RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Okay, quick poll. Are you for the war or against it(75 posts)

Okay, quick poll. Are you for the war or against itKristin
Mar 18, 2003 11:39 AM
I'm not sure that RBR represents a solid cross-section of society, but I'm curious. Doug pointed out last week that the only reason there seems to be more vocal opposition than vocal support is because the supporters are silent. We already know you can make a poll say anything. So lets see a show of hands. Are you for this or against it...or neutral?
Absolutely (nm)czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 11:41 AM
I vote against it. The vocal opposition has raised enoughKristin
Mar 18, 2003 11:42 AM
questions to warrent some pause in the plans. But the administration is charging like a Bull. I can't stop it, and I will do whatever I need to for my country. I'm not sure I agree with it and I do fear for our economic future.
Against... the rationale for war now is weak nmPdxMark
Mar 18, 2003 11:53 AM
against. nmSpunout
Mar 18, 2003 11:54 AM
AgainstMe Dot Org
Mar 18, 2003 11:57 AM
I'm against it because I believe it makes America less secure, both short and long term.

But now that it is close to being a fait d'accompli, I quite selfishly hope I'm wrong.
I'm for an immediate resolutionmohair_chair
Mar 18, 2003 12:02 PM
I don't want to go down in favor of war, but I'm tired of months of fence sitting and useless diplomacy. If we need to go kick some butt and clean house, let's do it. If Saddam wants to boogie out of town, that's good too. I'm in favor of not talking about it anymore. There are two solutions on the table, and one of them must be taken, immediately.
STUPID QUESTION...ClydeTri
Mar 18, 2003 12:06 PM
Nobody in their right mind is for war, but sometime in life you must do things that are the best for you, such as getting a root canal. Do I feel that in the long term this is the best thing for the USA and the world? Yes, very much so. But not "for war"...but one has to admit that evil exists and always have existed in the world and that sometimes good must confront evil. Never forget, Saddam is responsible for the death of approx 1.5 million fellow Arabs in the wars against Iran and Kuwait, which he started, and in his genocide against people in his own country. As much as the leftists like to think that we should all hold hands and be nice to each other, that is a pipe dream. There are evil people throughout history and for the best of mankind it is best if they are terminated.
Remember, peace is not the absence of conflict. There is no peace in that part of the world today. This war hopefully might bring them a few steps closer to peace.
..STUPID ANSWER. nmSpunout
Mar 18, 2003 12:15 PM
Dude. I figured you'd be able to interpret the spirit of my post.Kristin
Mar 18, 2003 12:25 PM
Obviously I'm not asking if you enjoy war. Or if you think wars are fun, happy times. Or even if you think death, mayheim and the overturning of foreing governments is something to kick up your heels about. When I asked if you are for this war, I meant simply, "Do you believe in the purposes and reasons for this war?" I will infer from you response that you do "believe in" what this war is about and therefore support it--even though no war makes you happy, which I think is a very good thing. We would not like you so much as we do if you enjoyed war.

I'll be sure to write like Zerna Sharp from now on...

See Kristin
See Bernardo
See Kristin go ride...
Against (nm)Dale Brigham
Mar 18, 2003 12:09 PM
Vote nay. nmOldEdScott
Mar 18, 2003 12:14 PM
For war. Peace with evil is immoral and foolish nmContinental
Mar 18, 2003 12:21 PM
Mark me another opponentjtolleson
Mar 18, 2003 12:28 PM
I have not been convinced of the immediacy that justifies the loss of life, and am particularly uncomfortable about not having more support from other nations.
If it were 1938....wonder how many of you...ClydeTri
Mar 18, 2003 12:36 PM
who oppose this war would have been in Neville Chamberlain's camp?
Free tip. "Conservatives" opposed intervention too. (nm)czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 12:38 PM
Republicans resisted intervention. It wasOldEdScott
Mar 18, 2003 12:43 PM
'liberal' Democrats who wanted to go in.
I mentioned neither..ClydeTri
Mar 18, 2003 12:48 PM
republicans, democrats, liberals or conservatives....I just hope we can learn from the mistakes of the past....

