's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

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

Questions for anyone who indicated they oppose the war.(48 posts)

Questions for anyone who indicated they oppose the war.Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 7:22 AM
How would you propose we extract ourselves from the position we are in today? I'm personally opposed to this war, and I haven't got a clue.

The follow up question is: In the future, how can we prevent outselves from getting sucked too far along into situations like this?
DependsCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 7:37 AM
The latest poll shows 70% of Americans are for this war. So, only 30% believe we got "sucked too far along."

We can prevent this by allowing any country to develop weapons of mass destruction, gas their citizens, torture then kill their opponents (using giant paper shredder while they are still alive), and allowing the U.N. to run our foreign policy (or better yet, just let the French decide).

There weren't too many anti-war people running around in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq. In fact, the Democrats were FOR it back then. Also, France, Russia, and China were against action then.

I know I used some sarcasm to make my point in the second paragraph, but seriously I guess it depends on why an individual is anti-war in the first place.
Polls schmollsKristin
Mar 19, 2003 8:20 AM
If the poll taken here yesterday, and many of my water cooler conversations are any indication, then opinion is much closer to 50/50 or even 40/60 against this war happening. I don't believe in the polls I hear on the news anymore. Their as doctored as your employers annual report.
water cooler schmolls?DougSloan
Mar 19, 2003 8:37 AM
Kristin, your microcosm, or this one, may have not have relationship whatsoever to the 280 million people in this country. You just can't think that way.

You know there are tens of millions of people who live vastly different lives than you or I do. Think about some rancher in Oklahoma, a steel worker in Pittsburg, a potato farmer in Idaho. We have almost no life experiences in common with them, nor many of them with each other. You can't even begin to think that your microcosm, or any for that matter, is representative.

Nonetheless, polls are highly suspect, too, but probably at least more reliable than water cooler or bike forum discussions.

Let me write the questions...Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 9:06 AM
and I'll make the poll come out any way that you want.
How about the plant worker who lives on a farm/ranch in Okla? nhycobob
Mar 19, 2003 9:16 AM
IronicCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 8:40 AM
Ironic how you refute the results of a poll as being inacurate, yet you use your own poll as supporting evidence.

You also live in Chicago, considered a fairly liberal town, so your water cooler count may be skewed. The support where I live in Florida is probably more representative of the 70%.
Okay, OkayKristin
Mar 19, 2003 8:51 AM
My post was a reach. I'm just saying, I don't believe everything in the polls. All I see around me, all day long are people who seem to be against this war. Perhaps if I moved to Idaho that would be different. Who knows. (Oh, and I work for a company who's roots are sunk deep into old traditional Christianity. The kind of Christianity from the 50's. So my microcosm more closely resembles Florida's than downtown Chicago.
Another pointCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 8:57 AM
I understand your point. Another point is how the question is asked in the first place. If I asked "are you in favor of a balanced budget," most people probably would say yes. However, if I asked "are you in favor of raising income taxes and cutting government spending," the response may not be so favorable.
So I should have worded my question differently?Kristin
Mar 19, 2003 9:02 AM
I get your point. I wish I had asked is people "support" the war or not. Too late now.
No...people would read it diferently anyway you word it...nmhycobob
Mar 19, 2003 9:19 AM
Are you completely illiterate?sacheson
Mar 19, 2003 3:03 PM
If you read her post, she was using her own poll to refute polls in general. I read it as her saying any poll is only as good as the subset of individuals who participate in it.

Why do you constantly have to aggrivate the situation with your misrepresenting facts?
I believe the word is "aggravate" you dumb@$$Captain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 3:35 PM
Also, facts in and of themselves are incapabale of action. I believe that you were referring to me personally misrepresenting facts. Therefore, the proper grammar should have been "you misrepresenting facts" or "your misrepresenting of facts."
no, it's illiterate ...sacheson
Mar 19, 2003 4:24 PM
... because you obviously can't read beyond an early-elementary school level. You pick up what words you do comprehend, piece them together to make some weak argument, and *try* and use that to show how the rest of the world is wrong.

