StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can some one come up with an alternative for war in the middle east as it stands right now?

Umm...not go war?

Look, it's not that I am "anti-war." Hell, I am a Lt. in the Ca. Nat'l Guard, so I have no problem wearing a uniform and commanding soldiers in battle. This is what I don't understand: Why doesn't Bush or Blair come forth with this evidence of these weapons of mass destruction? Not only that, but our economy is in a shit hole. Hell, it's only second to the Great Depression, so I am wondering how Bush plans to pay for all of this.

I don't want to make a Red Herring here, so let me go on record saying that I don't believe that Iraq is a threat to our country. If he had ONE nuclear weapon, do you honestly believe that Saddam would be stupid enough to attack the U.S. with it? If we are concerned about Saddam supplying a weapon to these terror cells, then we need to PROVE that he is, in fact, doing it. So far, we have seen no evidence of this. And we are not just accusing him of doing it, we are telling him that we are about to attack him. We need stronger evidence for our cause.

I am not "anti-war." If I were ordered to the region tomorrow, I would do my job and not look back.

Sam Or I wrote:Can some one come up with an alternative for war in the middle east as it stands right now?

Continuing inspections and smart sanctions would work just fine.

Your question "think up an alternative to war" is strange because you make it sound as if this war is some urgent thing that has been thrust upon us all by some mysterious, unstoppable force. What changed in between 1991 and 2003?

Did Saddam beat the war drums really loudly last year in comparison to five years ago or something? I think that's what the US has been doing.

Is he urging Anschluss with Iran?

Has he written a long, boring book about how he intends to invade all the Middle East and create a Joint Middle Eastern Co-Prosperity Zone?

Has he attacked anyone lately? Does he even have the capability to attack anyone?

Has he built up a world class military with cutting edge doctrine and effective weapons, that would slice through all opposition in oh ... 6 weeks?

Would he attack the US or it's interests with his alleged nuclear weapons that he-might-have-if-we-don't-attack-him? Why would he want to? What's he got to gain? A glow in the dark tan?

Is anyone 'appeasing' him (a common assertion by the jingoist crowd- anything short of war is 'appeasement')?

Nothing. Iraq is weak, and poses no threat, therefore I am against the war.

Of course, once the war starts, I will shut up. I wish the US military the quickest, most bloodless victory possible.

Can some one come up with an alternative for war in the middle east as it stands right now?

Yes, you have asked a loaded question, and have created an "either-or" fallacy. Try not to ask fallacious questions next time.

Asking for an alternative is NOT making a either or fallicy


Three things, One, Despite the fact of Inspectors the last time, Saddam had already begun making more WMD after 95 as was discovered in 97 and 98 when Viable Single Extended Vx Nerve Gas was found in 97 by the Inspectors, Because Single Extended Vx is only good for Four Years, that means it had to have been produced sometime after 92 when Inspectors where on the ground in the Country

Two, Inspectors and UN Troops must be stationed in Iraq permantly and we must devote most of our Inspectors into Iraq if we want to be sure we have Destroyed all WMD and to make sure he does not build more

Three, It still leaves a Muderous Tyrant in Charge who if tried as a Civilian for his Crimes would be personaly elgible for roughly nine thousand years of jail time

Its not a loaded question, I am not going to debate anyone about the issues, I just want to know the options faced. I should have phrased the question better, something like "If you became president of the US tomorrow, how would you avoid war?"

Truthfully, I do not think I could.

Mr Bean wrote:Two, Inspectors and UN Troops must be stationed in Iraq permantly...

Probably going to need to have troops in Iraq for a long time after the war, should there be one, as well.

Mr Bean wrote:...and we must devote most of our Inspectors into Iraq if we want to be sure we have Destroyed all WMD and to make sure he does not build more

Better then a war and the casualties of that war.

Mr Bean wrote:Three, It still leaves a Muderous Tyrant in Charge who if tried as a Civilian for his Crimes would be personaly elgible for roughly nine thousand years [I'd say it more like 1e99 years] of jail time

True, but is deposing Saddam really worth all the casualties?

Superman wrote:Why doesn't Bush or Blair come forth with this evidence of these weapons of mass destruction?

I think if they do not find any evidence or proof they will simply made them.

Montcalm wrote:

Superman wrote:Why doesn't Bush or Blair come forth with this evidence of these weapons of mass destruction?

I think if they do not find any evidence or proof they will simply made them.

I thought that Bush and co. shifted the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

Next of Kin wrote:
I thought that Bush and co. shifted the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

The inspectors are obviously there to make sure that Iraq doesn't have them. You can't prove a negative.

In addition, Resolution 1441 doesn't, pro-war claims nonwithstanding, authorize military action.

Vympel wrote:

Next of Kin wrote:
I thought that Bush and co. shifted the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

The inspectors are obviously there to make sure that Iraq doesn't have them. You can't prove a negative.

In addition, Resolution 1441 doesn't, pro-war claims nonwithstanding, authorize military action.

