The US, The UN and Iraq

Your figures on losses, Boss, not mine. Read your own posts. My responses are not rhetorical--and this isn't German we're writing in, you need not capitalize substantives. I've not gotten emotional, nor are my remarks to you inflammatory, except that i point out your sneers at others. I have made very insulting remarks about the Shrub, and Cheney, and all their sorry crew. This is my right as an American citizen, remember--what you say you fought for as you fought against communism. I frankly don't care if you participate--most of your posts entail a good deal of sneers, and puerile sarcasm, meant to imply irrational, ill-considered, emotional, or just plain stupid posts by those with whom you disagree.

Edgarbythe: based on your comment to perception, i would say that you have grounds to warn me as well. I will make no further replies to this thread. My apologies if i have offended you.

Perception,

I hope you won't stop posting to this thread. Good discussion is often dependent on disagreement. I'll agree with both you and Setanta, you are both using certain inflamatory words which may be unnecessary. However, I'm not sure I would change it as long as it stays within reason. Which I think so for it has. Flavor is usually necessary if the meal is to satisfy.

I'll add that I'm reading this thread with interest. I agree with Setanta and dlowan on this issue. But we don't learn by talking only to those we agree with. Learning, honing beliefs, takes place best in a true debate.

Lola
Thank you for reminding Setanta and me that we are behaving like children in your usual diplomatic and friendly manner. We were invited to this forum because it was believed that we could carry on a discussion in a learned and civilized manner and that is what I will endeavor to do even though my position in this discussion represents a minority of one.

Thanks perception,

I invited you because I knew you could disagree in a reasoned manner. But I want to make it really clear that I wasn't objecting to the tone or conduct of the discussion so far. Passion is such an invigorating emotion and debate is not as much fun without it.

Lola
Noted with appreciation.

To all

To take the "chill" off this thread, I would like to note some encouraging signs that I believe will accelerate in our favor in the Middle East and here at home.
1. Headline in todays USA Today: Iranians may aid U.S. war on Iraq. (They may remember King Hussein of Jordan backed the wrong horse during the last Gulf War--backed Saddam)
2. New York Times article---Sleeper cell leader arrested. (now that their hands are not tied, the FBI and the Justice Dept are doing a fine job even though the INS has allowed 13 million illegal aliens to take up residence in this country) Yes-I know the INS is part of the Justice Dept and I can't believe the reluctance to decapitate and disband that incredibly incompetent dept.
3. If the Un gives it's "blessing" to attack Iraq all the neighbors of Iraq will jump on the bandwagon and allow use of their territory and bases. Contrary to what has been said, the US already has a fantastic base in Qatar and Abrams tanks and aircraft in Kuwait.
4. This plus B-52s, and B-1s and B-2s from Diego Garcia, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf and the Cruise missiles launched from ships will allow devastating air attacks. Note: even though Saudi Arabia has said publicly, we cannot use their bases, watch what happens when the actual war begins. (This is in case war cannot be avoided).
5. The psychological war has already started. Millions of leaflets are being dropped on Iraq as we speak(printed in Arabic) telling the residents what is coming.

There were millions of "prophets of doom and gloom" prior to the last gulf war. I have great confidence in the Bush team and I would like to note that Cheney didn't hire Bush ---I think it was the other way around and that goes for the other members of the team, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and of course Carl Rove for whom I have great new respect. Really great leaders surround themselves with great workers unlike people like Carter who tried to micro-manage everything and thus got buried in the forrest.

Setanta
My only objection was making it personal. You need not leave the thread. I have already done so.

I don't see where anyone's been childish here -- partisan rhetoric is bound to creep in but when it comes to war or even the threat of war, we don't learn to deal with our enemies as much as hate the alliances we make. It's likely that Turkey and a few of the Arab nations would be allies in a forced disarmament without the UN but it's what would happen after that is more worrisome than the war itself. I see the administration putting itself between the Devil and the deep blue sea on this one and it's really a gamble that it will do more good than more damage. As great as this nation is, it is bereft with diplomatic screw-ups in its past and the government seems always anxious to go pell mell into making another one. I am suspicious of motivations in this administration being a natural sceptic anyway. It's not necessary to be cynical about politics until the sceptism turns out to be warranted. I watched "Journeys with George" on HBO and it's made me more sceptical of this man.

Setanta
When did I make it personal? Since you have given me your objection(I think) your constant insults about Bush and Cheney really got me roiled up. It's sort of like having a friend who constantly insults another friend who is not present. I voted for the man and I really respect his team so I take insults about them
personally and your dislike for them comes through loud and clear
even without the actual wording.

Perception,

Some might feel as strongly as you do from the opposite viewpoint.

I do enjoy this debate and let's continue (as soon as I can find time and cool words I'll answer your last post). We think differently and such is life. Opposing viewpoints can coexist, I am as far from you as I can imagine is possible on a few issues but we might have common ground elsewhere.

Lightwizard

I really like one point you made: we never learn to deal with our enemies as much as hate the alliances we've made.

Somebody said that: "it is unrealistic to believe that we actually have friends in the form of countries, we only have diplomatic encounters with potential enemies".

Since we know factually that we have been forced to make stupid deals with unsavory characters in the past, why isn't it logical to say that now with our Doctrine of Pre-emptive strike, we are not now forced to" bow and scrape" to every tin-horn dictator that surfaces.

I really believe it is naive to depend on countries as friends when the entire policy of a country can shift like the wind. Examples are: Germany, France, Venezuela and maybe Brazil just to name a few.

I am NOT advocating replacing every nasty dictator at a whim but at least they are put on notice to tread softly and at least give the appearance of peaceful co-existence.