By stating you misrepresented the facts, one would have to assume you understand the facts that are presented to you. You've proven several times that you can't even read a post correctly, so how are we to think you are even comprehending what's in front of you?
Yes it is illiterate ...Captain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 6:17 PM
And you say I can't comprehend a post? Now THAT'S comical.
I AM saying that!sacheson
Mar 20, 2003 10:11 AM
Twice in another discussion, you misquoted me and THEN tried to attach that misquote to me and called me on changing my argument. If that is something besides not being able to comprehend a post, let me know what it is.

Here you attack Kristin because she uses an example from this list to refute the validity of polls - and again, you misunderstand the post and try to start an argument using your skewed perception of reality.

You are a piece of work!
if the reason for war is to ...sacheson
Mar 19, 2003 9:52 AM
prevent any country the ability to develop WMD, gas their citizens, torture and kill their opponents, etc. then let's do that. We'll then be attacking China, Turkey, Russia, North Korea, and several other countries that we consider 'allies'.

If it was to prevent the support for terrorist networks, then let's attack Jordan and Saudi Arabia - countries where the ruling families directly support these heinous people.

This war is about petro-chemical resources, end of story ... OK, maybe a little 3rd world ass kicking to raise our President's ratings in the polls, and a little to help Israel for Sadaam's $25,000 reward to Palestinians ... but it's not about removing a horrible dictator, nor is it about liberating the Iraqi people. Those are fringe effects. Don't confuse the two.

As for your bashing France. I find it funny how we Americans can point so many fingers at them for not supporting us and not thanking us for reinstating their government after WWII (since WWII was not about "liberating" France as some like to say), when we can't even remember that our country exists mostly because of French support in the Revolutionary War.

I love how facts get altered to benefit ones arguments.
if the reason for war is to ...hycobob
Mar 19, 2003 10:09 AM
The last minute helping hand in the Revolutionary War arguement, is getting as old as the one about how they should stand behind us, in rememberance of WWII in this conflict. The French have always been obstenate bastages. After getting their butts smacked by the VC, they haven't wanted much to do with armed conflict.
France DID win the French Revolution. (nm)Captain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 10:22 AM
Au Contrair MonfrierCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 10:20 AM
Your first agrument (that we should not take care of Iraq because there are other countries that do the same thing) is ridiculous. That's like saying "Gee, we shouldn't lock up this rapist because there are plenty of other rapists still on the streets."

Regarding the President's ratings, his ratings have not improved because of this; if anything, it has hurt (note: Clinton's would have hurt, too, if he were forced to get U.N. approval before he bombed Iraq in 1998). Besides, people said the same thing about GHW Bush (Gulf War) and Clinton (Iraq bombing and Kosovo), but that certainly didn't help them in their election efforts.

As I have stated before, I have no problem with France sticking with their anti-war disposition. What I disagree with is their negative comments on resolutions before they are even presented and threats to use their veto. They could not drum up support from some of the undecided countries without saying "hey, Cameroon, we are going to veto anyway, so your sticking your neck out will be in vain." THEY underminded the entire diplomatic effort.

You are right about facts getting altered to benefit ones arguments.
You're a dipsh!tsacheson
Mar 19, 2003 11:02 AM
We don't let any rapists off (unless they can hire a good lawyer) - but we are letting leaders just as bad as Sadaam off because we consider them allies, and we want to use them for a strategic alliance. So, to make your analogy correct (understanding the differences between American civil law and foriegn policy), we're saying "hey, let's go after this rapist ... but I'm not going to go after you, even though I know you've raped just as many people, because you're my friend".

My point is we're pointing a bunch of fingers at Iraq to cloud the real issue - they sit on potentially 40% of the World's petro-chemical reserves, and we can't get to it with the current regime. Americans don't want to spend $2 / gallon for gas. We want to do something for it.

Regarding the President's ratings - yeah, they might be going down now (I've seen statistics that prove differently), but what happens after a quick war, a new regime is implemented, and you can once again buy $1.25 / gallon gas for your 400 horsepower, 8 miles to the gallon SUV? They will go through the roof. And Bush Sr's ratings didn't go through the roof after the original war in Iraq? If I remember right, they were bordering 90% approval after that war. True, they didn't help his reelection, but being liked doesn't mean you are doing a good job.