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
1938 was more like 1991...PdxMark
Mar 18, 2003 1:03 PM
A strong power making menacing moves for territory of a smaller neighbor. Germany/Czechoslovakia -- Iraq/Kuwait. In 1991, GB Sr. played Neville C. in giving IRaq and ambiguous green light. In Act II, GB Sr. played Churchill to great effect.

What do we have here? Hmmm... a preventive war, not a preemptivie one, to prevent Iraq from acquiring in 1-5 yrs the ability to inflict some unspecified damage on the United States. That's what GWB said. 1-5 yrs. So it sounds like there's no actual immediate threat from Iraq, according to GWB. But wait, I thought there was a threat now, from Iraqi-supported terrorists. Oh, I guess GWB gave up on trying to pass off that contrived, unsupported, LIE.

This is just American muscle-flexing in the post-Cold War era. Rather than a war that is necessary, it's a war that American neo-conservatives have wanted for 12 years. This is not about protecting the US, or anyplace else, it's about imposing American will on Iraq.

All Hail George the Emperor!
I don't think we knew what Hitler was up to thenKristin
Mar 18, 2003 1:08 PM
Therefore, I would have--at that moment--been in Chamberlains "camp." That said, I still believe that America joined the war too late and proved our reasons were purly self interested. We had known for sometime what was happening to the Jews and we waited. We also failed to respond too Sudam at a time when we knew he was committing horrible inhumanities. The fact that we waited screams volumes about our motivation for attacking him now. We are only seeking selfish interests. More over, our political leaders are seeking thier own interests. Lets never call this war for the "greater good." That's not the real reason its being fought. It might accomplish something good in the end. But doing something wrong to accomplish something good never built character in anyone.
If France and England...Me Dot Org
Mar 18, 2003 1:12 PM
...had gone to war after Hitler had annexed the Ruhr, kicked his butt, and left him with an Army that was second to many, but still Hitler was pursuing heavy water research, maybe the analogy would make sense.

Even if you a pro-war, I don't think you can make the argument that Iraq is a military threat to the U.S. One Trident Submarine could take care of that.

To use the jargon of the day, we are facing "asymmetrical threats". The WWII analogy just doesn't work.
Quit the WWII references already.sacheson
Mar 18, 2003 4:16 PM
It's been argued up and down how few similarities there are ... for one, we didn't just get out of a world conflict that left the better part of a generation dead ... second Saddaam is not the aggressor Hitler was ... and for what it's worth, we didn't go into WWII to liberate the French.
Another way to look at WWII references.Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 9:35 AM
The German people blindly followed their elected leader into an immoral path that ultimately led to the destruction of their nation. Germany would have been better served by more vocal opposition.
Remind me of the parallel examples of expansionist aggressionjtolleson
Mar 18, 2003 4:22 PM
that make 2003 look like Hitler's commencement of European domination in 1938...

hmmmm...

for example, where's the Czechoslavakia that we are "giving away?"

