Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Do you or do you not support the impending war?

I realise that this might have been asked before but its now 5 minutes to midnight, and it is going to happen. Hence, there are only two options, there is no 'undecided'. Yes or No. PLus some reasons bulleted if any.

I say Yes because it serves the long term interests of this nation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Heh Heh

We're winning.

Fuck the peaceniks.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

I think that there really is more to it than 'yes' or 'no'. 'yes, with reservations' would cover a fair number of people, I think. Not outright support, but saying 'yes, but keeping an eye on what happens afterwards'; because what happens after is more important, in many ways, than the war itself. Asking questions about the war per se isn't enough; the question of aftermath is more important and also not very well defined, so you can imagine pretty much any aftermath that you care to.

What is the official post-war plan now, anyway?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

I am the lone dissenter?

I have certain criterion for considering war a necessary step.

1) At least one side must be heavily reliant on cannons.
b. It must have decent "Mel Gibson movie" potential.
also - When the War is to take place, I shall either be under 18, or over 25.

Mainly for these reasons, and also because I AM DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES BEING THE AGRESSOR IN ANY CONTEXT, I can not agree with the decision to go to War.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Playa d'en London
Posts: 9826

do i agree with the war? yes. of course. i think its imperative that buffy and the scooby gang defeat the First Evil.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

quote:

---

Originally posted by urbanjunkie
do i agree with the war? yes. of course. i think its imperative that buffy and the scooby gang defeat the First Evil.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Yes,Phil, I support our going to war with Iraq because such action supports the self-interest of the Unityed States and enhances its security.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 181

mmmsivart - I respect your right to disagree with this view, but I would like to ask your defintion of "aggressor". Is a convicted shotgun killer/madman walking up and down a street with a loaded shotgun (or what looks like a loaded shotgun) an aggressor? Is he an aggressor when he refuses to put down the gun , despite repeated warnings from the cops?

At what point do the police just shoot him? After he fires first? Or just before when he looks like he will fire first?

London police held on for 3 weeks whilst negotiating a settlement over Xmas. (the guy shot himself but the cops did not charge in - it was memorable cos it was rare and a marked change in policy.)

Unfortunately we have had a police system for 200 years, and only now do we expect this behaviour. It will take another 200 before we can expect it on level of armies and countries.

Sorry, but I feel that we are slowly seeing the emergence of a global paradigm, similar to that of European nation states in the middle ages. Except this time we shall end up with one nation, across the globe.
Perhaps.

So, yes, I will support this war - but reserve the right to change my mind should our leaders abuse their positions.

And I just hope to God I never meet the parents of the children who will die becasue of that. Although I am sure Saddam will kill more if he stays in power another 12 years, its not much of an excuse.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifeisgood
At what point do the police just shoot him? After he fires first? Or just before when he looks like he will fire first?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

No. Hussein is caged. The threat of force is sufficient to prevent him from acting against the US or his neighbors provided that current policy (sanctions, inspections) holds. Interests such as oil do not alone justify the initiation of force. The correct policy is maintenance of a credible threat of force...it is unfortunate that the UN is too spineless to establish this threat, and it is to Bush's credit (and the anti-war left's discredit) that he has done so.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

quote:

---

My definition of aggressor in that context is one who instigates actual combat ---whoever shoots first.

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

In theory, no. In practice, yes. So I voted yes.

I think every single reason for this war is moronic (well, that's hyperbole, I think some of them have merits, but for the most part I don't agree with them). I don't believe for a second that Hussein is a credible threat to us (which seems to be the basic premise here). I don't even believe that the region will be less destabilized without him (at least in lieu of a sufficient plan of action for post-Saddam Iraq, which, if conjured, I certainly haven't seen enough of to believe in, despite Itch's dodge that "we should just trust there is one). I think we are absolutly killing international relations by bullheading it through, and we have successfuly not just burned through, but entirely reversed, perhaps the greatest level of international support that we have ever enjoyed. As much as I railed on the rhetoric of all this before (saying how much arguments over rhetoric are idiotic), and to some degree still do, I think that our diplomacy and handling of all this has been absymal, at best. I don't believe that this war is at all the primary interest that our presidency should be holding Even ideologically, as a general rule, I distrust any "regime change" that occurs from the top down and not from the bottom up as being something temporary and shallow. I think that Saddam, even assuming he is a threat to us, the region, and his people, can be better countered via other means. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

There are a million reasons why I think this war is unjustified and stupid. And, I want you to keep in mind, I was one of the last undecideds left, both on this forum and from the people I've talked to IRL. I gave concerns, but I haven't been wholly against the war until three or four months ago, at most (and even if you find posts of mine prior to that that expresses a seemingly anti-war position, it was either me playing devil's advocate or honestly expressing concern over the validity of a specific position.) (No reason to lie there. I wasn't convinced that this war should happen pretty much ever, but I wasn't wholly against it until pretty recently). But, the more the issue has been pressed, the more I have found it very very obviously, not just idiotic, but duplicitous as well.

