I'm not trolling, and I'm not being combative, I just want to understand a few things. So, I'm asking the following questions to those who are against a war with Iraq. Note: I'm not saying I want a war, but I see the possibility that military action may be justified. 1. Do you believe George Bush has dishonorable intentions? (that is, he's an evil warmonger, wants to steal oil, is obeying his military-industrial complex masters) 2. Do you believe that Saddam Hussein is trustworthy? (that he has no harmful intentions, doesn't and won't support Al-Qaeda, that he in fact has no WMD?) 3. Do you believe Hussein has any intention of revealing any WMD he may have? 4. Do you believe UN weapons inspections are a realistic method of exposing and eliminating WMD's in Iraq? 5. Hypothetically, if tomorrow's news revealed that every accusation the Bush Administration is accurate, would you change your position on military action? I'm especially interested in the first two questions. Most of the anti-war rhetoric I see starts off, seemingly, automatically imputing bad intentions to the President. Also, it seems that to make a blanket assertion that we shouldn't go to war puts a lot of trust in the good will of Hussein. Again I must stress that I'm asking honest questions and categorically NOT trolling. I believe civil discourse makes us better citizens (and better human beings), and that ad hominem attacks and illogical blathering plunge us into a dangerous state of barbarism.
Not really, no. I think like all modern-day politicans he's watching poll numbers as he makes decisions, but that doesn't make him dishonorable. No, Saddam is not trustworthy. Probably not. To some extent yes, but only if US intelligence works with inspectors. We can never be 100% certain of anything. No, because I'm not convinced that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the United States. And other than conjecture, there are no "facts" presented by anyone in the Administration herein that says that, either.
Re: Re: Honest Questions Why should US intelligence share secret information with dubious characters on the inspection teams? It already has been duly noted that there are suspected double-agents amongst the inspectors, sharing information with the Iraqis and tipping them off as to the next site to be checked. Besides, it is up to the Iraqis to COMPLY with the resolution.
Sharing hard-earned, top secret intelligence with questionable characters of non-Americans? Thank God you are not in a position of authority in this country, for your reckless policies would be the ruination of our country.
1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. Somewhat, but not really. 5. Depends, but probably not. My stance has little to do with Bush and his administration.
Re: Re: Honest Questions Wouldn't this open the US up to criticisms of "tampering" with the UN inspections?
1. Not at all 2. Not at all 3. No 4. In their present form I don't think they are very effective. 5. If there was proof Saddam was preparing to transfer WMD to Al Qaeda, absolutely.
No, but I think some of the people working with him (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, possibly Cheney) have some intentions that are not as honorable as they would have us believe. There's no long-term desire for the administration to create a democracy in post-war Iraq, even though they've told the public that they will. Really three questions. I believe he has harmful intentions. I believe he does not support Al Qaeda. I believe he might have the ability to create WMD but does not have the delivery mechanisms to do anything with them. Intention? No. Will he? Yes. Yes. Yes, but since the Bush Administration is not giving out accurate information about Iraq this won't happen tomorrow, or ever.
ummm, i was going to type up my answers but upong reading the ones already posted i would have had the same answers as mike. i think he might be reading my mind or something.
1. Not dishonorable in his eyes. I think his intentions run deeper than what is displayed in public. His willingness to focus our energy on Iraq at the expense of the economy and all other international issues leads me to believe there is more than just the evil of Saddam involved. 2. Saddam is not trustworthy. That is not a good enough reason to go kill brown women and children in Jesus' name. 3. We are trying to prove a negative. How do I prove that I don't have a million bucks? How does Iraq prove that they don't have WMD? If we have specific knowledge why aren't we pointing out the items we are taking issue with? ex: We know you have xx tons of nerve gas because we sold it to you. 4. Inspections can work if we know how to use them. 5. If all charges were proved against Saddam I still do not think he is a threat to the US. If we get rid of all WMD are we willing to let him stay or are we using WMD as an excuse to get rid of him? If we are using them as an excuse why not put a price on his head, get him taken out, and not kill US soldiers or Iraqi citizens.
In order to believe that Iraq does NOT have WMD you would have to believe: 1. Iraq voluntarily destroyed their WMD's after inspectors left in 1998, since we knew at the time that they existed. 2. It was just a silly oversight by Sadam to not notify the world of his great, humanitarian deed. There's one born every minute.