There isn't one. But citing Hitler is a nice inflammatory attack on those who disagree with you. Rush Limbaugh would be proud (turnabout is fair play)
It makes me want to puke, but..........MR_GRUMPY
Mar 18, 2003 1:05 PM
It makes me want to puke, but I've got to go with "Mr. National Guard" this time. The way I see it is; Just because the guy is a moron, doesn't make him wrong all the time. The only guy that I really believe is Colin Powell. I don't think that he would stand up and B.S. the American Public.
Did you miss Powell's ventrilouist's dummy act at the UN?czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 1:20 PM
I didn't think he'd B.S. the American Public either. But then he did. Not by switching positions, he has a right to change his mine, but by citing previously discredited "evidence" as his reason.
Are negative on EVERYTHING?Captain Morgan
Mar 18, 2003 1:41 PM
I apologize that everyone cannot live up to the ideal perfection as you see it. I am being damn serious when I ask you this, although I don't necessarily expect you to respond, but I am interested... Although I only get to see your negativity in writing, what are you like in real life (like at your job)? Do you have a reputation of getting along with others, or are you known to be relatively cynical? I am just curious, but you can tell me to go to hell if you want to.
Since you asked. . .czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 2:16 PM
I do tend to be cynical, but I rarely have problems getting along with others, particularly at work. If I am not prized for my sunny disposition, I am appreciated for my straightforwardness.
Straightforward you are!Captain Morgan
Mar 18, 2003 2:43 PM
I had no hidden agenda with my question.
Discredited by whom ?, France ?MR_GRUMPY
Mar 18, 2003 1:45 PM
Sorry, I don't buy into the Evil Colin Powell bit. I don't have all the secret info, and I'm sure the you don't either, so I just have to go with my gut feeling.
Everybody's an expert when it comes to a subject like this. I'm not, so I have to believe somebody. It's either Powell, or the President of France. Only time will tell if he is full of it. If it turns out that he is, I'd like his head on a stick, along with his boss. We should find out in less than a week.
No. The IAEA, UNMOVIC etc.czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 2:00 PM
I'm not an expert either, but there's no need to resort to base emotions when there are actual experts out there.
Please....RoadnMtn
Mar 18, 2003 1:08 PM
You know...other than the appeasment (sp) of your own mind, it makes no difference whether you are against or for the war at this point (you can express that at the next presidential election). The fact of the matter is (unless Saddam is smart enough to leave) we are going to war with Iraq.

I think at this point...rather than sit around and grouse about whether or not Bush is right or wrong, perhaps it would be a better showing of this country, and her inhabitants if we started showing support for those people who are going to have to face this crisis.

I spent 5 years in the US Army, both with the 5th Group SF, which was at the time at Ft. Bragg, and then with C Co. 2/75th Rangers at Ft. Lewis (one of the first 200 in that unit). It was right at the tail end of Vietnam, and I can remember walking through airports and being looked at with distain, having people want to debate the wisdom of the United States' foreign policy, tell me how wrong the military was, yadda yadda yadda....it was some of the MOST demoralizing feelings I ever had.

I don't know all the answers...and never pretended to. But I remember looking at the people who sat there, fat, dumb and happy, telling me how screwed up it was and feeling like "Why should I bother fighting for someone that can only point their finger at me rather than support me." But realizing that it was what I believed in..and had pledged to do.

Hey...you may not like this response...but I am willing to bet if you asked the veteran's of this country who had to stick their life on the line, about 90% of them would feel the same way.

War is an ugly thing, and anyone who WANTS to go to war should be put in a rubber room and be subject to heavy drug therapy...but the fact of the matter is, we are going, and maybe we should consider at least giving the people who are going to have to fight this thing the respect AND SUPPORT they deserve, rather than sit around and complain about how wrong it is. Believe me...being in the position they are going to be in probably a matter of days, they are going to need every good feeling...every bit of support...every positive statement they can get.
You misunderstand meKristin
Mar 18, 2003 1:18 PM
People who blame soldiers for war have misplaced agression. I also think it would be a mistake to not speak out against things happening in our government if we see that they might be wrong. Its our freedom to do so and if we don't excercise that freedom, we could lose it. I fully support every last soldier fighting for this country. Some are going to war this week and they don't even believe in the war. They are going because they made a committment and they believe in our freedom. I salute that. I fully believe in our democracy and everything the principles that this country was founded on. I am also sad right now because I see most of our polititians abandoning the principles for their own selfish gain. I have no idea how to stop that, and I hope it doesn't destroy everything my ancestors worked so hard to build.

Thank you for serving the country. God knows I lack the fortitude. My father served in the Navy. I'm grateful for all of you. It takes something special just to survive boot camp.
The role of protest in a representative democracy...TJeanloz
Mar 18, 2003 1:33 PM
The role that popular movements play in politics these days interests me very much. People protest, en masse, for positions that they often don't understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are in no way qualified to answer the question: "should we go to war with Iraq" except in the context that you might be opposed to any sentance that begins: "should we go to war...". I'm certainly not in any position to judge. I've never been to Iraq. I don't know Saddam Hussein. So what could possibly motivate me to go to the streets to say that we shouldn't go to war with Iraq (excepting the aforementioned possiblity that I would go to the street to protest a war, any war). I simply don't have enough information to make that choice.

