Antiwar protests.

I'd have to check where the information came from, Au. The administration has lied so consistently about Iraq (among other things!), that I think if Blix or ElBaradei found something, I'd believe it. If it's Tommy Franks or anyone related to the administration, you'd have to give me a mind-altering drug if you wanted any hope of "convincing" me! Friend, look unto thine own WMDs first!

So you are hoping for a prolonged conflict where 50,000+ civilians die as a result of chemical and biological agents released by Saddam. You want to have a flood of body-bags qued up at Andrews, and our field hospitals overflowing with wounded men and women. You would like to sit back in your easy chair and gloat as scuds loaded with chemicals burst over Tel Aviv killing more thousands. You won't be satisfied if the skies are not obscured by the pall of heavy waste oilsmoke.

Would you cheer and dance in the streets if a terrorist managed to set off a dirty nuke in L.A. harbor? Shame on you.

Even those who oppose this action should pray that their pessimism and lack of faith in American arms and values will be mistaken. Instead of hoping for the deaths and destruction of a botched war, you should be hoping that predictions of victory bought with minimum loss of life and destruction are correct and understated. Instead of wringing your hands over the costs of any war, you should be proud and thankful that our country takes such pains to minimize the necessary death and destruction.

If your hopes come true, will you share your happiness with the families of the dead and wounded who sacrificed their lives on your miserable behalf? If your hopes of American defeat are realized, will you proudly wear the title Quesling?

Asherman
Statements such as Tartarin's are made when hate overcomes reason. I can't really believe he meant it as written. Or can I?

i would guess its frustration rather than hate

Tartarin



If they used it would you have to go there an sniff it to see if it was lethal?

Au,

This isn't the first instance where Tartan has expessed the hope that the worst predictions regarding this operation will all come true. Some of us may lose our children in this action, and those who pray for that outcome will find little sympathy later.

I remain convinced that the Allies will prevail and that the costs will be modest all around. This is the very best alternative of those available, and the benefits outweigh the risks. Things might go wrong. That is almost axiomatic of war, but risks must be taken if the certainty of defeat is to be avoided. Iraq by itself can not defeat us, but Iraq is only a small part of a larger much more complex strategic problem.

Hans Blix and Mommmed El Baradei "Found" that neither N Korea nor Iran were pursuing nuclear technology.

It was not their assignment to "find" a damned thing in Iraq. Their mandate was to verify that Iraq had complied with its obligations under the terms of the original Gulf war Ceasefire. It does not take 12 years, nor even 6 months, to determine compliance if in fact there is compliance. What has been demonstrated repeatedly is that Iraq persists in failing to provide the necessary proof of compliance.

An aside ... I'm struck by the incongruity of those who proclaim compassion as a rational for objecting to the war, yet call for disaster to befall the troops called on to prosecute the war. Those who protest most loudly against "Situational Ethics" appear to me to be adept at the practice.

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:39 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asherman
If memory serves me he is not alone. I must have a distorted view of patriotism and loyalty to country. Maybe even a little of "My country love it or leave it. I guess my beliefs were forged by my childhood years being spent during the depression, Teens during WW2. Service prior to and during the Korean war and a deep sense of love of country forged by my parents. Both of whom came as youngsters to this country to escape the kindness of European society. Although I despise Bush and think he is a plague visited upon this nation I still in the final analysis love America and will support it.

Sorry guys (I'm a she, by the way), I stick to my principles here. I want withdrawal of our troops, first. Since that doesn't seem to be about to happen, my reason dictates that mush Bush fail in this attack, not fail so that Iraqi citizens are slaughtered or troops put at any more risk than necessary (OBVIOUSLY) but fail so that the US finally wakes up to this horrific, lethal agitprop the administration has indulged itself in. Bush is the murderer guys, not me.

I think you may half realize this. You aim your attacks at me personally which you wouldn't do if you weren't affected by the demonization which Bush very much wants you to be affected by.

Tartarin, I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone is attacking you ... though some do offer rebuttal to some arguments you present. I don't think the purpose of these forums is to change anyone's mind; rather, I see these forums a place where proponents of differing views can air those views. I know I'm not looking for "Converts"; I'm stating my thoughts and feelings, and I appreciate and carefully consider the thoughts and feelings of others, including yourself. Whether I agree with someone or not, I can admire their ability to state, define, and present their position. You are a most able spokesperson for a position I do not happen to share. I truly value the perspective you bring to this (and to many another) discussion, and I want to categorically state that it is my firm conviction discussion without dissent is profitless. I thank you very much for your active, enthusiastic participation.

