Opinions on the War...

[Eagle]

personally, I am against the UN as a concept.... in that their actions have become meaningless. Lybia as the chair for human rights? haha.
Glenn

I don't completely disagree with that view. But if you want to talk about being hypocritical, that's just what the US is doing by participating in (i.e. "using") the UN. We're only too happy to weild our veto on the Security Council, but God help any country that uses their veto against something we want. We're happy to "support" the UN when they're doing something we want done, but when we want to do something the UN opposes -- we just do it anyway.

If we really don't like/want/trust the UN, we should do the honorable thing -- withdraw, and pack 'em off to build a new headquarters in Geneva or some other neutral/non-aligned country. Just think how many potential and actual spies and terrorists we'd get rid of if we tossed out the entire UN.

But we won't do that, because then we'd have to give up our permanent seat on the Security Council and we wouldn't have that nifty little veto. Yepp -- Hypocrisy-R-US

 

[SyCo]

But we won't do that, because then we'd have to give up our permanent seat on the Security Council and we wouldn't have that nifty little veto. Yepp -- Hypocrisy-R-US

Think so Eagle? It really wouldn't surprise me if we did withdrawal ourselves from the U.N. at this point, but I trust your judgement more than my own.

 

[Glenn B]

Yup, I would suspect that once this is all said and done.... some heavy thought will go in to this very subject. Which way will it go? I dunno. I do not see us leaving the UN, but I wish we would.
Glenn

 

[5-90]

I understand the idea of civil disobedience, but is it reasonable to shut down the centre of a major city in an act of "civil disobedience?" Is it reasonable to keep people from going about their business indiscriminately?

Ghandi used it, King used it, and the concept is alive and well. However, my argument resides with the methods used - this isn't a simple "sit-in" in State or Federal offices, this is preventing people who have nothing to do with what is being protested from going about their business.

I guess I'm just trying to understand how shutting down downtown San Francisco is a useful protest - it's just being asinine and stupid, when one distils it down.

I am not against the idea of protest - I do it often. I prefer, instead, to pick my battles and go directly to the people who are able to do something. It does no good to picket my next-door neighbour when I wish to protest a bad law, or a useless regulation. If I want to protest the war, I would organise a campaign to go against NCA, not against townspeople...

5-90

 

[Eagle]

I understand the idea of civil disobedience, but is it reasonable to shut down the centre of a major city in an act of "civil disobedience?" Is it reasonable to keep people from going about their business indiscriminately? ...

I guess I'm just trying to understand how shutting down downtown San Francisco is a useful protest - it's just being asinine and stupid, when one distils it down.

I don't disagree with you. It doesn't make sense. Whoever said it had to make sense?

I generally make it a point to not look at the mainstream media because their views are so biased, and I haven't encountered any protest rallies or marches in my little burg so I don't know what form the protests are taking in the big cities. The only thought I can offer in understanding (not "justifying") where the protesters are coming from is that they feel the war is senseless. There's an old axiom that "Like begets like." My assumption is that they perceive the war as senseless and unjustified violence, and for some of them at least that allows them to feel justified to respond in kind.

That attitude is not in keeping with Ghandi's view of non-violent civil disobedience. It's a venting of frustration because they don't feel their voices are being heard by the powers that be. They are correct in that assesment, although they are wrong in their response to it.

 

[jml1911a1]

Their voices are heard, loud and clear. It's just that no one cares what they think. These folks have nothing to do but clog up the streets in a giant, toddler-style, screaming temper tantrum, and the louder they whine, the sicker we get of them.

The UN has proven it's irrelevance, time and again. To fashion a world governing body where each county has equal say toward the issues at hand, is ridiculous, and likens itself to allowing the janitor to vote at the board of directors meeting at Exxon. We, the United States of America, got where we are for a reason. Ghana, Portugal, France, Germany, Turkey, etc, are where they are for a reason as well--we know what we're doing, they don't. We are a superpower, and the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Our system works, for the most part. These others are, well, just other countries. Maybe they should try to emulate us instead of yipping at our ankles all the time.

 

[Slip Kid]

I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

 

[Kejtar]

Peace is good.... but then again war is sometimes needed... if it wasn't for war, would US even exist? Can we turn onto the past and say that future will have nothing to do with it? I know it's kind of philosophical, but I think that if one is for peace and protests against the war, he should also not get into any fights.... so what about the peace protests then? PEople get hurt... isn't such protest like a small war in a way?

