Opinions on the War...

[Economos]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I've been following the whole scene rather closely since it started. I've got quite a few friends who are currently waiting for orders, so I feel compelled to watch and listen. I'm in total support with this campaign and, most of all, our troops. I guess I'm just curious as to how you guys feel about the whole scene?

One thing I just don't really understand is all the protesting that is going on, mainly in the U.S. I can totally understand why some oppose the conflict, but it's not going to stop what's going on. And I know that it hurts those who are serving and their families. It almost seems like the country is becomming more and more divided as the conflict escalates. It's fine to oppose the War, but please support the vets.

Another thing that gets under my skin envolving the protesting is the violence that sometimes escalates. I've seen many reports from around the globe of protesters marching in the streets, burning the American Flag, chanting anti-American slogans and often rioting over what's going on in Iraq. To me, this is the ultimate contradiction - peace protesters who [sometimes] start riots, burn the American Flag, and chant death to America. How is that a protest for peace?

And as the War escalates, so does the political propaganda. The Iraqi forces are pushing civilians infront of their lines so they can use the casualties and collateral damage as propaganda against us. Then the news reporters go to the hopsitals and film all the casualties and blame it on the Coalition. Why doesn't the majority world see that the Iraqi forces will do anything and emplore any tactic nescessary to keep the U.S. at bay outside Baghdad? It's very clear to me that there has to be a cache of chemical and biological warfare agents somewhere in the country - why else would the Iraqi infatry and Paramilitary forces have access to the bio-suits and gas masks. The U.S. does not use these types of weapons and the rest of the world knows that, but yet what we're doing here is a bad thing?

I hope the right thing is done here for the Iraqi people; I hope this time around, the job is finished instead of leaving the Kurds and the other "friendly" Iraqi forces [who were asked to rise up against Saddam in the first Gulf War] hung out to dry. This is why there hasn't been a popular uprising so far; the people of Iraq are skeptical that Bush Jr. will do the right thing and follow through.

I hope you guys feel free to post up your opinions because I'm interested.

:us:

 

[Phil]

I can understand that some people oppose the war, whatever their reasons are.Maybe they don't care about the Iraqis that Saddam executes, whatever. But the war has started, troops are over there, and they're not coming back until the end of the war. So protesting is pointless and can only lower morale. Protesting to help prevent it is one thing, that's their right, and it's what our soldiers are fighting for. But now they should be supported. My opinion, at least.

 

[5-90]

I oppose the war on the grounds of "unfinished business" - this is unnecessary, as Hussein and his entire command structure could and should have been eliminated in 1991. I know it was possible, as I was in one team that was waiting for a "go" order (there were several.)

I will always support the line-animal who puts himself in harm's way for our sake, as I once did. Believe me, it is not the soldier that makes the decision to go to war!

But, once war is begun, politics should be cast aside for the duration and a war prosecuted as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible. You do not halt your progress until all objectives have been met, and the enemy has been reduced to nothing, one way or another. The worst thing you can do to a mortal enemy is ALMOST kill him!

Therefore, I view prosecution of this war as unnecessary, as it is something that realistically should have been finished twelve years ago. Why we waited this long, I don't know. The problem is that we have given Hussein an idea what we are like when in contact, and he has already tried to use that against us (witness the false white flag engagment...)

5-90

 

[Ghost]

I know!

Why it took 12 years! Because 8 of them were under Clinton!

 

[dmillion]

Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.

I suppose there are probably some exceptions, but I haven't met any yet.

As for why we didn't do this 12 years ago... it's because that was NOT the objective of the mission 12 years ago. SHOULD it have been done then? Well, maybe, but that's a different discussion. The fact of the matter is that the objective of the Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait. That was done. Period. End of war.

 

[Economos]

Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.

I fully agree here; people need to f'king get over the election and concentrate on what's going on. I didn't vote for Bush, nor did I vote for Gore... or any other candidate. In a time of crisis and conflict, Americans need to be united to stand for one cause; if you disagree, make your argument BEFOR the starting line. War isn't going to cease over protests.

 

[5-90]

The simple fact of liberating Kuwait necessitated the elimination of Hussein and possibly his NCA as well - leaving someone like that in a position of power paves the way for history to repeat itself. We pushed in WWII for the capture and/or elimination of Hitler, and the submission of Hirohito. Hitler eventually took care of himself, and Hirohito &c committed suppuku shortly after the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (which resulted in massive civilian casualties, but were selected due to the fact that they were major Japanese industrial centres and responsible for a large section of production of Japanese war materiel.)