I can understand the concerns of many, that some Presidents might try to make the pre-emptive strike an actual step toward conquering the world. I answer that with a question----when have the American people ever wanted to invade a country and make it a part of an "American Empire"? Contrary to what a great many people think, the American People still rule this country. The checks and balances still work!

Craven
Thanks for your vote of confidence and I want to add that as a hatchling I not had the pleasure of viewing your "Questions about Iraq" before I threw myself into this fray. After reading your questions and answers I greatly respect your opinion and admire your analysis of possible scenarios. I would offer that there isn't as great a void in our points of view as you seem to suggest.

I must examine my wording more carefully before submitting responses because I must have roiled you as well as Setanta when you asked me to"answer a pointed question" in our initial exchange.

Looking forward to more stimulating exchanges.

Craven
BTW---I actually visited and joined this forum in anticipation of participating in discussions concerning philosophy and neuroscience. Ethel(Lola) will confirm that we had some very worthwhile discussions on Abuzz but the quality of participants was deteriorating rapidly. Now I know why, they were all coming here.

Check and balances, advise and consent work if it's not characterized as obstructionism. The partisan name calling and euphemistic innuendo in politics is just plain counter productive -- it sometimes does descend to schoolyard squabling over a favorite toy. I laugh at politicians on a daily basis -- they make it look like they are serious about an issue and then some of the most ridiculous, condescending baloney starts pouring out of their mouths. You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.

This privitization of the Homeland Security is another step toward melding government with business. Haven't we learned from the accounting scandals that we have to have government oversight untainted by the advocacy and agenda of private enterprise? These scandals have plagued the American system since it began. It's game playing -- business likes to infer that your shouldn't trust government while slipping their hand in the till.

The United Nations will only work with the support of the American government. If Bush can build a real coalition to preemptively invade Iraq, that's an entirely different story. It's going to be a dangerous two years before the next Presidential election -- let's see how much those who worship Bush can hold onto their beliefs without going into denial. He's a flawed leader just like all of our leaders have been. Some are just more flawed than others. Everytime someone begins praising a leader for everything they are doing, they're going to get an opposite reaction because of an obvious clouding of their objectivity.

In my opinion, and taking into consideration the material being debated, this thread has been very informative and comparatively free of acrimony. Perception has stood pretty much alone, with some help from Fishin, but pretty much alone, and may feel a little isolated. So he referred to "Bleeding hearts" and "rising hysteria" all of which we can do without, still he's mostly kept his cool. I say cut him a little slack. Setana has no reason to think he ought to leave this thread. He's done a fantastic job of presenting his arguments. This is a political discussion on a contentious subject, it's not a tea party. Although the rhetoric may have been heated, it has not been abusive.

As long as anyone has anything worth saying, I think this ought to continue.

Hazlitt, I absolutely agree. I hope Setanta will return. I missed his post the first time in which he said he wasn't posting again. Let's get on with the discussion. I'm very interested.

I think it was General Sherman who once said to Military Academy Students, "There's many a boy here today who think's war is all glory - I tell you war is all Hell" (Sorry for the vagueness of the quote.

I have read with inerest all of the posts the people have written and as far as I can make out it boils down to: "is war a good thing or a bad thing - and in particular is war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq a good thing or a bad thing"?.

I have served in the British Army for over 22 years and I have been in one or two trouble spots around the world. The one that comes to mind most readily is the Borneo "Confrontation" (amazing how politicians can come up with such euphemisms to describe death and destruction isn't it?)
I did two tours of duty there between 1960 and 1965 - first with the British Infantry and secondly with the Royal Australian Artillery. I merely put this in to let you know that I have been in a war, albeit "a little war"!

The point I want to make is, how do we judge what is a "just" war and what is "unjust"? I consider the First World War to be one of Power grabbing by all the protagonists. The second war was "just" in that it tried to prevent power grabbing. But was the Second World War as inevitable as it seemed to be at that time? Possibly not. Appeasement by Chamberlain, incompetence by Military Procurement and general early incompetence and fright by French and British Military led to the inevitability of the Second World War. "We cannot bomb the Schwartz Wald - it is private Property". That was the attitude of British Politicians in l939.

I don't know what Saddam has in the way of Mass Destruction Weapons.
I don't know whether he'll be stupid enought to bomb Kuwait/Israel/US etc.
What I don't know I'll leave to the so-called experts - military and political - who persuaded us to vote for them in the first place.
What I suspect is that Saddam's last offer of "unfettered" weapons inspections will fool the deluded appeasers as in the Second World War.
I know that the Arabs will hate us - but look, the Arabs hate us now anyway. I know the Muslims will hate us - but the Muslims hate everyone including themselves anyway. The world will condemn us - damned if you do - damned if you don't.

But here all this war and stuff might be fun. Loook at at this way:

It will allow soldiers to put into practice what they have been trained for at great expense - killing people. It is hard to beat sitting in front of your TV watching News at Ten, with a glass of a decent Port and offering your humble opinion to those stupid Military Planners who are not conducting the war the way you think it ought to be conducted.

Don't Forget the the Democrats will bve pleased to see Coalition Soldiers shooting at Iraqi REPUBLICAN Guard Units.

It will give us a chance to use up all our stockpiled ammo and rations before the expiry of the "use by" date. There is a saving.

We've had "Ole Blood and Guts", and "Stormin Norman". Who will qualify for the next nom de guerre soundbite?

CNN will benefit - but will Ted and Hanoi Jane kiss and make up?

Will be See Senator Hillary stick her fingers down her throat as she listens to the next War Speech of George W?

Yup, War Is Hell.

Such cynicism is its own reward, Tommy. Actually, that was a brilliant post, and I've no doubt you're right with regard to weapons inspections. After which, it will be time to return to the UN and see if we can't drum up some support for a new resolution basically saying the same thing as the last, 'only this time we mean it.'