I might write my Congressmen and President, advising them that I would prefer a diplomatic solution to war, but since I'm not opposed to war in general, I don't know enough to make the call about whether this war is 'worthy' or not. Interestingly enough, I hired somebody else to evaluate these types of scenarios for me. Actually, I hired four people; two Senators, one Representative, and the President. I might not be thrilled with all of them. Not all of them were my first choice for the job. But I have to trust, and believe, that they, with more information than me, will make the correct decision when I certainly cannot.
Not everyone elects politicians to do their thinking for them.nmczardonic
Mar 18, 2003 1:43 PM
I only have to think every 2, 4 and 6 years (nm)TJeanloz
Mar 18, 2003 2:19 PM
If you think every 2, you're covered for 4 and 6. (nm)czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 2:21 PM
That is incorrectKristin
Mar 18, 2003 1:47 PM
Your assumption about my "protests" are incorrect entirely. I just don't have a good grasp as to "why" we're going to war. Actually, that's not true. I believe that we are going to war because we want to put Suddam Hussein out of business. But I think that the reasons have not been well established and I'm nervous about both the motivation behind the action and the outcome. I have no problem with the concept of war. Please to confuse me with the PETA people in hollywood.

You are right in saying that I'm not qualified to determine it. And you are also right that our elected officials are the ones we hired to do their jobs and their doing them how they see fit. But I still think that there has not been a good enough explaination as to "why" we are doing this to warrent some questioning.
I'm sorry, I meant to say, "Please DON'T confuse me with the PETA people or anyone in Hollywood." nmKristin
Mar 18, 2003 1:49 PM
I disagree strongly.Spoke Wrench
Mar 18, 2003 1:58 PM
Just because we elected someone (and there is room for discussion on that point) doesn't mean that we are obligated to agree with and to support everything they propose. Rather it's out elected representatives' job to convince us that they are doing the right thing. In this case, there are a gob of people who haven't been convinced yet. If you don't think you have enough information to make an intelligent decision, maybe you play follow the leader a little too willingly.
The role of discussion in a representative OPEN democracy...PdxMark
Mar 18, 2003 2:02 PM
Representative democracy empowers elected representives to enact laws on behalf of the electors. It doesn't mean that the elected don't have the obligation to publicly justify their actions or that the electors can't question those justifications. That's one thing that makes it an OPEN democracy.

It would be nice to think that, in the case of war with Iraq, the US government had incontrovertible evidence of WMD, ties to terrorists, etc., to justify the war with Iraq. Initially, the suggestion was that the evidence was there, but it was too sensitive to diclose. After deciding to disclose it at the UN, it turns out that the evidence was thin, or bogus.

There are some areas in which expertise and knowledge of elected representatives is critical. Such as passing a 400+ page Constitution-gutting Patriot Act without reading it. But in the case of war, especially large-scale war, there needs to be full and clear understanding of the reasons, and they must not be so obscure that the masses can't understand them.

Sadly, many in the US now seem to think that questioning the government amounts to near treason. Not saying that's your position, just thinking of the radiop stations dropping the Dixie Chicks for daring to question GWB.
The elected have to justify their actions,TJeanloz
Mar 18, 2003 2:16 PM
The elected representatives are held to account at 2, 4, and 6 year intervals. I fully expect the President to be able to defend every action he took as President when it comes time for him to be reelected. But I would be really unhappy if 6 billion people who didn't know what they were talking about were telling me how to do my job.

Frankly, I don't know why people feel like they have some kind of veto authority over the leaders they elected. Furthermore, I fully advocate speaking with your elected representatives -- how many people who attended a protest actually bothered to call their Congressmen, and the President? No, it's more fun to paint up big signs and chant slogans.
Well, since you brought it up.Spoke Wrench
Mar 18, 2003 2:29 PM
I'm betting that almost every single person who went so far out of their way to participate in a formal protest had already communicated their opposition in some manner to their elected representatives.