Sometimes peace can only be achieved through war....... it is sad that loss of life might be necessary but what it one life saves 10 other lives????? Can you still say that that one life should have not been sacrificed?

In regards to getting soldiers back home, they knew what they were getting into. I have seen a lot of interviews and know some that have enlisted before 9/11 that are always wondering will they be deployed...... All of them so far have said that they fear war but they knew what they were getting into when they joined up...... And for all those who think otehrwise... well come on.... wake up.... Army, Navy, Air Force, National Guard..... those are no Boy Scouts!

Kejtar

 

[Eagle]

I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

Amen. I couldn't have said it better. (In fact, I obviously didn't say it as well.)

 

[JTBOSCO]

I am not for going to war just for the hell of ot however I do believe givin the opportunity Sadam would do everythhing in his power to get and develop wepons to do great harm to the American people. Sometimes wars have to be fought to protect the fredoms we enjoy.I was over there in the first Gulf war with the First Marine Division and wish we could have finished it then instead of a new generation of kids growing up with war. Just my 2-cents.

 

[Matthew Currie]

I'm basically with Eagle on this one. I think there are many good arguments against Saddam, and perhaps thus for war, but more against it, and am basically opposed to war as a solution here. I happen to think that it's a very big mistake, and that we'll be paying the price of this mistake for a very long time. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong. I would be very happy to eat crow on this.

I also think that many of the protesters have made a very big mistake by casting their lot with the radical left, and allowing organizations such as ANSWER to organize protests and turn them into anti-American, anti Israeli and anti-globalism shows.

Whatever your opinion of the war and the demonstrators, though, I hope you don't fall into the trap of many who mouth the words "freedom" and "rights," as long as nobody actually uses them, but cannot understand that they only really have meaning when they can be practiced by people you disapprove of. There's more to freedom than words. Fidel Castro uses the same vocabulary.

The war puts loyal Americans in a difficult bind, because however much we wish it hadn't started, we cannot wish it lost. The administration knows this and uses it to advantage. But opposing the policy, or demonstrating against it, really has nothing to do with "supporting the troops." Although I'm sure the great majority of our troops are glad to do their duty, and proud of doing it well and effectively, I doubt very much if many would object to being brought home alive (without defeat) and going back to their peacetime functions.

This administration, like others before, would like very much to simlify everything into a good versus evil, pro- versus anti-American argument, and make opposition seem like disloyalty, just as the radicals of the other side would like to make us out as the demons. Don't fall into the trap.

Many of the arguments I hear against demonstrations are ostensibly based on issues of practicality or counter-productivity, but really depend on an assumption that the position of the demonstrators is wrong. It may be, but if you wish to understand how the rights of opinion and the obligations of witness really work, it helps to imagine for a moment "what if they are right?" I had a little debate yesterday with someone who brought up the standard arguments of effectiveness but had no trouble, however, supporting the local vigils of remembrance for POW's and MIA's that have taken place (without demonstrable diplomatic effect) in our local park each weekend for the last 15+ years. The people who do this are not idiots. They do not believe that a dozen people holding candles in the Fair Haven square on a Friday night will bring back the missing. Yet they believe that their witness has some meaning, and has some effect on the world around them. Are they wrong? I don't think so.

There's also the argument of counter-productivity - that opposition will prolong the war by making the administration more stubborn and angry. This was a favorite during the Viet Nam years. It's the wife-beater's argument : "it's your fault I hit you because you made me angry." It's the stuff of just about any freshman "ethics 101" course. Don't fall for it. If the war is right, then the demonstrators can do no harm by strengthening the administration's resolve, but if it is wrong, then the moral responsibility is on those who wage it, not those who oppose it.

 

[jml1911a1]

I don't support anybody dying.

I think the best way to support our soldiers is to bring them home.

peace

No one "supports" people dying--except those vermin who made possible the violent killing of thousands of people in the World Trade Center, and that includes Saddam and his posse. What do you think we should do about it? Curl up in a ball?

Obviously, peace is the ultimate end goal, but peace cannot be obtained by allowing madmen to possess the tools to kill, especially when the madmen have proven their willingness to use those tools.

Do we prevent crime by allowing criminals to go unpunished? Do we teach discipline to children by letting them do whatever they want? (A trip to your local Wal-Mart or McDonald's will prove that this is indeed the case with many parents, with predictable results. These are the parents that threaten their kids with punisment, and never follow through.)