As far as I am concerned, we 'liberated' Kuwait, but did not compleat the job. Kuwait would only have been fully liberated by the elimination or capture of its oppressor, removing his ability to continue unchecked. Kuwait was, therefore, not fully liberated with the removal of Iraqi forces.

Trying Hussein under the Nuremburg or Hague conventions would have resulted in his removal (by incarceration or execution,) and his future inability to repeat his actions. The removal or liquidation of Hussein would also have served to send a message to the rest of the world (in general) and the Middle East (in particular) about our refusal to tolerate the activities of schmucks. Therefore, we are now doing the job again, but it will be more difficult this time because Hussein has more working knowledge of American and Allied field practices...

I tell ya - if there's one thing I hate it's doing a job TWICE!

5-90

 

[Scott Mac]

Just because we didn't get him 12 years ago for whatever reason is no reason not to be infavor of the war.

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

Partisan politics. I have yet to meet even one person who is opposed to this war, who hasn't been anti-Bush since before he was elected. Most of them can't get over the fact that Gore lost the election. They're mad about how that went down, so anything Bush is for, they are against.

I suppose there are probably some exceptions, but I haven't met any yet.

I havn't met any pro-Bush and anti-war advocates either. As the demonstrations become strained, more than one or two people recognize the conflicting issues of human rights (and other abuses) that this war may resolve.

A Fox news view on demonstrator's motivation

"As I have watched more and more of these
events, I have become convinced that the
majority of these folks are not really
anti-war, but, in fact, anti-Bush."

Then, there are those who should be demanding a change to better protect the world, but they have other agendas.

Just some interesting perspective to add to the discussion. I wonder if the radical organizers realize they are exposing the false promise of thier ideology (or if the public will even remember on election day years from now)?

I find it interesting that a person cannot be a peace advocate with an understanding that sometimes the conflict resolution provided by war is the mose effective answer (I have yet to see one interviewed, and they are not asking me)?

 

[Jes]

I'm not for the war and I'm not against the war, I simply do not have all the facts on the situation at hand. All I know is I support our troops 100%, they're putting their lives at risk so that people here in the U.S.A. can enjoy the freedoms we've all come accustom to. It's a shame this job wasn't done right in the first place, it now will cost more lives than it would have taken origionally and that's a shame. God bless the families of our fallen soldiers.
A lot of anti war protests have happenend here in S.F.(as a lot of you probably know) and I for one am not against people wanting to protest something, it's their right as a citizen of the United States of America.
However, I am against hipocritical morons that use the excuse of protest to halt other people's daily rutines(like going to work) or cause the destruction of public and private property. Get a f#&$!*% job, get a life losers!
If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

 

[TC]

dmillion is right, the objective was to get Iraq out of kuwait, thats all. Now matter how people "feel" that we should have gotten Saddam doesn't matter, we didn't have coalition support to do so...exactly what we ran into this time. We weren't allowed to go after him, we didn't have the approval of the UN members.
People who claim they care about innocent victims are simply not thinking things through, Saddam has killed thousands more innocents than will die as a result of this War.
I believe any normal human being gets a sick feeling in the pit of their stomach when they realize that war is necessary, we know it means suffering, death and sorrow. It doesn't mean we don't care, on the contrary, it means that sometimes the only way to deal with a violent lunatic is by using violence... this guy just doesn't play nice.
Some people just can't get it through their thick heads that there are actually some people in the world who are truly evil with no compassion whatsoever. Talking, reasoning, and group hugs don't work with these types, the only thing to do is take them out of the picture either by imprisonment or death. Anyone can make easy decisions, thankfully we have a President who can make the hard ones and stick to his guns instead of letting polls guide him. TC

 

[Eagle]

However, I am against hipocritical morons that use the excuse of protest to halt other people's daily rutines(like going to work) or cause the destruction of public and private property. Get a f#&$!*% job, get a life losers!
If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

See, this may be part of the problem. You have already decided that anyone who is against the war is hypocritical, and if they demonstrate -- you're going to run them over. This is how anti-war protests become violent, NOT because (as someone stated in an earlier post in this thread) the anti-war protesters are violent hypocrites.

