How Dare We Call It a War!

cobalt, great question!

I voted "Other". If you don't mind, I'll just watch for a while and see what other folks think. My position probably doesn't need much restatement




timber

Timber, by the looks of the poll, there are others listening in, too, lol!

I shall be interested if anyone does vote for the first option, war, explain why they believe it to be war. You are right about your position - mine would be well-known within a2k as well :wink:

I see it as an invasion for purposes other than as stated by the Bush administration. Right now they are going through the motions of preparing to defend against the attack, but I believe most Iraqis are simply awaiting the opportunity to hoist a white flag over the rubble. If Iraq really had significant WMDs I believe they would expose them before the world and destroy them by now, knowing obliteration is the one option they are faced with.

Hard choice but I voted for other. Simply because it could be concidered in the context of the Gulf War agreemernts that the Iraq's never lived up to. Yes it is a stretch.
Second choice Invasion

I need to check in with one of my therapist friends to see if "mounting massive military actions" is listed under "Obsessive-Complusive Behaviors".
That would be funny under different circumstances, wouldn't it?
I voted other because what I think we have here is a mental disorder of some sort, with it's resulting actions being paid for by the common people of the world.

"I will finish what my daddy started"
"I don't know what else to do"
"I want to distract the people from other issues"
"My pals in the industry need some lucrative contracts, ever since their stock options are not worth the piece of paper they are written on"
"I love having an enemy"

Want more ?

Sorry, being sarcastic - But seeing Bush and Blair at yesterday's news conference in Azores really sickened me !!

To this point, 0% of those polled view the US operation as 'self defence'. That's encouraging.

Until you guys (we're little better in Canada) get a handle on campaign finance, on conglomerate media ownership and on transparency in government, you really ought to chuck the term democracy in favor of some other which reflects reality.

And let me add...if the democrats don't grow some cojones soon, the third party option will likely give Bush another term even if the sky comes falling in (more serious terror attacks; economy crashed, and not for a short time; civil liberty ideas redefined as 'comforting the enemy'; world-wide seething anger at the US; and the Presidency understood as First Christian-Soldier Post).

I voted "other."

I consider it a travesty -- a bit of hypocrisy -- a sign of petulance -- a disgrace -- an insult to my country and what it stands for -- and an insult to humanity.

But none of those choices were available.

So it was "other."

I voted attack and am so sorry for the US. Our world is changed forever in this we will never have safety in the US again.

Keep the votes and comments coming! I appreciate very much hearing the different "takes" we have on this. We have the luxury of discussing "an issue". Think of what those directly engaged face.

I believe that American cities will face the exact same bus bombings as does Israel and other countries. Just think: five states a day, pick a different city. Then, next day, five more. And so on. Would our FBI and Homeland Security be able to coordinate small but random attacks? They had better be, but I am not counting on that. I agree with Joanne: this horror is changing the entire world, and not for good.

It is a limited military operation intended to improve the power balance in the Southwest Asia.

steissd

Good bit of thinking there! That is in such rich contrast to what Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others have already written and said, that it deserves some award for how fat a lie someone can fit between their teeth.

Well, these motives were obvious from the very beginning. Oil was secondary to power balance. By the way, the one that is a dominating side in the formule of such a balance, automatically has preferential access to natural resources.
Well, if the natural resources of the area are under American control, this will contribute to international security: at least, we may be sure that oil revenues will not be used by dictators for development of their WMD programs.

Of course, Messrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle could not openly declare the purpose of the war as a change of the power balance: this surely would enhance opposition of countries like France that want to dominate there themselves.

It looks like Tony Blair will be the first casualty his Minister for Foreign Affairs just resigned and other cabinet members are sure to follow. He won't make it I am sure of that.

If the Brits pull out the US and Spain will be the only two in the coalition of the willing. That is not a good sign of the outcome of this war. The US is powerful without a doubt is the US more powerful than the people of the world? I say not.

everybody's got something to hide 'cept for me and my monkey

An attack that will lead to an invasion that will lead to war.

On the motives, I agree with steissd, except for one word: "improve".

IMO, if the USA dominates in the area, this will be a serious improvement of situation there.

And what if Saddam forces the issue by initiating the attack today instead of just sitting around waiting for the bombs to fall?