We have sent our men and women to Iraq to stop a madman. We all know that it's the right thing to do. The inspections were doing nothing except giving Saddam more time, on top of the 12 years he already had. The UN snivelled, whined, wrung it's hands, and displayed it's idiocy, and we lost patience.

This is the quickest, easiest, safest way to peace. We're squashing the vermin now, before they grow big enough to eat us.

 

[Economos]

I'll also say that I'm glad to see the Kurdish Forces fighting with the Special Forces in N. Iraq. It seems to be going very well with the Northern Campaign and hopefully the Iraqi people will take this into account - that we don't plan to ditch them 10 miles outside of Baghdad. Hopefully the Shia-Muslims from S. Iraq in cities such as Basra, Nasiriya, Najaf, Umm Qasr and Karbala will also make a stand against the The Republican Guard and the Paramilitary forces.

It's not going to be an easy task - convincing the people that we are there to help them, but I believe that we're starting to prevail in that area. We're getting Hum. Aid and water and electricity to Basra and Umm Qasr and hopefully to Nasiriya soon.

 

[jml1911a1]

The crappy thing is...those who are fighting with us, are not much better than Saddam and his ilk: it's just that Saddam has the power/money to do what he does. Most of the Middle Eastern Moslem sects are pretty much the same when it comes to hatred of the "infidels."

That being said, do we kill them all and let God sort them out? Good question. It's a pretty good bet that whoever gets put in power over there will eventually be just as bad, even though it may take many years. It will be mighty difficult to set up a government that won't be run by religous zealotry. I guess we're going to give it a shot, though...

 

[The Bastard]

It will be mighty difficult to set up a government that won't be run by religous zealotry. I guess we're going to give it a shot, though...

Us democrats say that everytime a republican gets elected.

 

[GSequoia]

No one "supports" people dying--except those vermin who made possible the violent killing of thousands of people in the World Trade Center, and that includes Saddam and his posse.

As far as I know there isn't any solid evidence that Saddam funded, planned, or took part in the WTC attacks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Saddam isn't an evil little bastard, I just really don't like the way it's been spun with Saddam and terrorism, now, don't flame me here, but the word that comes to mind is Doublespeak.

I'll tell you outright, I'm not for the war, that doesn't mean I'm anti-American nor pro-Saddam, I just don't think this is a safe idea at all. Much of the world hates the United States becuase they see us as bullies, going into a country and having our way with them, this is not making those feelings any weaker. The outcome I see the most out of this war is an increase in terrorist acts.

But, of course, I do support our troops fully, since they are there I think we should make the best of it for them, and, well, that means fighting well, people are going to die on both sides, I know this, my biggest concern is to keep our side down as much as we can (I'd like to see their losses down as well).

As for the protesters, I do find it completely moronic when they get violent, it's against the whole idea of it, but in no way do I want their right to peacefully protest denied for any reason at all. The moment the right for a peaceful protest are denied is the moment I become an avid protester. I'm a freedom buff, I've already seen too many freedoms denied in the name of "security."

Sequoia

 

[Slip Kid]

The war was our idea, and really has little to do with Saddam. We forced the war onto them as well. think about this: we told iraq to report all it's illegal weapons. this is a lose-lose situation for iraq. if they didn't report, we'd attack them. if they reported that they've been hiding WMDs, we'd attack them. if they lied, we'd attack them.

and Bush tried to call it their last chance, as if they could have avoided it. we're the aggressor here.

If Iraq attacked us, it would be different. just for some reason "anticipitory self defence" sounds pretty damn ridiculous to me.

JMHO

 

[mikal]

if they didn't report, we'd attack them. if they reported that they've been hiding WMDs, we'd attack them. if they lied, we'd attack them

and if they didn't have any, we'd leave them alone.

 

[Matthew Currie]

and if they didn't have any, we'd leave them alone.

This remains to be seen. It seems as if the only way Bush would have been satisfied would have been to find something for the Iraquis to destroy, but if they had nothing to show, they're screwed, aren't they? So far we don't seem to have found much, and the administration refused to tell the inspectors what evidence it had. some experts, including former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, believe they really don't have any. In a way, I hope that we do find great piles of illegal stuff, but I'm not counting on it, and I suspect we would have attacked no matter what.

 

[Kejtar]

OK....
1. If I was an Iraqi leader... I'd made sure that there was nothing to find when allied forces came in, just to cause such discord between people as we're seeing now.
2. Are you guys saying that we should have been waiting for an attack on us??? I don't know about you, but I think that's a bad idea...

Kejtar