It seems that the current debate on Iraq has the antiwar crowd on the defensive, with the hawks giving the appearance that antiwar people somehow support Saddam and/or have no concern for protecting Americans against terrorism. These accusations are misplaced and show a real lack of depth and understanding of the real world situation. So I would like to pose the following questions to those who are either on the fence or support immediate military action against Iraq: 1. Suppose the Bush administration grows impatient with the UN weapons inspection and decides to mount a unilateral military attack, which decisively defeats Saddam's regime, and places a friendly government in power. Do you truly believe that Americans will then be safer from Al-Qaeda and terrorism in general? 2. Do you believe that the support of the UN Security Council and of our traditional European allies is not an important factor in this matter? Do you think these diplomatic disputes will have no impact on the US in the long-term? 3. Do you truly feel that American foreign policy in the Middle East has been fair and reasonable? Do you think that it matters whether our foreign policy is fair and reasonable, so long as our domestic objectives are accomplished? 4. Do you believe that the evidence that the Bush administration has presented to support claims that Iraq has connections to terrorist groups is convincing? 5. Do you believe strongly enough in this war that you would join the armed forces and fight? 6. If you were president, what, if anything, would you have done differently from the way it has been handled by GWB?
1.Yes 2.UN Security Council support is not important (sorry, but I refuse to give respect to any voting body where the Chinese government has a veto), support from our allies is important but France and Germany are no more important than the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Holland, Kuwait, Turkey, etc etc 3.As fair as possible, and no 4.Yes (even if you don't believe Saddam supports Al Qaeda, he openly supports Palestinian terrorist groups) 5.I'm in Navy ROTC (not because of this war, but certainly not in spite of it either). This isn't a very good question however, because I think anybody who might sign up just because of a possible war against Iraq would have already done so after 9/11, unless they were underage. 6.Can't answer this question. Alex
Originally posted by Manolo It seems that the current debate on Iraq has the antiwar crowd on the defensive, with the hawks giving the appearance that antiwar people somehow support Saddam and/or have no concern for protecting Americans against terrorism. These accusations are misplaced and show a real lack of depth and understanding of the real world situation. I haven't claimed that the anti-war groups support Saddam or lack concern about terrorism but I do beleive that your views can have the unintended consequence of helping Saddam and causing great harm to the US. However, I'll answer you questions since I'd like you to answer mine. I'll ignore the silly claim that those who support the war lack understanding of the "real world situation." Obviously you have no evidence of this... 1. Suppose the Bush administration grows impatient with the UN weapons inspection and decides to mount a unilateral military attack, which decisively defeats Saddam's regime, and places a friendly government in power. Do you truly believe that Americans will then be safer from Al-Qaeda and terrorism in general? First of all there is zero chance that the US launches a "unilateral" attack. No matter what happens we will have a coalition of at least a dozen nations. Second, this war is not only about terrorism. It is mainly about Iraq's WMD with terrorism being a serious additional concern so your question is a little off target. However, my answer would be a qualified yes. I think removing a regime that has had a history of supporting terrorism and is seeking a nuclear weapon is certainly going to lower those specific threats to the US. I do think that this gain will be partially offset by the increase in terrorism and terrorist groups recruitment due to our attack. Of course other alternatives also increase these risk so it is difficult to determine what the true net effect will be. My belief is that in the long run this war will lower the threats faced by Americans. 2. Do you believe that the support of the UN Security Council and of our traditional European allies is not an important factor in this matter? Do you think these diplomatic disputes will have no impact on the US in the long-term? Of course not. Why would we be going through all of this trouble at the UN and NATO if we did not recognize their importance. However, this fact does not mean that our concern for their opinions will matter more than our national security. You also need to realize that some of our "allies" (France, for one) are taking advantage of this situation for their own interests. Obviously, that fact lowers our desire to follow their preferred course. I think that we are willing to pay the price of annoying the French since their importance on the world stage is quite diminished. We will continue to work closely with our true allies and will compromise to keep them on our side. 3. Do you truly feel that American foreign policy in the Middle East has been fair and reasonable? Do you think that it matters whether our foreign policy is fair and reasonable, so long as our domestic objectives are accomplished? Why ask this in a debate on whether or not to go to war with Iraq? I'm not interested in getting into a debate on our foreign policy in general or falling into the trap that is the Israel-Palestine situation. Would you care to say why this should impact our decision to go to war? 4. Do you believe that the evidence that the Bush administration has presented to support claims that Iraq has connections to terrorist groups is convincing? Yes and no. I believe the evidence collected over many years that Iraq had terrorist connections however I am not yet convinced that Saddam has a direct current connection to Al Qaeda. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think this should be the true focus since it matters little whether Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group that has confirmed ties to Iraq attacks America. 