If 6 billion people (everyone in the world but me) all told me I was doing something wrong, I'd have to re-examine my position. It would be pretty arrogant of me to say that only I was intelligent enough to make that decision.
Really?TJeanloz
Mar 19, 2003 6:50 AM
If you had information that nobody else had access to, which assured you 100% that you were correct, you would change your opinion, despite the information, based on the opinions of 6 billion people who are not as well informed as you?

I'm not saying the current case is so extreme, but I fail to see how you can let people who aren't qualified to make a decision make the decision for you.
Why that's easy - define "qualified"Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 8:53 AM
I've grown tired of the old "I've got better, but confidential, information than you." argument. That's what they fed us during the Viet Nam era and that's what they've fed us this time.

I've got a daughter who is a bio-chemist and does medical research. She has the ability to explain complicated concepts from her field in a manner that I can understand. That's my definition of qualified.

When I meet people who can only explain what they do in complicated, technical jargon, or who blow me off with "I've got better information than you" I tend to suspect they don't have a very good understanding of what they are doing.
MYOBTJeanloz
Mar 19, 2003 10:04 AM
My feeling on the subject is that you are not the President of the United States (actually, I don't know that, but I'm pretty sure you're not) and don't have any right to expect full disclosure of everything the Government knows. My premise is that the Government doesn't need to make its case to me, at least not now. They don't need my approval, so why should they waste their time keeping me in the loop? I'm also pretty sure that being the President is a full-time job, and to be as well-informed as he is, if the information were available, you would need to dedicate your life to reviewing it.
Assuming such information actually exists.Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 2:09 PM
And thank you for thinking that I'm not George W. Bush.
Sorry, but troop morale can't trump debate of policy.czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 1:29 PM
Of the people who accuse protesters of hating American troops because they oppose the war they are fighting: Shame on them for exploiting our troops for their own political end of muting dissent.

How is it any less respectful or supportive to call for troops to be brought home to their families rather than put in danger for dubious purposes?
Sorry, but troop morale can't trump debate of policy.RoadnMtn
Mar 18, 2003 1:58 PM
Certainly everyone has the right to speak out against things happening in and by our government...well...if you live in the United States or another free society anyway. If you live in Iraq and do that, you end up in prison or dead.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am far from one who runs around waving the flag in everybody's face...but MY feeling is ANYONE should have the right to speak his/her mind, and not have to live in fear of their life for doing so, and that is irregardless of where you live! I look at that as a HUMAN right...not just a right to be enjoyed by people who happened to be born into, or living in a free society.

Is that something worth fighting for and dying for? I think so...we have a tendancy to want to be pretty much a "fat dumb and happy" society...and let other countries handle their "own problems." Has it not occurred to people that some of "their problems" are because of our existence? This isn't the stone age anymore...while not everyone has a communication highway...you will find that by and large, the world is a well informed place. Even the people of Iraq, who currently live in fear most of the time, know that outside of the current regime...there is a better life.

Any country where there is an unpopular government is going to have an underground...and the underground communicates. It has been that way through history. What does the underground communicate? How wonderful things are in another country or another way of life (or just how screwed up their life is compared to another country)...and usually the USA is the one at the top of the list either as a destination or a role model. Now, if you are running a forced government...and the underground movement is causing you problems...what do you do? Well you can try and crush the movement, but that is nearly impossible, or you can try and crush it, and discredit the object of affection, specifically, the USA in this case. It may seem far-fetched to many...but the truth of the matter is there are MANY countries who aspire to be as great a place to live as the United States...and there a lot who never will be, and because of that, those governments will take nearly any opportunity to take a shot at our image and lifestyle, whether that is assisting and funding terrorists, or conducting the operations themselves. (Good example here...did you know the Soviets during the late cold war started the rumour that the United States invented HIV as a biologicial weapon and released it, and used that as dissinformation spread to the underground groups in the then Soviet Union? And yes, they have admitted to that)

Hey, let's face it, this IS the place to be. There aren't a lot of places as wonderful as this, and I can tell you there are A LOT of places MUCH worse than this!