How is my argument about going after the money that's feeding Al Qaeda bogus? That's what this war is touted as, isn't it?

We're not going in because of his crimes on his people. We're not going in because he has some camoflauged nuclear power plant. It's just too bad you're too much of an idiot to see past your leader's rhetoric. Hell - the documents we provided to the UN to "prove" Iraq's fault were even phony! Great one there, wasn't it?

Truthfully, I don't even know why I bother. You are arguably the most close minded, finger pointing, argumentative jerk on this board. Any post is going to draw you're bogus rash of crap.
Changing your argument nowCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 11:13 AM
Now you are bringing up the oil situation, which is a common argument you liberals try to use to be anti-war. However, as I am sure you are aware, this war is going to cost more than any benefit we could derive from Iraqi oil. The dollars just don't add up. Here are some numbers:

Calling people names just because your liberal, anti-American rhetoric doesn't hold water with mainstream Americans is not very mature. Anyway, take a position and stick with it, don't go from "its because of WMD" to "its because of the oil" to "its because of Bush's ratings." Give me a friggin' break.
Can you read?sacheson
Mar 19, 2003 11:33 AM
First, I am NOT anti-American. That's a common argument "you conservatives" like to use (as I said, finger pointing). Don't agree with our President, then you aren't an American. Great logic.

Second, read my original post. I said IF the war was about WMD, blah, blah, blah THEN do this. I clearly stated in the original post I feel it is about petro-chemical resources. Don't go pointing fingers at me for things you either make up, or can't understand.

I read your article. I see holes. First, it states a two year time frame to realize a gain from taking control of oil reserves ... what about the return from several years in operation. Short term loss for a long term gain. Second, the basis for the article is current consuption of Iraqi oil by the US. First, Iraq's current oil exports are controlled by sanctions. Second, don't you think if we could find a cheaper place to get oil, we'd use it? Are you suggesting that we'd continue puchasing half-million barrels per day from Iraq? Third, is the ONLY benefit concerning oil the resources coming directly out of Iraq? Don't think so. We can use our new found leverage to disrupt OPEC, and will be less at the mercy of the oil producing region.

And you offered an article, I offer one also.

It cites several benefits to war in Iraq, including several benefits the Republican party preaches, but also mentions these:

* The oil cartel would break down. An Iraq that is market-friendly and needs to pump out oil to meet its reconstruction costs may not join OPEC. Or it may refuse to keep to OPEC's quotas. Either way, it would mean the end of the oil cartel since three of the world's largest oil-producing states—Russia and Norway being the others—would not engage in price fixing.
* If oil prices stay low, over time the pressures for reform could build even more. The regimes of the Middle East—most of which are nondemocratic and nonperforming—will find it increasingly difficult to stay in power if they don't open up. In short, if oil goes to $10 a barrel, the Saudi monarchy goes to Majorca.

"Us liberals" - I love it. As I said, closed-minded, finger pointing jerk. Crawl back in your hole.
Of course...Captain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 12:39 PM
There are no costs in extracting oil. The entire proceeds from the sale of oil goes straight to the bottom line, right? Also, we won't have costs relating to Iraq reconstruction going forward, right? The breakeven (assuming you think that the U.S. is planning on confiscating Iraq's oil reserves) is much longer than the "short term."

So, NOW you say the U.S. goal is to drop the cost of oil for the OPEC nations? There you go on another made-up scheme. You are paranoid. Maybe we can target South Africa next and corner the market on diamonds?
Are you so ignorant ...sacheson
Mar 19, 2003 2:05 PM
... that you DON'T think we have ANY petrolium interests in the area? Do you REALLY think we are going to liberate a bunch of people, oust a dictator, and put an end to the production of WMD in areas that oppose us?

And if my arguments are so weak and change so much, why haven't you responded to the two times I asked why we aren't concentrating these efforts on the ruling families that directly support Al Qaeda? Why do you attack the vulnerable, highly debated topics that you can link to magazine articles to make your point, and not use your own intellect?

YES, I think the Bush administration wants to secure a guaranteed source for non-renewable reserves, YES I think the Bush adminstration is hoping to undermine tactics OPEC has adopted to increase our cost of raw crude. I don't see how my argument is changing ... with the exception of the argument I didn't make, but you accused me of. Again, great logic ... falsely accuse me of something THEN use that to undermine my integrity. Man, you are brilliant.

