The regime the anti-war crowd has been defending

[Col. Crackpot]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

take a good read. are you sure you wan't to continue to condemn the war against 'the peaceful people of iraq'? To those in the UN who advocated inaction, the blood is on their hands as well.

[Montcalm]

The anti-war assholes will claim its another American propaganda image.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

take a good read. are you sure you wan't to continue to condemn the war against 'the peaceful people of iraq'? To those in the UN who advocated inaction, the blood is on their hands as well.

Wow, thanks for bringing up something that NOBODY ever mentioned before

[Vympel]

I had a nice long reply ready for this utter strawman of the anti-war position (yes, the anti-war folks support Saddam Hussein ), but quite frankly- what's the point.

[Joe]

It is indeed a strawman of the intent of antiwar position - I do not believe that there are any significant number of antiwar folks who honestly support Saddam.

It is NOT, however, a strawman of the reality of the antiwar position.

[Col. Crackpot]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/ ... index.html

take a good read. are you sure you wan't to continue to condemn the war against 'the peaceful people of iraq'? To those in the UN who advocated inaction, the blood is on their hands as well.

Wow, thanks for bringing up something that NOBODY ever mentioned before

lest we forget....

[The_Nice_Guy]

It's not that anti-war folks support Saddam.

It's just that they believe other methods would work, or that it's not neccessary to intervene in the first place.

The Nice Guy

[Vympel]

It is indeed a strawman of the intent of antiwar position - I do not believe that there are any significant number of antiwar folks who honestly support Saddam.

It is NOT, however, a strawman of the reality of the antiwar position.

I can turn the appeal to emotion that is this post (the original post, not yours) back on itself quite easily- the blood of that kid with two bloody stumps for arms, or the 2 year old who was shot through the head in a checkpoint, or the thousands of others killed and wounded by this war- on whose hands is their blood spattered? Certainly not the anti-war crowd.

No one has ever denied that Saddam is a 'very bad man'. What is denied is that the war will 'fix' Iraq, or that the 'humanitarian' reasons cynically floated by some and sincerely by others are the real reasons at all. If they are- please proceed to fix every fucked up country with dictators and torture chambers (Pakistan, anyone?) by having a nice little war- including the allies of the United States who have wonderful records in that regard.

Now that the war is on, you think I want Saddam to win? No. The quicker the regime is gone the better. But what the fuck happens after the war? Will the cost- in human lives (both ended and ruined), in bad blood, be worth it? How soon till democracy is established? Will it ever be established (see- Afghanistan, and every where else where the US has installed and/or supported dictators). Or will the people just get the same shit with a different smell? Forgive me, but I am perfectly justified in being skeptical as to the lovely new jewel of the Middle East that will be created in Iraq.

[Col. Crackpot]

but Vympel, could it not be argued that if you actively work to prevent action taken to prevent an activity, by default you are actually enabling that activity to take place?

[Ted]

but Vympel, could it not be argued that if you actively work to prevent action taken to prevent an activity, by default you are actually enabling that activity to take place?

Then following that logic, America was actively supporting Hitler kill millions of jews by being anti-war. Hell, a majority of Americans actually supported Germany.

[Col. Crackpot]

but Vympel, could it not be argued that if you actively work to prevent action taken to prevent an activity, by default you are actually enabling that activity to take place?

Then following that logic, America was actively supporting Hitler kill millions of jews by being anti-war. Hell, a majority of Americans actually supported Germany.

actually, thats a good argument, however the activities of the US government such as the Lend-Lease program and the expanding the North American sea patrol zone poke a lot of holes in it

[Ted]

but Vympel, could it not be argued that if you actively work to prevent action taken to prevent an activity, by default you are actually enabling that activity to take place?

Then following that logic, America was actively supporting Hitler kill millions of jews by being anti-war. Hell, a majority of Americans actually supported Germany.

actually, thats a good argument, however the activities of the US government such as the Lend-Lease program and the expanding the North American sea patrol zone poke a lot of holes in it

Those things were FDR, who was very anti-Germany, he wanted to go to war in '39.

[Stormbringer]

Then following that logic, America was actively supporting Hitler kill millions of jews by being anti-war. Hell, a majority of Americans actually supported Germany.

The majority of American's were apathetic regarding the entire war. Up until Pearl Harbor the public saw it as another stupid European war. Lend-Lease and such were encouraged by the more farsighted of our leaders.

It was stupid and short sighted but that's the public at large for you. And the US was no more anti-semetic than the rest of the world at the time.