As far as Iraq is concerned? Actually I am probably more neutral than one way or the other. Asked if I HAD to choose, I would say that something must be done. I think anyone in their right mind knows Saddam is at the very least, cruel and inhuman. I ask myself "Am I comfortable that him having WMD's, he is the type of person who would responsibly manage them?" No...he wouldn't...his hatred for the United States, his neighbors...and just about anything is to well documented. But I don't stop there...I think just about the same about Israel...they have, in my mind...reached the limit of tolerance. Their constant refusal to assist in Palestine becoming a nation by trying to control the land surrounding their borders must be stopped. Hey...what is good for the goose...must also be good for the gander. In other words...no favorites.

I never thought to much of polititians, and never knew a lot of them that had many principles other than those directly related to them being able to stay in office. Someone asked how to stop that...quite simple...don't vote for them. While I probably vote more Republican than anything, I have also NOT voted fo
Yikes..RoadnMtn
Mar 18, 2003 2:07 PM
Reply cut off...anyway...I have voted for democrats as well as republicans...simply because I agreed with what and how they positioned their agendas...of course they change...welcome to politics. That is the joy and sorrow of the democratic process. I am all for it pending something that seems to work better.
That's okay. I misundertood your first post. . .czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 2:11 PM
. . .but I got your drift from the second.
"dubious purposes"moneyman
Mar 18, 2003 2:00 PM
Ah, there's the rub. The protestors beleive the war in Iraq is being fought for "dubious purposes", while the folks in favor (fif) believe it is fought in self-defense. The protestors look for a smoking gun, while the fif believe that the world is a shadowy and dark place, where no smoking gun will be found until after it has been fired, when it will be too late.

The information leading to this stage of the standdown is clear in many cases, but sketchy in others. The world of terrorists is not one of diplomatic arguments and clearly drawn lines. Rather, it is a world of nuance, sometimes subtlety, and and always secrecy, which is prized above all. There is no flow chart that starts at Al Qaeda and ends at Saddam. Not directly, at least. The chart shifts to one side or the other, often leaving for long periods of time. It ends at Saddam, but the middle is missing, just like the terrorists want. To discount the missing information is practical suicide.

It would have been much better if Saddam had fessed up, destroyed the WMDs, and left. But he didn't. It would have been much better if those depraved men hadn't flown airplanes into buildings and killed 3,000 citizens of multiple countries, but they did. To believe that the there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is wishful thinking. To insist that one is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt is to insist on thousands more deaths at the hands of terrorists.

Its an ugly world, and the free citizens of Western Democracies have many enemies. It's us or them, czardonic. You and me pissing up each other's leg in an internet quarrel doesn't change that. Cruel men must be dealt with cruelly, and Saddam is nothing if not cruel.

$$
An "us or them" attituede is what made those men evil.czardonic
Mar 18, 2003 2:10 PM
You can not liberate the world based on an "us or them" attitude. The souring of our relationship with France proves that such thinking just as easily divides the free world as it distinguishes it from the un-free world.

Moreover, you can not liberate the world (by American standards of liberty) by abandoning the notion of innocence until guilt is proven. It is risky, but it is the only way. Dealing with risk is one of the responsibilities required by freedom.

Cruel men do need to be dealt with. But that does not justify further cruelty (which is what anti-war protesters are concerned about).
I think we can support the troops and question the government...PdxMark
Mar 18, 2003 1:31 PM
I think wishes for quick success and safety to all our troops are nearly universal. But if we must stop questioning the government once troops are committed, we forfeit our rights and obligations to be engaged in politcal discussion.

The opponents of the Vietnam War made a terrible mistake in blaming the trrops for it. I hope it's not repeated.
Please....Me Dot Org
Mar 18, 2003 1:55 PM
One thing that is interesting about this war is the high percentage of young people who support it. Of course, there's no draft, and no casualties yet.