5. Do you believe strongly enough in this war that you would join the armed forces and fight? Yes, if that was necessary. However, there is no need for additional recruits to fight this war and my talents would be better used supporting DOD programs as a civilian analyst than fighting on the front lines. 6. If you were president, what, if anything, would you have done differently from the way it has been handled by GWB? Wow, I don't know where to begin. I certainly would have made the full case for war early on and done a better job of getting other on board. I would make sure that the public understood the full case for war and I would use speeches by myself and members of my administration to answer the questions raised by those against the war. When the French asked for triple the inspectors and some indefinite extension of their program, I'd describe the history of disarmament inspections and make it clear that this will not bring the issue to resolution. I'd do everything in my power to make it clear that Iraq is the one failing to abide by the UN early on rather then push this point well after inspections had begun. I could go on but that is a good start. Of course, it is likely that the president's option were constrained in ways not made clear to me so I may not have been able to make all of the changes I'd wish to...
1. Probably, yeah. Our enemies will know we're serious. Assuming that the war is conducted seriously, not just lobbing a few cruise missiles. 2. yes, support from our allies is important, but not so important that we follow them when they're being pusillanimous. 3. Yes, we've been fair and bent over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to guys with bad faith like Arafat. And we've dumped mountains of money down ratholes so corrupt officials can gamble in Monte Carlo. 4. No, the evidence isn't convincing but they couldn't prove Al Capone was a killer, either. They got Capone on tax evasion, that's the equivalent of what's going on now with Saddam. 5. I'm ambivalent over this war but I know who the bad guys are. I also know how politically correct todays military is, and I remember how hundreds of soldiers got killed in Lebanon because the guards were ordered to have unloaded weapons. I would not put my fate in the hands of people like that. 6. Hard to say, I'm not privy to the stuff those guys are. Maybe I'd have nuked Tehran by now.
1. Yes 2. No, No. 3. No, we've made a number of mistakes in the middle east though in all truth anything we do in that region could be a negative for us. No. 4. Yes. 5. Yes, I'll probably be activated off inactive reserves if they need me to consult on some of the weapons systems I helped build. I've already volunteered to take a commission in any other combat arms branch if that need arose as well. 6. I wouldn't have jumped into the whole quagmire feet first with the axis of evil comments for starters. I would've dealt with problems one at a time and kept my proverbial cards on other issues close to the vest. Why would you warn your other potential enemies (Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, etc) before you were prepared to deal with them. Don't give them time to prepare, don't give your opponents time to formulate strategies to deal with what you intend to do, and formulate a long term strategy for accomplishing your goals and start lining up your pieces. That is what we should have done IMHO.
Irish...why the hell can't you figure out the simple HTML it takes to properly quote a post and respond to it? Have some damn pride, man.
i'm sorry i didn't slide into your "immunity party" with cannon who posted identical to me...and ghost who is a gagle of bold... thanks for the attention though. :kiss:
1. I don't believe we'll be any safer from Al Qaeda if we attack. I think the president is trying to link the two is because most people don't find Saddam to be the evil man he is. I hate Saddam, and what he has done. I think the president is like me. But he knows that people have gone soft on geopolitical tyranny, and that people want terrorists to die, so he tried to link the two. Saddam, as f***ing evil as that guy is, is still secular, and i don't see him supporting the group. I really don't see this as a terrorism issue. This is a do you support Saddam issue. Don't give me that "saddam isnt a threat" argument. You people are just like the international community at Munich in 1938. We have learned over and over that dictators, can't, not should they be appeased. This war will make America safer though, as a tyrant has been removed. 2. The support of the debating society that is the UN is unimportant. We have taken a stand for once, that we will not let the cowardly international community sit around while threats gather. This problem has to be headed off, sooner rather than later. Im not condemning all of the world. We have a coalition built by the willing and admirable countries such as the UK, Poland, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Canada, and Slovenia. Im just saying we shouldnt let our policy be dictated by a paralyzed body of pacifists. 3.Has our policy been fair? Yes, quite. Has Iraq been fair? No, not in the least. I like how he violated the conditions of the cease fire in 1998, and how 17 resolutions and economic sanctions have still not lead to Saddam voluntarily disarming. The ball is in his court, not ours. 4.Once again, i don't find this to be related to terrorism. I fear what Saddam's intentions are, and what he is capable of. I also fear any potential link between the two .I dont believe his is at the moment allied with Al Qaeda, but why give him the chance? 5.I don't believe there will be any need for me to join the war. Will i run out and enlist when we go in? No, because I happen to be a student right now. There won't be a draft, and the amount of forces in the region will be plenty. I like how if you are pro-freedom you have to run out and enlist to prove your patriotism.If we hypothetically brougt back the draft in the event of a sour situation in Iraq,i would enlist before the draft even got to me, giving me a choice of service. I will not dodge my duty, but there is no need for me to excercise it right now. 6.I feel he has done a great job, and i wouldn't change anything.
