spartans and the Iriquois and the Polynesians and the Iranians and the Chinese, and and and... that endless parade of men - how many have climbed over a pile of dead comrades with fire in their eyes and God on their side? And everybody on all sides is RIGHT and everyone's cause is JUST. There is never a lack of believers/soldiers. So, why is that?

And for every group of soldiers - brave and sincere, surely - there is someone(s) who has made them soldiers, helped them hate, reminded them that all which is good is in danger of being lost, marched them in front of cheering crowds and supplied friendly women for them, and then given them kind assistance with transport to the battlefield. And those helpful individuals live in big houses and you don't. So, why is that?

And for miles around every trampled battlefield, farms burn, and farmers' wives and children starve or find their husbands out behind the barn with a pitchfork through his eye. And that's an acceptable consequence because the righteous path is not without some sacrifices. But we are certain that our path is righteous. We are as certain of it as we are that God loves us and cares. We are certain of it because their God on the other side is a false God, and those poor soldiers are mere deluded pawns. They've somehow been tricked by fiends and cannot see. But nevertheless, we admire them greatly for their bravery. So, why is that?

Your just a peacenik!

After lights out last night (in other words, I didn't get up and take notes so the distances expressed here may not be entirely accurate) I heard a recently retired military guy who was countering false military information coming from the administration.

He reported that the famous Al Smud missiles, the "smokings guns," which the administration claims are able to breach the 90-mile limit placed on them, cannot. In a test in which the missiles were seen to go more than 90 miles, they were being tested WITHOUT their guidance systems. Al Smud guidance devices, he said, are heavy and prevent the missiles from exceeding 15 miles. The missiles are useless as long-range weapons without guidance systems.

Thus, all dem misses!

Agree wholeheartedly with Blatham. We don't need to look at a bloody battlefield and dead civilians to know the price we pay for war and for the military who fight it. I believe this thread is suffering a parallel fate -- a kind of "we're tougher and we shout louder" attitude which fortunately doesn't kill us but it does maim. I had a PM last night from a low-key, infrequent contributor who is really troubled by the tone and much of the content. However nice some of you may be in person, your militarism here is unwelcome to those who not only prefer peace but prefer civility. Don't forget you were trained to win at all costs, with only secondary regard for context. Do you think that behavior is acceptable in civilian discussion?

Blatham, I don't admire the bravery of the trained soldier. I empathize and I pity, but I don't admire. If one has a conscience, one cannot admire a dehumanized military. More important, one cannot admire a society or culture which venerates that dehumanization.

Blatham

It appears that all this time you have had a misconception of the motives of those of us who advocate war now. I will not presume to speak for others but I can assure you my motives have nothing to do with God, glory, or any foolish thought that we are right and everyone else is wrong. My motives are based on reality, common sense and a conviction, yes conviction (you can have a conviction for a certain course of action that has nothing to do with God glory or self righteousness) that actions taken today will preclude more consequential actions taken later. The conviction that any war like action we take today will result in a brighter tomorrow for those that survive. The evidence of taking no action is evident in the chaos that now exists in the middle east today. My convictions are based on the results of other actions we have taken such as the first Gulf war( that was the right thing to do) and our action in Afghanistan (that was the right thing to do) our efforts worldwide to fight terrorism where ever it is (that is the right thing to do). Now you can call this selfrighteousness if you want---I call it conviction that is based on common sense---not some pie in the sky idealism that is based on HOPE that Saddam will get religion and change his ways or die if we keep him contained long enough. If he dies he has two murdering sons who are probably worse than he is.

I'm not condemning anyone for opposing the war, all I ask is that people don't use faulty reasoning in reaching their conclusions and don't condemn me based on faulty assumptions about my motives

Now we have a situation that is very interesting. Iraq is being asked to destroyed missiles that are capable to go over 90 miles (not allowed) but can't because their guidance system is so heavy, they can only go a fraction of that distance.

If they don't destroy them, it will the "smoking gun" or as termed on NPR this morning - the "smoldering missile".

If they do destroy the missiles and the US attacks them anyway, is not the US guilty of false pretenses. The bullying tactics would once again be evident -

But, I progress to far - deciding the furture without letting it run its course. A very common Bush trait! However, I set up scenarios, Bush sets up conclusions - very myopic.

I mainly watch from the sidelines as where beliefs (mistaken or otherwise) are concerned there is never going to be a cogent and objective debate.

Blatham has very lucidly put his arguments for the futility of war and the obscene situation where it is the pawns in the chess game of this and any war who suffer most.