Most of you haven't "met" me, so you can stand by your statements. But I am against this war. I am for our troops -- I WAS one of our troops in Vietnam -- but I cannot support a war that is being conducted on fraudulent bases, for purely economic and political reasons, without the backing of the United Nations. I keep reading about our government promising that various Iraqis will be prosecuted as "war criminals," yet we are the aggressors. We are the ones who invaded a sovereign nation without UN sanction. War crimes are tried by an international tribunal. I seriously doubt that body is going to convict any Iraqi of war crimes when their actions were taken in defense of their country against an illegal aggression.

In the words of the late Ann Landers, it's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. And, no, I did not vote for Dubya -- but I didn't vote for Gore, either. I won't bother to state who I did vote for, but it was someone I considered better qualified than either (than both, in fact).

JMHO

 

[5-90]

Eagle -
I don't know if it made the news on your coast, but the demonstrators in SF weren't just out picketing, but were actually blocking intersections in the SF Financial District, and were even chaining themselved together across the streets. I never heard a final count, but SFPD had arrested something like 1,000 in the first hour of police activity!

I will respect people's right to protest, and to express themselves, but this right to expression does not include any semblance of a right to create impediments to traffic, business, or the economy. If they want to stand on the corners, hold signs, and chant, that is just fine. If they are going to block streets, they are taking a grave risk. Last time I checked, creating a traffic impediment is illegal, and I know my mother taught me to not play in the street...

As I've been known to say (and I think you've said this as well,) "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

I do not support the war as an effort I realistically view as redundant (see my comments above.) There is no way you will be able to catch me not supporting the line-animals in harm's way!

Regarding the United Nations, I have a hard time taking them seriously anymore. I'd like to know how they intend to collect and apply the "World Income Tax" they're on about now, and how it is we have to provide nearly everything they 'need' for their operations worldwide. It seems that we pay dues, additional "contributions" above and beyond regular dues, and supply the line troops for (nearly) all military missions - after seconding them to foreign command in direct contravention of their Oath of Enlistment. If the UN is demanding US troops, they can be assigned under US commanders and the operational orders can and should be reviewed and approved by National Command Authority.

I think a review of the UN and its practices is soon to be in order, if it is to continue attempting to operate as a "legitimate" organisation. Of course, that's just my own opinion - that of a knuckle-dragging line-animal...

5-90

 

[Jes]

See, this may be part of the problem. You have already decided that anyone who is against the war is hypocritical, and if they demonstrate -- you're going to run them over. This is how anti-war protests become violent, NOT because (as someone stated in an earlier post in this thread) the anti-war protesters are violent hypocrites.

Gee, did you actually read my post?!?

Jes

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

I cannot support a war that is being conducted on fraudulent bases, for purely economic and political reasons, without the backing of the United Nations.
JMHO

Eagle,

I respect your objection to the war; based on your experience and beliefs, although I believe the above statement obscures the reason we are involved (let me try to clear it up).

I read lots of theories, and many good (and bad) reasons for the conflict. They try to explain the conflict with Iraq's leadership as a perceived isolated USA problem, not the documented UN problem with Iraq. These explanations may make segments of the world's population feel good (or bad) but they fail to address the topic of why the conflict escalated to armed battle. They fail to acknowledge the UN has been leading the opposition to Iraq until the last few weeks.

What do we know?

The war is engaged because the Iraq violated UN Resolution 1441 (the last of many Iraq failures to comply with the UN). We know the UN failed at enforcement (and is still resisting).

Did Iraq's Leadership violate the intent of the resolution? Yes.

Did Iraq (or the UN) act in good faith and fully comply with the UN resolution? No.

UN Security Council members have tried to talk around the fact the Iraq government failed to honor this contract with the UN (with the world), to openly disclose all potential weapons (not just WMD). The UN inspectors (lead by Mr. Blix) reported weapons were found that were not disclosed, and had been modified beyond that allowed by prior UN agreements (inspectors coached their statements that "inspectors were not assigned to judge what is a material breach of the resolution, only to report on what is observed"). There were/are documented violations (even before the undocumented missiles and aircraft were exposed in the conflict) that provide a valid basis for the violation, leading to the current conflict. Iraq failed (and the UN diplomatic process failed as well).

IMO, the fact that the UN Security Council failed to agree on enforcement of the UN's own resolution is a failure of the UN committee process. A failure of a process demanding not only majority agreement, but agreement of nations with veto rights as well (so much for a true diplomatic democracy). I would have liked to read a vote of the UN General Assembly on the issue of enforcement (but then R1441 was voted and passed making the need for a "new" contract moot).