Good job. Please keep it up.

Tartan,

So you think that massive casualties are worth sustaining to "prove" that your hatred of the President of the United States is justified. Saddam is the murderer in this situation, not the President. To fail in the attack, is for there to be massive casualties, wide destruction, and in the end an American defeat --- that is what you are wishing for. The practical result of your hopes is that a mass murderer shall prevail over the armed forces of your country.

Your principles will be cold comfort. If your hopes are realized, your hands will be stained with American blood. If your hopes are dashed, your foolishness will be evident to all. In either case, you are a traitor to the country by supporting the enemy, no matter how "Patriotic" you claim to be.

This is personal. I have no sympathy for those who wish disaster for our country and the soldiers who fight on its behalf.

Article from national review.[]

March 18, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
Seeing Red
Spontaneous anti-American demonstrations? Think again.
By Ion Mihai Pacepa


Over the March 15-16 weekend there were simultaneous anti-American and pro-peace demonstrations around the world, with the largest in Athens and Moscow. It is significant that the headquarters of the Soviet-created World Peace Council (WPC) is now in Athens, and that its honorary chairman is still the same KGB asset, Romesh Chandra, who chaired this Cold War organization during the years when I was a Communist general. This current bashing of the U.S. makes me believe I am watching a revival of an old stage drama, the lines of which I know by heart. Back in the 1970Ss the drama featured that same Ramesh Chandra and consisted of the WPC's virulent offensive to counteract American efforts aimed at protecting the world against Communist expansion. {Continued in noted link}.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pacepa031803.asp

Asherman: Ditto.

AHA! So the CP is behind all these protests. This is just like the Cold War all over again! Thank god the National Review is on the case. Just when it seemed like there was a popular movement opposing the war. How naive could we have been! To think they're all communist dupes. Scary...

Your point about the Vietnam vets is an important one. Soldiers who suffered in a war they didn't necessarily want to happen (the way it did) either deserve sympathy, not scorn.

But otherwise, I would have to disagree. Some wars have been wrong; some wars have started out for the right reasons but spiralled down into senseless butchering. Vietnam is an example, but so is WW1. How many lives would have been spared if the train of war could have been stopped somewhere along the way?

It is necessary, as the first poster reacting to you said, to monitor what happens during a war. When does self-defense turn into war crime? When are weapons and strategies used (compare Agent Orange in Vietnam, or the firebombing of Dresden in WW2) that do nothing but cause needless mass-suffering? Whenever that happens, people have to be ready to speak out, against their own government, and say: stop right there. I solidarise with our soldiers but you won't have them do that in my name.

Taking the position that, once the war starts, one has to support it to the end, leaves you powerless to act when that time comes. And if journalists, too, would take that position, as many in the US seem to expect them to, you won't even know that the time will have come.

Good points, nimh.

As I said somewhere else recently, I also think protests are important in terms of America's place in the world -- doing what we can to assure other nations that this war is against the wishes of many, many Americans.

Well, you're right, that is to say, up to the extent that it remains a bit unclear why if Hussein's regime has WMDs, imminent war is necessary, while when other countries create and expand WMDs, including dictatorships as bad as Iraq's, no one hinders them. But yes, if WMD are found in Iraq, or worse: if it uses them in the war, then the Bush government will have been proven right in its suspicions. And yes, I would cheer on, because every country that loses its WMD is one more country that will have no WMD, and that is a Good Thing.

But there is something else that struck me about your post, something that has haunted me lately, namely: witch trials.

You know the ones. She's a witch. We'll prove it. We're gonna tie her to a big rock and then throw her into a river. There's two possibilities then. Either she sinks - which means she's proven innocent, though she won't be any less dead. Or she floats - in which case she will be guilty, and thus has to be killed.

That's basically the scenario of this war. We suspect Iraq still has WMD (that it, unlike other dictatorships, is not allowed to have). So we're going to go to war to it. Either we march straight into Baghdad - in which case it'll have turned out to be innocent on the charge, though it won't be any less occupied. Or we get attacked by chemical weapons - in which case we'll have proven it guilty, and we'll have to occupy it.

Something about that just isn't Quite Right.

The thing that isn't right is your complete avoidance of the very real consequences of doing nothing. You and others like to make much hay over the consequences of action, but simultaneously pretend there are no consequences for inaction.

If we were inside a burning house on a rainy day, you'd argue that we shouldn't run outside because we'll all get wet.

Meanwhile, Bush is busy insulting the firefighters.

No, he's got 250,000 of them ready to go in and put out the fire.