My brother joined the Marines when he was 17 and fought in Vietnam. I was 3 years younger, and very opposed to the war.

Through it all my father supported both of us for making decisions of conscience.

I think one thing that has changed since the Vietnam War is "oppose the war, not the warrior." I remember that period, remember vets coming home and wanting to fit in. It was a very hard war psychologically for those who fought to come home to a country where many were hostile to vets.

While I know that the men and women in the Middle East are going into harm's way at the behest of their Commander in Chief, if I feel it is wrong, I would be remiss not to voice my opposition. I'm opposed not to their service, which is honorable, but to the President's policy.

If war comes (and at this point it seems a virtual certainty) I hope it is over quickly with minimal casualties to both Iraqis and Americans.
I completely agree. Lets at least get in and get out.Kristin
Mar 18, 2003 2:01 PM
Well said on all points. I wonder what the opinion of this war will be in 50 years? It will be interesting to read about it then and I wonder if I will still feel the same. I'll have lots of wisdom by then, I'm sure...but I'll be wrinkly and gross and no one will want to hear my wisdom.
Horrible way to phrase the questionPaulCL
Mar 18, 2003 1:33 PM
For or Against war. Nobody in their right mind is ever in favor of a war if there is any other option. Maybe the question should be phrased: "Do you support the timing of going to war now, or should the diplomatic process continue?"

If you would adopt my question, it comes down to a decision whether you believe if diplomacy will ever work and if Saddam is a true threat. I beleve diplomacy is done and he is a threat. I vote to go to war now becuase the diplomatic process has not worked for the last 4 1/2 months while Saddam has prepared his military. At some point, its' time to put up or shut up. It is time for the UN to enforce their accepted ruling. But I never WANT to go to war, I view it as the absolute last resort. I would like to believe our Whitehouse views war the same way. I'm confident Colin Powell sees it that way.

I pray that Saddam sneaks out of Iraq and/or the war is brief.
Mincing words?Kristin
Mar 18, 2003 3:00 PM
Its clear that you knew what I intended by the question. Of course I'm not asking if you enjoy war. Below is the dictionary definition for the word "for." I used it correctly in my question.

For\, prep. [AS. for, fore; akin to OS. for, fora, furi, D. voor, OHG. fora, G. vor, OHG. furi, G. f["u]r, Icel. fyrir, Sw. f["o]r, Dan. for, adv. f["o]r, Goth. fa['u]r, fa['u]ra, L. pro, Gr. ?, Skr. pra-. [root] 202. Cf. Fore, First, Foremost, Forth, Pro-.] In the most general sense, indicating that in consideration of, in view of, or with reference to, which anything is done or takes place.

3. Indicating that in favor of which, or in promoting which, anything is, or is done; hence, in behalf of; in favor of; on the side of; -- opposed to against.

It is for the general good of human society, and consequently of particular persons, to be true and just; and it is for men's health to be temperate. --Tillotson.
I'm for THIS one -- not necessarily supporting every warCaptain Morgan
Mar 18, 2003 1:35 PM
Anyone who watched Frontline last night or looked at the pictures of the gassed Kurds posted here yesterday would understand the importance of ridding Iraq and the world of this evil man. I admit that it has been a relative PR nightmare this far.
Opposed (nm)Spoke Wrench
Mar 18, 2003 1:47 PM
NO to war. nmRoyGBiv
Mar 18, 2003 1:56 PM
Facts ?MR_GRUMPY
Mar 18, 2003 2:06 PM
On one side we have the fact that Saddam is an EVIL man. On the other we have the fact that America is EVIL. You can take facts and bend them any way you want to. One of the nice things about this country is the right to be wrong. I'd like to believe that I am right, and the other side is wrong, but only time will tell.
If I'm right, I'd like to say --- HA-HA. If I'm wrong, Sorry.....
Yup.Spoke Wrench
Mar 18, 2003 2:18 PM
Whenever there is a controversal decision to be made, the facts are murky. Otherwise it wouldn't be controversal.
Facts ?purplepaul
Mar 18, 2003 3:42 PM
Is it a fact that the US is evil?
Just ask any U.S. hater. nm.MR_GRUMPY
Mar 18, 2003 8:20 PM
I think opinion is be confused with fact. nm.purplepaul
Mar 18, 2003 8:52 PM
for Saddam leaving, but he just won't cooperate, soooo.... nmDougSloan
Mar 18, 2003 3:32 PM
What ever it takesbic
Mar 18, 2003 5:15 PM
To prevent another 9/11. Certain people will never change their hatred for others. I don't want to be mildly confused and just wish they would go away.
War is justifiedAlpedhuez55
Mar 18, 2003 3:45 PM
I would have preferred to see a peaceful solution. The diplomatic efforts failed. A lot of that will fall in France for their actions in the several weeks. You give Saddam an inch and he takes a mile. The UN let him get away with too much for too long. Now we can only hope Saddam has an 11th hour change of heart.