Why did the UN political process (and diplomatic process) fail to achieve enforcement of a contract? Why did Iraq and the UN resist a diplomatic resolution? The USA requested an audience in the UN many times demanding compliance with the UN Resolution (and is still working with the UN), and yet the UN failed to apply enforcement.

Where is the economic reason behind the diplomatic resistance problem with Iraq?

Was Iraq withholding its true weapons capability, and valid accounting documentation demanded by R1441, to barter for more economic aid? No, none documented.

Was an offer given by Iraq, to comply fully, in trade for economic advancement (an offer that failed)? No, none documented.

Is the USA, or the UN Security Council, the political reason for the conflict: that the difficult politics of achieving UN enforcement (even of their own resolution) with the current structure failed?

I would like to know any "economic reasons" for the conflict (not speculation, but documented reasons we can read and study)?

I can read about the poor economics of Iraq under the enforcement of standing UN Resolutions (oil for food, etc.: the UN's siege method of enforcement, one that failed).

I can read speculation about reasons for French and Russian resistance to enforce actions that may well reduce their economic stability (US$8 billion owned to Russia and similar debt to France).

I can also read speculation that the war is a way for the USA to advance itself out of an economic recession (and with leading economic indicators falling as the population resists spending into a potentially expanded terror driven conflict, any economic advancement theory fails to recognize that US economy is no longer isolated from non-domestic threats). Any conspiracy theory that advances the thought that this is a war for oil, (or profits for Bush buddies) fails to recognize the devaluation problem with a terror driven recession (I made a billion, but it ain't worth a billion no more).

Lots of speculation to read, but little facts.

I would also like to know any political reasons for the conflict (again, not speculation but something I can read that is not opinion)?

I have read speculation the war goal is a mission to avoid recognition that the USA and UK are in an economic recession? Is this a perceived political problem or a documented problem (BTW, let me know what is the problem, I know about the recession)?

I read the war is a political rating game steered by spending billions in weaponry and recovery relief. Maybe the political reason is pure ego (leaving a huge economic risk if it fails)?

I also read the war is a conflict to address "failures of the father?" I read nothing to indicate this is the motivation (even if I really don't care who failed, as long as someone addresses a solution to the UN's problem).

Are these political positions speculation or something substantial?


I have to ask myself questions.

Is Iraq a threat (to the World or USA)? YES

Should the USA be involved with enforcing a UN Resolution, that was designed to eliminate the threat, and failed? No, (IMO) we should not.

The threat of UN failure is a question (what should be done with Iraq, with the UN)? Should we trust the UN with our (the World and USA's) protection from the threat Iraq presents?

I should be able to trust the UN with World peace, but I cannot (can you)?

IMO the USA should not be involved with this conflict, but we also cannot allow the dysfunctional UN to continue to fail. We may not have a good reason to be involved (why I ask for the reasons you refer to without identification), but do we have compelling reasons to remain isolated from the conflict?

What are the alternatives to USA involvement, and what are the advantages to the USA not being involved? What can the USA gain by staying out of the conflict?

What are the risks if we fail to be involved? What are the risks if we stay out of the conflict?

The unstated question is would those who hate the USA leave us alone if we backed out of the UN completely and isolated our influence to only issues within our borders? Is the World large enough for the USA to remain safely isolated?

What are the options?

 

[Eagle]

If they block me from getting to work or home I will be hard pressed not to put an MT/R print on someones head!!!

Jes

Yes. Seemed pretty clear to me. My way or (you become) the highway.

To 5-90. Non-violent civil disobedience has been a fact of life and protest for nearly 50 years. It was first used by Ghandi in India, and was adopted by protesters against the Vietnam "conflict" and has been used in many, many other protests against many other things and policies. Yes, the protesters know they are breaking the law. They expect to be arrested for doing so, as a way of drawing attention to their position. What they do not expect -- and should not expect -- is when they submit peacefully to arrest, that by-standers and the cops will beat the crap out of them. Your mother may have taught you not to play in traffic (my mother taught me the same thing), but you have a right to do so -- if you are willing to accept the logical consequences.

 

[SyCo]

I asked my father about his thoughts on the war (long time veteran, served both Vietnam and Korean, special forces green beret, 82nd airborne, yes I'm bragging because I'm proud of him and I love him) and he said the first thing they should've done was knocked out Iraq's communications so they couldn't broadcast their propanganda bs. He just recented came back from China and he said everyone views us as the bad guy, because we're "killing innocent civilians". There was NEVER a war were innocent civilians weren't killed, so why has this become a big deal all of a sudden? Civilian casualties are awful, but with Saddam in power, they are a guarantee whether or not we intrude.