I'm answering these questions without having read the other answers given before me, in the effort of giving my most honest opinion without the influence of others' ideas. I believe George Bush is supremely influenced by the interests of his constituency. Bush was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has never been immersed in any society outside that of his own wealthy and powerful circle of family, friends, and business associates. That said, I don't believe he is inherently bad or "evil", but I do believe his lack of intellectual prowess leads him to be easily manipulated by those around him who stand to gain from influencing US domestic and foreign policy. Moreover, the same lack of intellectual prowess leads him to consistently seek the most shortsighted of solutions without ever contemplating the long-term impact. His philosophy is "an eye for an eye", which is well documented in his horrific track record of executions as governor of Texas. I believe Saddam has intentions of gaining power and influence in the Middle East. The 1991 attack on Kuwait was the most obvious example of this. That said, I believe that prior to the Gulf War, Saddam would never have posed a threat to us, either directly or via clandestine terrorist links. In fact, if we had turned a blind eye on his invasion of Kuwait, like we do in many other conflicts that have little or no geopolitical interest to the US, he probably would be as friendly to us as possible in order to continue to build his regime. The problem is, we see Saddam as a threat to our economic independence, which now relies on keeping good relations with the monarchies and regimes in the Middle East. None of these regimes are any more humane than Saddam, but for economic and political reasons we support them and cannot tolerate a wildcard like Saddam who would seek to conquer their territories. These factors have made us make a threat out of Saddam when initially there was none. I'm not fond of this question because it assumes he does have WMD. As far as nuclear weapons, it is well established that he has no such capability. As far as biological/chemical weapons, I believe he would probably try to get away with maintaining what he can. However, here again we are getting into a vicious circle. Whatever small quantities of these weapons he maintains, it would never pose any threat to us unless we provoke him to use them. And if provoked, he probably has little or no means to deliver them, UNLESS he does so through whatever terrorist connections he may have. Which again brings us back to the main point - the more we threaten Saddam, the more imminent the threat from Saddam becomes. Yes, according to Scott Ritter, former head of UNSCOM which performed the inspections back in 1998. In fact, Ritter has been publicly critical of US policy on Iraq, saying that our sanctions and threats of military invasion are creating more dangerous sentiments among not only the Iraqis, but the whole Arab world. Ritter estimated that during his inspections, they verified the disarmament of 90-95% of Saddam's proscribed weapons, and they would have done more if they had been given the time. However, Ritter goes on to explain the logic against disarming Saddam: if you disarm Saddam, he stays in power - whereas US policy is singlemindedly focused on regime change in order to exercise control over Iraq's oil production. I suggest you pick up "Endgame" by Scott Ritter. It gives a firsthand insight on the deception and brutality of the Hussein regime, the hypocrisy and shortsightedness of US mideast policy, and the effectiveness of the inspections process. Yes. Absolutely. The problem is that troops were sent prior to evidence being revealed. The so-called "evidence" that has slowly trickled in by the Bush administration seems contrived to play on the public's fears of terrorism after 9/11.
YES: Though I'm sure he believes his intentions are honorable. I mean, this is not exactly a guy who has looked at the world from very many different perspectives. After all, he calls himself a Christian, yet I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that Christ would be in favor of this war. What dictionary does this definition of "trustworthy" come from? Saddam is clearly not trustworthy as I understand the word, but I think all of your tag questions are quite up in the air. Harmful intentions towards the US? Honestly, I doubt it. Support Al-Quaeda? No way...If this whole thing wasn't an issue, Saddam would be high up on OBL hit list of evil westernized dictators in need of being ousted by fundamentalist revolutions in Muslim countries. As for WMD, I think he probably has some. No, unless he sees something to gain from doing so. Yes. Yes. Yes. You could add "containing" to that list of things they could accomplish as well. No. After all, they really haven't accused him of much unique evil stuff: being a pain in the ass, basically. Lots of ********************* dictators in the world do this type of stuff all the time, and we don't make their innocent civilians pay for the dictator's crimes. Hell, usually we reward the bastards for it, as we did with Saddam for decades. However, if they found a clear link to Al Quaeda implicating them in 9/11, I'd be pro-war the next day. But this has never been an accusation, as far as I know, and it's clearly unlikely to have been the case. [/B][/QUOTE]
Re: Re: Honest Questions Dude, Scott Ritter is a pedophile who entraps little girls on the Internet and then tries to arrange meetings with them so he can have sex with them. This guy is your hero or has any credibility? He has been totally discredited...where have you been the past month?
Does that mean that they have significant WMD but we don't know what they are, where they are, or how much they have? But we will know in 2 months? Anyone that questions that is a sucker?
No, it means they have significant WMD and we know what they probably are but the inspectors are too ill-equipped to uncover them and the Iraqis have no intention of giving them the access they need to uncover them. In two months, the war will be over, Iraqis will be celebrating Hussein's demise in the streets of Baghdad and the freaking pinheads who opposed action will be looking like the freaking nincompoops they are. France will be an outcast and all the protesters yesterday will deny they ever marched.
Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions Ritter was discredited long before the internet bust thing came to light.
I like it when the good guys live happily ever after too. France may be an outcast but they will have Germany, Belgium, China, and Russia with them. I thought the purpose of this war was to disarm Iraq, not overthrow the government. If Iraq disarms do we still save them from Saddam? Who is taking Saddams place? Are you sure that the people of Iraq will really like him/her better? You seem to have answers for things that no one in charge has been able to figure out for the last 12 or so years.
Re: Re: Honest Questions I can't believe you brought God into this. Christianity has little or nothing to do with a war on Iraq (other than Bush's use of 'crusade' a couple of years ago, but we can attribute that to idiocy). Christ wouldn't be in favor of any war, that was pretty much his gig. Take off your WWJD bracelet and look at this from another perspective. Explain to me how Sean Penn is going to "contian" Hussein's banned weapons.
Re: Re: Re: Honest Questions That sounds a little like "do as I say not as I do" or behave like a Christian as long as it doesn't interfere with your objectives. If GWB claims to be following religious teachings shouldn't he take them in to account when he gives orders to kill people?