Maybe, maybe not, but it sure would be a hell of alot better for the Iraqui people, and the region as a whole, were that to happen. I don't think it'll have a serious lasting effect, unless we justify everyone's conscerns by going into Iraq, killing everything we see, and tapping all the oil we can get our hands on. Which of course isn't going to happen. I hope. This is interesting, and it's my current pet peeve with the anti-action folks. I will completely agree that the US has made a mess of our reputation in the region, for years and years; yes, we supplied arms to Al Queda when we wanted them to help our goals; yes, we helped Saddam Hussein get Anthrax under similar circumstances. I believe these things were terribly wrong and I hope (though don't naively believe) there will be accountbilty for those actions some time down th road. However none of that has the slightest thing to do with the here and now, with getting Saddam out of Iraq. I genuinely dont understand the "US hypocracy" argument...sure we did stupid things, but does that mean we shouldn't try to make things better? Admittedly, no, but to me it doesen't matter. This isn't entirely about Saddam's support of terrorism, there are other very valid reasons to go in. Were I young enough, I would have joined up on 9/12/01. Almost everything; to be frank if I could get into Dubyah's skin I'd make sure he let Colin do the talking from now on.
Re: Re: Honest Questions - for the hawks All the questions were asking opinions and you did fine until you chose this one to express your knowledge on how to beat the system. I think this question was asking if you felt strongly enough about the situation to put your life on the line to defend your country. Your response was that you didn't have to because you are a student, but if they were coming to get you, you would sign up for a less risky position before they got you in the draft. Then you said you would serve your country. I guess if everyone could serve in a manner that didn't involve getting shot at everyone would sign up to go to Iraq today. Doesn't take much guts that way. Your last name isn't Quaylee is it?
Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions - for the hawks are you enlisted or active duty? if not then don't talk about guts. in that context. you've got no room at all to point fingers at anyone. pointing them at my friend doesn't help you either.
Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions - for the hawks I wouldn't enlist before the draft to get a less "risky" position. i believe i would enlist in the army or marines because if the US of A was in trouble i would want a battlefield commission. You slander the names of all who dont fight on the field. An military needs plenty more than killers kid. Are tanker pilots not valuable? Everyone serves a role in our military.
If our great military needed me, I'd learn to speak Arabic. No, not to help with intelligence. But because if it came to that point, we'd be so royally screwed that it would be just about time to start collaborating with our new Muslim masters. Allahu akbar, baby!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions - for the hawks Allow me to simplify a little more. The question as originally stated was "Do you believe strongly enough in this war that you would join the armed forces and fight?" I followed up with "I think this question was asking if you felt strongly enough about the situation to put your life on the line to defend your country." I'm not sure how this turned in to me questioning the roles of those in the military but the question certainly did not ask if you would train to be a tanker pilot, intelligence positions, interpreters, etc. All important positions in our military but not (back to the original question) putting your life on the line for your country. Would GWB put his life on the line? Sure, from a bunker in West Virginia but probably not leading the ground attack from Kuwait (or Turkey after we finish negotiating the price in "aid").
Re: Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions - for the hawks We can't all stay in forever. I did 3 and went on my merry way. I'm on Bigsoccer and that allows me to point fingers all day long. Unless your "friend" is also Air Force he should be able to fight his own battles.