I find arguing with you odd. Usually, I like to debate things with people that have different views than I do. I enjoy it when a person makes me think "yeah, I don't necessarily agree with that, but I can see where that person can have that conclusion", and I enjoy it if someone does the same to me. I especially love it when someone is so convincing they make me change my mind ... basically, I enjoy intelligent, educated people. You are different, though. You come onto this board and don't accept (or is it except) that others can have a different opinion, and that the different opinions might, just might, either have a point -OR- be a needed antagonist to a one-world view. You take defensive, argumentative stances with people that don't agree with you, and you warp what they say to benefit your own agenda. You are a scary person. I truly pity those around you, and hope that they can see the truth someday, regardless of how much you cloud their vision.

So, rather than continue to debate and get my facts warped, I choose to end any further posts on this topic right here. Consider it a victory for the one-sided right, I really don't care.

I will say one more thing, though ... as I have been an opponent of the military actions, I have said to my family, friends, and on this board, if the US can come up with ANY tangible evidence Iraq poses a direct threat to the citizens of our country, I will fully support ANY action we decide to take. A few weeks ago, Colin Powell made an argument to the UN. Recently, it was proved that the convincing evidence was phony. As of now, we have NO proof the US is in direct threat. Taking military action at this time is wrong.
Okay, let's take them one at a time thenCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 3:46 PM
I can appreciate your belief that Iraq is not a threat. However, prior to 9/11, if I would have asked you if al-Qaeda or the Taliban were a threat, you would have said no as well. Our government as well as the U.K. government say there is "no doubt" that there are WMD. Tell me, what does one do with 20,000 litres of anthrax?? Personally, I think the humanitarian issue of Saddam gassing his people, raping Islamic women, and throwing his opponents in giant shredders, is a compelling reason for war. Frankly, I am surprised that this does not appeal more to the liberals who are usually more sympathetic to these issues.

If you would like to start with Saudi Arabia, we can start there. I think our problem is we are each tackling too many issues at once. Additionally, personal name-calling should be off limits.
Come on now...hycobob
Mar 19, 2003 11:37 AM
That response was way too civil...I was hopng to learn some more adjectives, adverbs and explitives. Its sad when a disagreement (whoever is wrong or misinformed) turns to frothy-mouthed name calling.
Mar 19, 2003 7:46 AM
I was in the USN submarines helping with seal team spec-ops in '83 when we were in Lebanon. I don't want us to ever have to go to war, just like I don't want any of our kids to have to go to jail. But sometimes we have to.

And, to your question, cold as it sounds, closing the borders and expelling any and all undocumented and illegal persons from our lands would be a good start.

Pulling out of many of our bases in other countries and demolishing them (roads, airstrips, buildings, and utilities) so they cannot be used would be a nice touch. Also, all state sponsered aid to other countries could be ended. That way nobody can say we are partial to anyone in particular. Re-opening the American plants for manufacturing autos, electronics, and clothing so we aren't dependant on Asia would help, as well as uncapping our already drilled oil wells in the Alaskan oil fields.

All of these could be done, but don't expect any of them...
And what would the country be re-named? nmOldEdScott
Mar 19, 2003 7:51 AM
And what would the country be re-named? nmJon Billheimer
Mar 19, 2003 8:30 AM
The U.S. did not get "sucked in" to this war. It consciously chose a role as the world's unilateral, arbitrary policeman, free to impose its will anywhere in the world at any time of its own choosing, regardless of international law or convention.
You've all missed the point of the question.Spoke Wrench
Mar 19, 2003 9:03 AM
The question was purposely posed to people who, like myself, oppose the war. It's easy to say we shouldn't invade Iraq, but something entirely different to say what we should do starting from the position we are in today. Likewise, it's easy to say we shouldn't be in the position we are in today, but something else to say how to avoid it in the future.