Mike Y.
lots of things I'm againstDougSloan
Mar 18, 2003 8:39 PM
Let's see, I'm against:

*trash
*crime
*disease
*cancer
*hate
*discrimination
*murder
*intolerance
*poverty
*ignorance
*murdering dictators

But are there any of them we can ignore? It can get real unpopular being the ones taking responsibility to fight ugly menaces in our world. Sometimes the tough decisions have to be made, and we can't let bad things or bad people continue. Saddam certainly qualifies for the list. Sorry, it's a nasty business, but we can't stick our heads in the sand and just hope things get better, any more than you can stand in the middle of a highway and hope a truck doesn't hit you. No one really WANTS to have to deal with any of these things, worst of all war. It would be a better world if we never had to even think about these things, but that place doesn't exist. Sorry if that sounds mean, insensitive, or uncaring, but it's no more uncaring than having a swat team go in to rescue hostages and having to take out a psycho in the process. Sometimes the world sucks, and all we can do is to try to make it suck less.

Doug
I'll bet you're a great lawyer.Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 6:43 AM
I agree with everything you said, but it looks to me like you answered the question that you wanted to address rather than the one that I would ask.

In a world rife with murdering dictators, why Saddam?
why Saddam?DougSloan
Mar 19, 2003 2:32 PM
I suppose there are actually at least dozen reasons to go after Saddam, moral, legal, political, and practical. Maybe there are other murdering dictators, but there are fewer justifications.

Nonetheless, as some of the liberals are quick to point out with respect to domestic social policies, "just because you can't do everything, doesn't mean you should do nothing."

Doug
Strongly Against....Len J
Mar 19, 2003 4:15 AM
I do not believe that the administration has provided a compelling threat to US National sucurity to warrant putting our soldiers at risk. Plain & Simple.

Instead, they have played on fears and "what ifs". Saddam has had WMD for at least 15 years and so far has not been inclined to provide them to terrorists. What makes anyone believe that suddenly he will do it now?

This has IMO nothing to do with WMD or Saddam being evil (other than as excuses), rather it has to do with establishing a democratic US biased regime centrally located in the middle East. It reaks of Colonialism.

We are Invading a foreign Country with no documented proof of an immediate threat to US Security! You can paint that one any way you like but it is still wrong.

Len
Absolutely against; we're a rogue nation now. And as for Doug...retro
Mar 19, 2003 9:01 AM
We trashed the Soviet Union and China for decades for not following UN resolutions. Now when WE don't want to follow them, suddenly the Security Council isn't meeting its responsibilities.
As for Doug's claim that he's part of some vast silent majority...that's been the claim of both sides of every issue for as long as I can remember. Shoot, I actually thought more people would vote for Al Gore than for Bush.
have you read the Resolutions?DougSloan
Mar 19, 2003 9:42 AM
The Security Council has not said "no war." 1441 and prior related resolutions (see my other post for links) authorize nations to do what is necessary to implement the resolutions.

So, going to war now is in no way a violation of UN Resolutions. I challenge anyone to show how it is. Keep in mind that the lack of a resolution specifically authorizing something is not the same as a resolution prohibiting something.

Doug