I agree about the "violent-peace protestors" so to speak, what an oxymoron. I don't understand how you can promote peace by destroying property and rioting. Believe me, I respect protestors to an extent because even though I don't agree with them that's what makes this country great, is the fact we can disagree with one another and not be shunned/killed/exiled/whatever for it. But when property is destroyed and signs such as "I'll support the troops when they start shooting their officers" are displayed, I can't help but get pissed off and want to crack a skull. Here in Richmond the protestors went past their allowed boundaries for protesting, and broke the windows of the National Guard Recruiter's Office....and they wonder why the cops are out with riot gear. So now our tax dollars go to the police who have to work overtime and enforce these protestors who can't follow the damn rules, and they'll probably bitch when we suffer another terrorist attack because the police were too busy enforcing them....some people just have to live for some cause or to be heard, no matter how ridiculous it may be (BTW I cloned the first child, and no you're not allowed to see it).

I just hope the war is over soon and the people of Iraqi finally get to live in some peace. Before you know it people will be saying "Saddam who?" and have forgotten about this whole conflict.

BTW Economos, the latest poll I saw said 78% of Americans (who participated in the poll mind you) supported Operation Iraqi Freedom. You know the media, only wanting to portray the negative aspects of life (because optimism doesn't sell). Also a funny website you may want to check out: www.protestwarrior.com

As for the U.N., the Human Rights committee is run by Libya, and the Global Disarmament committee is run by Iraq........'nuff said.

 

[Kejtar]

I Think

I Think that a lot of hte people protesting out ther are protesting for the fact hat they have nothing better to do....I Think that if they were given the opportunity they would have protested for the other side just as strongly.....

ALso I think that some of the activity is plain criminal!!!! I agree that a person might have a differnt opinion about the war... but if that person's protest interferes with my daily life or alters it in a negative manner (Damaged vehicle for displaying a pro war sticker or something like that) my wrath would be unleashed on that person!!!!!

Btw... this kind of illustrates the confusion amongst people protesting

 

[Eagle]

To Ed Stevens:

It's difficult to justify a claim that the UN failed, when the UN was circumvented mid-process by the fact that the US and England needed to get their little war going or lose the season. The UN had inspectors in place who were asking for more time to do their work.

And let us not forget that before the UN inspection teams went in, the US said "Iraq has the weapons. We know they have them and we know where they are." Fast forward to when the inspectors got into Iraq. They made a perfectly reasonable request: "Since you (the US) know where these weapons are, tell us so we can go find them."

Our response to this perfectly logical request was to stall, stonewall, and finally respond with a bunch of eyewash, portions of which were quickly proven to be pure speculation and others pure fabrication.

I do not for a moment believe or claim that Saddam is a nice guy. I fully agree that the UN f***ed up in '91 by not authorizing his neutralization then. However, that's history, and they did not. The key point is that they did not authorize his neutralization in 2003, which makes the United States and its allies effectively international outlaws. Like it or not, gents and ladies, what we are practicing here is a simple doctrine of "Might makes right." We are acting exactly like the global bully most other countries perceive us as. We may succeed (probably will succeed) in removing Saddam -- the problem I have with the way we've chosen to do it is that the follow-up question has to be "At what cost?" And I am not talking about the cost in dollars, I am talking about the cost in international relations and credibility.

If we had UN sanction, I would be 110% behind the war. Under the current circumstances, I feel our government has made a grave error and that in various ways which nobody can predict we will be paying for it in many ways for many, many years to come.

Yes, you can argue that the UN resolution gave us the authorization, but the fact is that the majority of the Security Council doesn't happen to agree. We managed to get the resolution written in language ambiguous enough that we feel we can claim justification, but anyone with half a brain saw that coming months ago. Our position would appear a lot stronger if we hadn't pushed so hard for a further resolution, and abandoned that initiative only at the 11th hour when it became obvious that we couldn't win the vote. The signal we sent to the world with that ridiculous display of "statesmanship" is that "We'll play by your rules when it's convenient for us, and when it isn't -- f**k off."

Hey, Economos asked for opinions. I didn't know he only wanted confirming opinions.

 

[Eagle]

FYI:

http://www.iht.com/articles/91593.htm