But that's me, and again, I voted yes. Why did I vote yes despite not supporting the war in any real aspect? I honestly believe that at this point, backing down would harm us more than going through with it would, in the long term anyway. The administration has painted me, and itself, into a corner, where, as leaders, they pretty much have to go through with it, and, as an American, I pretty much have to support it. And I do, support it that is, at this point. That I resent having to in the first place is another discussion entirely (and one that has been hashed and re-hashed so many times...), but, in answer to your poll, yes, I think we should invade Iraq at this point.

And I say so with the qualifier that "Saddam and his regime, the people of Iraq, and the UN, can all kiss my hairy, white, Big-Mac bloated ass."

That's me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

The "immanent" war.

Well it's going to happen, may as well be for it.

Hussein seems to be co-operating, but you can't trust him.

It looks like he may have had the means to launch an attack, well, against an Arab neighbour maybe, not that any of his Arab neighbours seem to worried about it, but then again he might bomb Israel.

Then there's tha Al-Qeada link, well, we're not quite sure how a bunch of Saudi Arabian's hijacking American Airliners has anything to do with Iraq, but they're all sand niggers, so go for that one.

Ah, yes, the long term interests of this nation. Which nation? or should I say which multinational?

An invasion is certainly going to make for more interesting television, "bombs not bickering".

I voted "No", by the way, I still haven't worked out a way how to cover up the "punk" tatooed on my arm.

Here's my wish, that Bush stands up in front of the world and goes "We sure had that Saddam shitting in his pants didn't we? Come on boys we're going home, job well done, the man has been rendered flaccid".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
No. Hussein is caged. The threat of force is sufficient to prevent him from acting against the US or his neighbors provided that current policy (sanctions, inspections) holds. Interests such as oil do not alone justify the initiation of force. The correct policy is maintenance of a credible threat of force...it is unfortunate that the UN is too spineless to establish this threat, and it is to Bush's credit (and the anti-war left's discredit) that he has done so.

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 03-15-2003 at 07:30 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 181

I don't think containment is quite the point. Maybe I should alter the analogy above to a madman with a gun who has taken over a building. We can contain him, stop him taking over more buildings, but no-one would accept that having him shoot a few of the residents (especially those Kurds on the upper floors) is acceptable "containment".

Yet that attitude is precisely what nations have argued for for centuries.

Now, perhaps, we are seeing a willingness amoung some nations, even the UN, to storm a building to rescue the residents. That I feel is changing how nations interact, how they behave not just towards each otehr but internally. Its a brave new world.

And it is most likely to need one big powerful chief to coalesce desire/tendancy into a self perpetuating system. The Us will become the worlds policeman because no one else can do the job.

The question i would like to see answered by historians, is who was the first police officer? Who first sent an army out into the lands of brigandage simply to stop those who threatened others not himself? When did it become normal or accepted that others, strangers would risk their lives to save you?
How closely tied together does the world have to become before it becomes impossible not to act?

Fascintating question to me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

quote:

---

Originally posted by oxsan
mmmsivarT, don't ever go into police work under any cicumstances. Not only would you be killed but the people you would be sworn to protect would suffer.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

mmmsivart, you do realise that since September 11th even Fukuyama does not fully side with Fukuyama anymore right?

Last edited by philjit on 03-15-2003 at 04:10 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2002
Location:
Posts: 8833

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
mmmsivart, you do realise that since September 11th even Fukuyama does not fully side with Fukuyama anymore right?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

Please list me among those who before after and during the 9-11
attack was not a proponent of Fukuyama (or Hegel) (or Marx).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
In your argument, it would only be to Bush's credit if, having created the position allowing containment that you speak of, he didn't actually invade anyway, surely?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: on the move
Posts: 1266

'nes' .. er, I mean 'yo!'

screw it. will my heating bill go down? fuck 'em.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't play games. They fucking charge your ass.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: 0.50
Posts: 9355

i agree that the reasons proponents of war are giving for doing so are valid, but i don't think they are sufficient. by which i mean, it seems unnecessary. my opinion on the whole thing, because i'm stupid, represented in an analogy, in the form of dialogue:
guy 1: hey, a spider
guy 2: yeah, that's a spider
guy 1: we had better squish it. spiders can bite, and it's creepy to think of it crawling around all damn day unnoticed
guy 2: or, we could not
guy1: or that, yeah. but we should
guy 2: *