Answers from people who feel our country is doing the right thing are irrevelent.
Extraction from this position....PdxMark
Mar 19, 2003 9:25 AM
Our President has decided that it is in the best interest of the United States to withdraw from the world community. He is the global equivalent of a backwoods survivalist who is better armed than every other yokel in the county. He has decided that the entire world is a lawless Wild in which any laws or social contacts with others are secondary or tertiary to his arsenal. Might is Right.

To the extent he wants other countries support, he's generally willing to either pay them directly for their support or imply future payment to poor and desparate countries. If not for one man, Tony Blair, GWB would be on his own in this wank into military aggression.

GWB's "coalition" of 30 willing countries is mainly a string of names in a newspaper endorsment ad. UK has made a major troop committment, thanks to Tony. Australia is sending 2000 troops, Czech Republ and Slovakia are together sending almost 300. And the Poles maybe 200. That's it. Oh yes, over-flight and basing rights in a few countries... Serious allied support or just enough to rate US help in the next round of trade/treaty talks?

As for the future, we need to sweep the blood-thirsty war-mongering isolationist neo-Con Republicans from power. They have dismissed every global relationship as being meaningless in the face of our military and economic might. It's a militarily-aggressive form of isolationism.
Does lack of unanimity alone justify no action?DougSloan
Mar 19, 2003 9:37 AM
Does the lack of world unanimity alone justify not taking action? Can't you envision a situation in which intervention is certainly warranted, but some countries might have their own interests or agenda in opposing it? I'd hate to think we would avoid doing the right thing purely because others might oppose what we want to do. In other words, is the proposed principle of your position that action is prohibited without consensus?

Of course not...Dwayne Barry
Mar 19, 2003 10:16 AM
but if there was strength behind the arguements to justify the war then there would be something much closer to unanimity. And mind you, there is nothing close to unanimity, there is open opposition by the majority in every country but the US (maybe the UK?). And I wonder even here how many "war supporters" actually think this is a good idea, and aren't just in the "well, the president says so, so it must be O.K." mold.

Where were all the objections to the Afghan invasion? Sure there were some from the anti-war-no-matter-what groups and the islamic fundamentalists but in general people around the world could understand why were invading. Maybe they didn't like it, but they understood.

This sets a dangerous precedent for US foriegn policy, has isolated us from much of the rest of the world, and in all probability has increased the likelihood that Americans will die as a result of terrorism (for numerous reasons).
Extraction from this position....Jon Billheimer
Mar 19, 2003 9:42 AM
For all practical purposes there is no way out now. However, sometimes radical simplicity offers a perspective. When asked a similar question during the Vietnam war a prominent antiwar activist replied that the U.S. could get our troops out of Vietnam the same way we got them there: in boats:)-
Submarines?...Oh, you mean ships nmhycobob
Mar 19, 2003 10:14 AM
Old Salt, eh? nmOldEdScott
Mar 19, 2003 10:49 AM
Way old...turned 38 on 3/17hycobob
Mar 19, 2003 11:44 AM
Got a new pair of Oakleys and a replacement areobar & computer knobs from my wife and daughter. Plus a buffalo burger after the club ride as an indulgence...better than longhorn and twice as lean.
Sound like a young pup to me.OldEdScott
Mar 19, 2003 11:57 AM
But I spent some quality time on boats AND ships during the era of that little disturbance in Southeast Asia
"Backwoods survivalist". Spot on. (nm)czardonic
Mar 19, 2003 11:46 AM
re: Questions for anyone who indicated they oppose the war.Me Dot Org
Mar 19, 2003 11:25 AM
You pose a tough question. I think the answer ultimately rests on the decision to commit over 200,000 troops to the gulf. The decision to deploy meant that a combat decision had to be made: go/no go. Unless you want to wait until fall (cooler weather), the clock is ticking, not to mention the fact that this deployment has already cost something like $25 billion.

Also consider that nearly 1/3rd of the troops are reservists. You can't keep them camping in the desert for an indefinite period of time. I believe the carrier Abraham Lincoln has been on station for nearly 9 months, that's a long time.

I think the troop deployment is what other countries look at as a sign that the U.S. was disingenuous in going for inspections in the first place. Given the Dubya's penchant for poker analogies, I think he showed his cards too early.