Are the inspectors really looking or do they let Iraqi tell them where they should and should not go

Vympel wrote:

Next of Kin wrote:
I thought that Bush and co. shifted the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that they did not have any weapons of mass destruction.

The inspectors are obviously there to make sure that Iraq doesn't have them. You can't prove a negative.

You can however provide documentation that proves you've destroyed something you where known to have had at a pervious date. Iraq has not done this, they wont even admit to how much of various bio agents they provided. They've simply stated they destroyed X among. In the case of anthrax, Iraqi claims for destruction are short of UN production estimates by thousands of liters.

So where'd it all go and why wont Iraq admit to how much they produced? Might it be because there hidden enough to kill the world a couple times over?


The job of weapons inspectors is not and never has been to find anything. They where supposed to observe Iraq's destruction of WMD until all where accounted for. All are not accounted for and Iraq hasn't come forward with explanations.

Sea Skimmer wrote: You can however provide documentation that proves you've destroyed something you where known to have had at a pervious date. Iraq has not done this, they wont even admit to how much of various bio agents they provided. They've simply stated they destroyed X among. In the case of anthrax, Iraqi claims for destruction are short of UN production estimates by thousands of liters.

So where'd it all go and why wont Iraq admit to how much they produced? Might it be because there hidden enough to kill the world a couple times over?

If they did produce the same amount as 'production estimates', where is it? Inspectors have deployed ground penetrating radar at several sites (both declared and undeclared) according to Hans Blix latest report, and have found absolutely no evidence to back up the claim of any underground storage facilities. Ditto with the 'mobile WMD' trucks. Obviously the inspectors are looking for something. If they weren't looking for anything, they wouldn't be necessary.

I should also add that Iraq has provided additional information regarding anthrax, VX, and missiles, and that: there is a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991- according to the latest report from Blix.

The job of weapons inspectors is not and never has been to find anything. They where supposed to observe Iraq's destruction of WMD until all where accounted for. All are not accounted for and Iraq hasn't come forward with explanations.

Then why are they flitting around Iraq, looking for things?

They are there because despite the odd 'burden of proof is on Iraq' logic, it's quite obvious from the actions of the inspectors that the UN recognized that if the burden of proof was truly on Iraq, then the requirement of 1441 is entirely open ended and even if Iraq were to 'fully disclose', how exactly do you know they're telling the truth? If you wanted war, all you'd say is "well, this is obviously just Iraqi games and obstructionism". The burden of proof on Iraq simply doesn't work.

Vympel wrote:
If they did produce the same amount as 'production estimates', where is it? Inspectors have deployed ground penetrating radar at several sites (both declared and undeclared) according to Hans Blix latest report, and have found absolutely no evidence to back up the claim of any underground storage facilities. Ditto with the 'mobile WMD' trucks. Obviously the inspectors are looking for something. If they weren't looking for anything, they wouldn't be necessary.

I should also add that Iraq has provided additional information regarding anthrax, VX, and missiles, and that: there is a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991- according to the latest report from Blix.

And they've visited 800 out of 4000 known or suspected sites. There are some places UN inspectors have never been.

Then why are they flitting around Iraq, looking for things?

They are there because despite the odd 'burden of proof is on Iraq' logic, it's quite obvious from the actions of the inspectors that the UN recognized that if the burden of proof was truly on Iraq, then the requirement of 1441 is entirely open ended and even if Iraq were to 'fully disclose', how exactly do you know they're telling the truth? If you wanted war, all you'd say is "well, this is obviously just Iraqi games and obstructionism". The burden of proof on Iraq simply doesn't work.

There lookings because they know they can't trust Iraq. The burden of proof being on Iraq doesnt work because Iraq never has been an honest player. Thats been my whole point, Inspections cannot work. Mabey in 1991 Iraq could have come clean and been belived. But its too late and too many lies past for that.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And they've visited 800 out of 4000 known or suspected sites. There are some places UN inspectors have never been.

4,000 sites known or suspected by whom? The inspectors don't need to go door to door looking for WMD. In the 91-98 inspections inspectors used lots of quasi-intelligence/ surveillance gathering methods to determine which sites to inspect. This became a problem when Richard Butler agreed to the US request that they spy on the Iraqi regime and try to get details on the power structure- which led directly to the Iraqis to cease cooperating and for Richard Butler to unilaterally order his inspectors out, without consulting anyone- prompting the 98 US attacks. Incidentally, the new inspectors have complained that the 'intelligence' being fed to them from the US is, and I quote "garbage"- which after the Powell 'intelligence' briefing doesn't surprise me in the least.

There lookings because they know they can't trust Iraq. The burden of proof being on Iraq doesnt work because Iraq never has been an honest player. Thats been my whole point, Inspections cannot work. Mabey in 1991 Iraq could have come clean and been belived. But its too late and too many lies past for that.

They wouldn't have believed Iraq in 1991 either. There's no way for a country to prove that it hasn't got or isn't doing something. That's what the purpose of the inspectors has always been.