These so called leaders, and Chirac has to be the worst kind imaginable, would let us believe on the one hand that we must invade Iraq, which may very possbily be true, yet on the other hand our internal security is so lax that in the UK we have the number 2 in the Taliban accepted by the authorities as an asylum seeker, because the statute of human rights will not allow any other outcome.

Where is the sanity in that, we debate and argue vehemently about waging an external war and we lay open our belly to the trojan horse within.

Comments please.

Bill -- False pretenses are what sustain this administration. What the Dems need to do (and fast) is draw up a bill of particulars. The particulars are there -- no doubt about that.

Tartan,

I understand that you are offended by the following clause in my posting above.



That isn't meant as a personal slur, but a plain statement of fact. Saddam and others are strengthened and encouraged in their mischief by anti-administration/anti-war demonstrations. That is a part of the price paid for freedom of expression, and we accept that price. Foriegn policy is most effective when the folks on the other side are not allowed to see divisions within one's own side. The actions of France and Russia also must make Saddam certain that he can weather the storm without complying with UN1441. The French and Russians are acting in what they regard as their national interest, and that is their right. The combination of anti-war forces ultimately may make war more certain. Why, because if Saddam doesn't comply the United States and its allies will act.

I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt, that was not the specific intent. I can not retreat howvever from what I regard as the truth.

BTW, if you want to see slurs go back over these many pages and note the intemperate languaged used daily against Mr. Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, and others who have supported the President's position. Perceptiona and Trespasser have been pilleried on a regular basis, yet those who support the American leadership's effort to protect the country seldom resort to similar intemperate language. I absolutely agree that postings should be civil. So the Anti's could really help here if they were to lower the tone of their attacks.

hiama, where does one begin. I think you have put you finger on the biggest problem we have today. The duality of intentions sometimes come together in such contradictory situtations. In America we have the opponents to Civil Rights and attempts to equalize a nation divided for centuries - using those rules to exact privilege - once again. We have a leader (sic) who denouces class and uses it to his advantage in even possible occurence he can. Yet, Peace is for all!!!

Tartarin, In the current Congress, any bill drawn up by the Dems will not see the light of day. Secondly, for the Dems to come up with such a bill, they would have to coalesce - something they have not done for over 8 years! But, good idea.

Asherman, you would have problems with me referring to those that want war as - WAR MONGERS and the war as IMMORAL

These too are facts not personal slurs!

And, the two you list directly slur individuals making posts. If you have problems with the 1st Amendment, sorry - That is our right, but these two constantly using Abuzz tactics is inexcusable and abhorent!

Good points Bill and Asherman too

I have to agree with Asherman here, but like him, consider this to be a matter of outcome, not intent. I know that those who oppose our administration here in America are not trying to "promote the welfare of our enemies" but that is one outcome of their actions. That is not to say that no one should ever oppose war or that anyone who is speaking out now should stop. Free speech is free speech and I want everyone--including those with whom I disagree--to have it and exercise it. But I hope we always do it in full knowledge of all of the consequences of our speech and our actions.

Tartarin

Congratulations----you have managed to thoroughly insult anyone here with military background who supports the war. So that the others don't fire back let me accept the brunt of your insults --- there is little doubt they were meant mostly for me. I won't directly respond because it would be futile since I know everyone else has tried to penetrate the fog with no success. I will continue to consider the source and ignore it.

BillW

I draw your attention to one of your direct and unwarranted insults to me at the beginning of this thread for which you were chastised by Timber and others. Short memory huh----maybe you should examine your actions a bit further. As Walter says----those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

If any of you thin skinned wonders would like to start another thread where you can all agree and slap each other on the back. I promise I will not follow.

I support the Constitution even when it hurts. I disagree with your equating loaded terms such as "Warmonger", with the observation that our enemies are strengthened in their resolve by the appearance of dissention in our midst. Occasionally almost all of us use stronger language than we should, and mostly those who are offended just credit the source and go on.

Perhaps we "warmongers" are just too sensitive about these things, but is sure seems that the Anti crowd had made a habit lately of inferring that anyone supporting the administration is "blind", "ignorant", duplicious, heartless, and eager to wash our hands in the warm blood of babies. I'm offended, and try to reign in my natural instinct to counter-attack. Occassionally I load up my own words with sharp connotations, but usually those hurtful words get edited out before the Submit. The Pro Crowd is just as sensitive, moral, rational, and well-meaning as any one in the Anti Crowd. No one in the Pro Crowd has ever inimated that the Anti's shouldn't exercise their 1st Amendment Rights, in fact I've said on a number of occasions that I believe it is the duty of the Anti's to speak out.

Nothing here is even in the same league as ABUZZ at it's worst.