The short answer is that now there is no way for him to back to gracefully and still keep face. The 30 and 60 day plans that were floated would have put the ultimatum in the middle of summer: not acceptable. Couldn't keep the troops sharp, can't wear chemical suits in that kind of heat.

To use a sports analogy, it's like timing a blitz for a certain snap count. If the snap count goes long, you're offsides.
It would be a mistake to backtrack.czardonic
Mar 19, 2003 12:01 PM
Any extraction from the situation at this point would simply embolden Saddam, and set an even worse example to the world than the one that Bush is already setting.

At this point, the war is a fait accompli. For those opposed to war, it is time to move on to ensuring that our fears for the people of Iraq and the region in general are not realized.

That means challenging the Bush Administration's doctrinaire and unilateralist attitudes and forcing it to re-engage with the Russia, France, Germany and the UN. The US doesn't need allies to win the fight, but we sorely need them to keep the peace and re-establish stability in Iraq.

We are already over the precipice with regards to Iraq. Fortunately, we have a chance to translate our momentum into a wind-fall for Iraq. However, the danger of sliding into a deeper and more serious regional conflict very present.
Yes, butCaptain Morgan
Mar 19, 2003 6:26 PM
I agree with the beginning of your post. However, I don't think you would argue with me if I told you the U.S. did not act unilaterally. There are 40+ nations at last count that are supporting us. I think you are referring to U.N. approval?

Don't you think that times are different now with respect to the U.N.? There are so many biased objectives among all of the nations. All countries may be inclined to vote with their pocketbooks and not their minds or hearts. Therefore, you would have to specify what we need to do in order NOT to be unilateral. If that includes getting U.N. blessings on any (or most) actions, I do not think that this strategy is in our best interests.
I think the UN, or at least France and Russia are key.czardonic
Mar 20, 2003 1:26 PM
Not because they will do a better job or expedite the process, but because they will give the process a legitimacy that the current list allies (most of which are toadies or angling for US aid) won't. The US has a very bad reputation in the Middle East, fed largely by unfair scape-goating, but also by our own actions. Iraqi's know that we propped up Saddam. They know that we tolerate despotism in Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil. They know that we favor Israel over the Palestinians.

Whether or not residual hostility towards the US is fair or defensible, it is a reality. The new regime in Iraq will have a much better chance of mid and long term stability if it can avoid the appearance of fealty to the United States. Allowing Russia, France or the UN, entities that are perceived as checks to US dominance, to participate in rebuilding Iraq will prevent it from being viewed as a puppet regime controlled by Washington (or even worse, actually becoming one).
What would you say...DougSloan
Mar 21, 2003 7:45 AM
What if you knew that France and Russia have their private, selfish, reasons for opposing war, that have nothing to do with desire for peace. What if they opposed invasion purely because they have some sweet oil contracts. Just assuming that for argument's sake for a moment, what would you then say about our inabilty to win them over?


Disclaimer: Since this is an internet forum posting, and statements here are frequently viewed other than how intended, this author disclaims any intent to be rude, offensive, or insensitive; this author frequently uses sarcasm and other forms of intended humor to make points, and those measures are also commonly misinterpreted. Therefore, please take no offense unless the intent to offend is expresly stated. Thank you.
Sticky situation. . .czardonic
Mar 21, 2003 12:29 PM
. . .especially for the current administration which has invited accusations of the same sort (valid or not). I think that the only way to mollify the French and the Russians would be to insist that oil contracts be re-negotiated with the new Iraqi leadership, but convince them that those negotiations would not be partial to US interests. Obviously, the Iraqis can be expected to favor those countries that put them into power, so the best chance for France and Russia to get a piece of a pie would be to join the coalition.
wow. I agree 100% nmDougSloan
Mar 20, 2003 11:53 AM

Disclaimer: Since this is an internet forum posting, and statements here are frequently viewed other than how intended, this author disclaims any intent to be rude, offensive, or insensitive; this author frequently uses sarcasm and other forms of intended humor to make points, and those measures are also commonly misinterpreted. Therefore, please take no offense unless the intent to offend is expresly stated. Thank you.
Where did you cut and paste that from?sacheson
Mar 20, 2003 12:45 PM
I mean ... it makes a lot of sense ... from you ... the person who takes the opposite stance in so many arguments here.