Sam Or I wrote:Can some one come up with an alternative for war in the middle east as it stands right now?

Easy, don't go to war. Iraq is a meaningless country. If we are going to attack Iraq because of WMD, we must also attack North Korea using those same morales. If we are going to attack Iraq because it has a heartless dicator who delights in the torture of his people, then we must also attack Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Libyia, Iran, Indonessia, North Korea, and China. Is the war about Oil? No, its about politics and appeasing the citizens of the US on their quest for blood. Not one single stated reason the US gives can stand up to scrutiny because of the blindingly obvious double standards.

Alyeska I ask you, Do you remeber the Oil Crises or Yesteryear?


As I pointed out before we still get nearly ten perecent of our Oil from Middle East, If Saddam says, KABOOM and Destroys the Pipelines and Oil Refinerys(Fuel Refinerys and Depots are pretty damn easy to destroy as any Military man can tell you)


Remeber when OPEC just cut BACK Oil Production? The Gas Lines, The Hyper-inflation, The general fucking over of our Country's Economey?

Think what would happened if it ceased all togther and for quite some time(Two Years minium)?


If a less than 2% Drop can send the Economey south for the year, What do you think a Three to Five year 14% drop will do to the Economey?

Spyder wrote:Umm...not go war?

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought. By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

Mr Bean wrote:If a less than 2% Drop can send the Economey south for the year, What do you think a Three to Five year 14% drop will do to the Economey?

It would force the government to stop appeasing the oil companies, and force them to massively invest in alternative fuel sources, such as Wind Turbines, Solar Power, Hydroelectricity, etc...

All in all, it would not just be good for the economy, but good for the environment.

jegs2 wrote:

Spyder wrote:Umm...not go war?

No, that is the idiotic response one would expect from a moron incapable of any of analytical thought.

LOL, coming from a christian that's damn funny!

jegs2 wrote:By alternative, we mean a feasable and workable alternative that will meet the same goals and objectives that an invasion would meet.

Of course that assumes that all "goals and objectives that an invasion would meet" are justified and serve as justifications for a war.

jegs2 wrote:In short, if one is incapable of offering a useful alternative to a recommended course of action, one should keep his pie-hole shut.

In short, if one beliefs in god, one should not call people incapable of analytical though morons. As said one is describing himself in the process of doing so. (To be a theist one must reject analytical though at least in matters of religion.)

Sir Sirius wrote: LOL, coming from a christian that's damn funny!

Demonstrate how a personal belief in a coming life has any relation to the topic at hand, which has an outcome that is plain for anyone to see. In short, don't be an ass -- answer the challenge or shut up. Your attempted thread hijack ends here -- if you wish to spout your bigoted views against Christians, do it elsewhere, on another thread, and in the forum provided for such activities.

Of course that assumes that all "goals and objectives that an invasion would meet" are justified and serve as justifications for a war.

Examples are Germany and Japan. Both were utterly defeated, and their governments were destroyed and replaced by the conquering government. Whenever the US hasn't gone to that degree and instead taken "half-steps" (Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm), their objectives have not been met. Now YOU offer a viable alternative to such a plan.

In short, if one beliefs in god, one should not call people incapable of analytical though morons. As said one is describing himself in the process of doing so. (To be a theist one must reject analytical though at least in matters of religion.)

Cut out the strawman arguments and answer my counterargument -- your strawmen are nothing more than annoying. Lead, follow or get out of the way -- if you cannot offer a viable alternative to an invasion, remain silent or risk playing the fool.

I support inspections and containment. We were willing to simply contain Stalin, who was orders of magnitude more threatening and morally reprehensible than Hussein ever was, but yet Saddam must be deposed immediately.

Now, containment may not have been the best plan for Stalin (and it may have been the only workable plan, as Russia was a significant force, which Saddam is not). I'm not suggesting that the situation is entirely analagous. However, Iraq is no threat, and there is no reason to violate a nation's sovereignty under these conditions.

Frank_Scenario wrote:I support inspections and containment. We were willing to simply contain Stalin, who was orders of magnitude more threatening and morally reprehensible than Hussein ever was, but yet Saddam must be deposed immediately.

Okay, but remember that Saddam allowed inspectors back into his country only on the threat of war, and many maintain that he has had years to hide those weapons, and that the inspectors are now looking for "needles in a haystack." In other words, he can now safely allow the inspections to continue indefinitely, while his weapon systems remain safely hidden. It was the Soviet Empire's deadliness that prevented the US from taking decisive action against it. I think Bush's plan is to take down Iraq before they get too dangerous.

Now, containment may not have been the best plan for Stalin (and it may have been the only workable plan, as Russia was a significant force, which Saddam is not). I'm not suggesting that the situation is entirely analagous. However, Iraq is no threat, and there is no reason to violate a nation's sovereignty under these conditions.

They are not yet a threat against the US (although they are a threat against our regional interests).

I thought Saddam and oil meant nothing to the US since they didn't get any major percentage of oil from them if any. Why not strike a deal anywa like France and Germany and Russia?