[Alyeska]

The title of the thread is incorrect. As a whole the anti-war crowd is not supporting Saddam. Just because you are against the war does not automaticaly mean you support the other side.

[Joe]

Hell, a majority of Americans actually supported Germany.

That's a damned lie, but I would expect no less from you. FDR's proposal to serve as the "arsenal of democracy" went over quite well with the American people. Granted that isn't the same thing as actively supporting war, but it is NOT supporting Germany.

[theski]

Now that TED "STFU" has highjacked the thread, back on topic.. The left will claim that it was too easy and we should not have used so much force..

[Hamel]

Now that TED "STFU" has highjacked the thread, back on topic.. The left will claim that it was too easy and we should not have used so much force..

Ted didn't hijack anything

[theski]

Ted did bring in the Germany topic. Did he not??

[Queeb Salaron]

Now that TED "STFU" has highjacked the thread, back on topic.. The left will claim that it was too easy and we should not have used so much force..

"So much" is a relative term, and it's not just the Left that protests this war. But in essence, you're right. The anti-war crowd thinks that we shouldn't have used ANY force and let the UN finish what they started. Think of the anti-war crowd as the non-coalition members of the UN. We all agree that Iraq should be disarmed, but we propose other methods of doing so. This analogy is particularly effective when you consider that Bush paid no mind to our voices, either, in launching this military campaign, and that there is a great debate as to whether or not he should have done so (listened, not launched... though that debate exists, too).

This is a point that's been raised a million times, but then the OP brought up a point that has been raised a million times, so I figured it was worth posting.

::Laughs:: Lest we forget.

::Waddles off::

[theski]

How should the PREZ have listened to your debate. Please explain!! When you sit in the big chair you make the big choices..

[Joe]

Now that TED "STFU" has highjacked the thread, back on topic.. The left will claim that it was too easy and we should not have used so much force..

"So much" is a relative term, and it's not just the Left that protests this war. But in essence, you're right. The anti-war crowd thinks that we shouldn't have used ANY force and let the UN finish what they started. Think of the anti-war crowd as the non-coalition members of the UN. We all agree that Iraq should be disarmed, but we propose other methods of doing so. This analogy is particularly effective when you consider that Bush paid no mind to our voices, either, in launching this military campaign, and that there is a great debate as to whether or not he should have done so (listened, not launched... though that debate exists, too).

This is a point that's been raised a million times, but then the OP brought up a point that has been raised a million times, so I figured it was worth posting.

::Laughs:: Lest we forget.

::Waddles off::

Your other methods failed.

[Queeb Salaron]

How should the PREZ have listened to your debate. Please explain!! When you sit in the big chair you make the big choices..

True true true. And it's idealistic to think that any anti-war group would persuade the president to change his mind. Even when that group is the UN. If he HAD listened, though, and conducted matters in a way that was indicative of his desire to maintain some kind of democracy, he would have at least given in to the UN and let the inspectors continue their work, or brought evidence to the table at the UN to enforce their second resolution, or provided that evidence to the American people so we could know WHY we're going to war rather than just blindly saying, "duh, ok!" I understand that Bush was faced with some big decisions, but I think he could have done a better PR job in making them. That's all.

[Queeb Salaron]

Your other methods failed.

No... our other methods were TERMINATED. Hans Blix never finished, so he COULDN'T have failed. He wasn't given the opportunity to either fail or succeed. And to say that he WOULD have failed is complete speculation. Besides, Blix found weapons and had Sadaam destroy them in public, remember? That's succeeding, if you ask me.

[theski]

Please If I have to talk about UN inspectors again *goes gets duck tape to tape head on* OK did you know that in the 6 months the inspectors were in Iraq the last time, they visited 1 freakin Palace. 1 and that one was announced ahead of time.. I could hide 8000 liters of Anthrax if given a weeks notice .. IT DOES NOT WORK

[Stravo]

Funny, the other methods would have inspectors STILL running around the country being deceived, the people suffering under the yolk of the his dictatorship and the threat still looming.

Now, its just about over and we can focus on building a new country for these people and MAYBE, just MAYBE we can start something good here in the ME. A country that is not an unfriendly dictatorship and one that can see just how wonderful teh Western way of life is. Maybe that's my pie in the sky mentality working but I will say this, the war has cut through a swath of red tape and shown just how paralyzed the UN is currently with its competing agendas.

Ask the Iraqis who are free and pulling down statues and out of the jails and torture chambers whether they really wanted us to conitnue exploring "other avenues".