The regime the anti-war crowd has been defending

[Queeb Salaron]

Can anyone provide conclusive evidence to me that Sadaam actually DID move these weapons around to avoid inspectors? Because I don't remember having seen any of those infamous spy satellite photos. Nor does most of the UN. That's why they opposed war in the first place: No proof that the inspections weren't working. Only rumor and heresay from the US.

[theski]

When the Inspectors left the last time they listed everything he had, it was his responsibilty to prove he distroyed them.. and how many violations have found already..

[Queeb Salaron]

::Shrugs:: I don't know. You tell me.

[Durandal]

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

Bullshit. Don't try and worm in an insult to anti-war people by saying that that's "the reality" of their stance. If you want to claim that anti-war people support Saddam's regime, then be a fucking man and say it.

[Col. Crackpot]

even if the inpectors managed to find a fucking stash of photon torpedoes it wouldn't have fucking mattered. do you know why? because after iraq was disarmed ,Saddam and Udai and Qamsai and their lackeys would still be throwing people into industrial shredders. they would still be tossing people into vats of battery acid. they still would be electrocuting people. The UN and the political left turned the Iraq issue into nothing more than an academic exercise and completely forgot that there are actual people in iraq! I'm not advocating abandoning logic, but we doxt exist in a vacuum ruled soley by logic.

[Joe]

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

Bullshit. Don't try and worm in an insult to anti-war people by saying that that's "the reality" of their stance. If you want to claim that anti-war people support Saddam's regime, then be a fucking man and say it.

They do, although neither directly nor intentionally. Was that not clear?

[Durandal]

They do, although neither directly nor intentionally. Was that not clear?

No, it isn't, because you're creating a false dilemma. Either you support the war or you support Saddam's regime. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

[Joe]

They do, although neither directly nor intentionally. Was that not clear?

No, it isn't, because you're creating a false dilemma. Either you support the war or you support Saddam's regime. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I created no such false dilemma. As you and those like you soooooooo frequently remind us, this issue is not black and white, there are many shades of gray. I would classify those who do not directly support Saddam Hussein as one of those shades of gray. They aren't in Baghdad screaming death to America, but they're certainly not doing anything to remove him from power, either.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Well, the rough analogy in this case would be the passerby who sees a crime taking place, but does nothing to stop it.

Are they responsible, in some way, for the crime taking place when they could have stopped it?

I dunno. Leave it to the lawyers to decide.

The Nice Guy

[Durandal]

I created no such false dilemma. As you and those like you soooooooo frequently remind us, this issue is not black and white, there are many shades of gray. I would classify those who do not directly support Saddam Hussein as one of those shades of gray. They aren't in Baghdad screaming death to America, but they're certainly not doing anything to remove him from power, either.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

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.

They do [support Saddam's regime], although neither directly nor intentionally. Was that not clear?

You said that anti-war people support Saddam's regime. Their intentions are totally irrelevant with regards to that accusation. You're claiming that, either you support the war to depose Hussein, or you support Hussein's regime. Adding "unintentionally" in there changes nothing.

Doing nothing to remove Hussein from power is not equivalent to supporting his regime because there are legitimate reasons not to attack him at this moment. We can't leave him there forever, but a lot of people, including myself, think that right now is an utterly inappropriate time for a war on Iraq because of major international political ramifications, domestic concerns, lack of foresight in planning a new Iraqi government and a $75 billion bill just for the war itself with no timeframe or budget projections for restructuring.

Now, if we had international support, a stable economy and a good plan for restructuring the Iraqi government, then I'd say we should go to war. As it stands, we have none of that. We're supposed to just trust that the administration will cross the bridge of rebuilding Iraq when it comes to it.

And yet, despite all these reasonable objections to the war, people like me still must, by default, support Saddam's regime.

[Joe]

Well, the rough analogy in this case would be the passerby who sees a crime taking place, but does nothing to stop it.

Are they responsible, in some way, for the crime taking place when they could have stopped it?

I dunno. Leave it to the lawyers to decide.

The Nice Guy

Legally? No. Morally? Yes; if you witness a crime taking place and you can stop it without great harm to yourself, than you should try and stop it.

[Joe]

I created no such false dilemma. As you and those like you soooooooo frequently remind us, this issue is not black and white, there are many shades of gray. I would classify those who do not directly support Saddam Hussein as one of those shades of gray. They aren't in Baghdad screaming death to America, but they're certainly not doing anything to remove him from power, either.

Don't trip over yourself while backpedaling.

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.

They do [support Saddam's regime], although neither directly nor intentionally. Was that not clear?

You said that anti-war people support Saddam's regime. Their intentions are totally irrelevant with regards to that accusation. You're claiming that, either you support the war to depose Hussein, or you support Hussein's regime. Adding "unintentionally" in there changes nothing.

Doing nothing to remove Hussein from power is not equivalent to supporting his regime because there are legitimate reasons not to attack him at this moment. We can't leave him there forever, but a lot of people, including myself, think that right now is an utterly inappropriate time for a war on Iraq because of major international political ramifications, domestic concerns, lack of foresight in planning a new Iraqi government and a $75 billion bill just for the war itself with no timeframe or budget projections for restructuring.

Now, if we had international support, a stable economy and a good plan for restructuring the Iraqi government, then I'd say we should go to war. As it stands, we have none of that. We're supposed to just trust that the administration will cross the bridge of rebuilding Iraq when it comes to it.

And yet, despite all these reasonable objections to the war, people like me still must, by default, support Saddam's regime.

I concede that "supporting" was too strong of a word for the situation. However, by opposing a war which will remove Saddam Hussein, a tyrant whom the United States is uniquely responsible for, they are still perpetuating his rule in Iraq. That is not the same thing as supporting it, but it is still not doing something about it.

[Stravo]

I wouldn't say Sadaam is a uniquely American creation. He is a bastard progeny of many nations meddling in the affairs of Iraq and the Middle East in general.

[Joe]

I wouldn't say Sadaam is a uniquely American creation. He is a bastard progeny of many nations meddling in the affairs of Iraq and the Middle East in general.

He's not uniquely American, but we're more responsible for him than say, Kim Jong-Il.

[Perinquus]

Now, if we had international support, a stable economy and a good plan for restructuring the Iraqi government, then I'd say we should go to war. As it stands, we have none of that. We're supposed to just trust that the administration will cross the bridge of rebuilding Iraq when it comes to it.

No international support? What, Britain, Australia, Denmark, Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic don't count? We do have international support. We just don't have the support of the UN, and frankly, I am glad as hell that we currently have a president who refuses to subordinate American security interests to the will of an organization that put Libya in charge of a human rights commission. He's got his priorities exactly right there.

As for our economy, it could be better, but I can't picture Saddam's regime obligingly waiting until our economy is in better shape before doing something like selling Sarin nerve gas to Al Quaeda or closing down terrorist training camps until we're more stable economically, and in a better position to launch a strike. In war, you don't always have the luxury of waiting till everything is just so. To paraphrase Geo. S. Patton, a good plan executed right now, is better than a perfect plan executed too late.

And as for the restructuring of Iraq after the war, how do you know we have no plan? You and I are simply not privy to all the doings of the U.S. government. It could well be that they do have a plan, and that they are in communication with Iraqis who will be able to put together a government once the shooting stops, and have simply not announced anything yet because to do so prior to achieving victory would appear premature.

[Master of Ossus]

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.

Actually, informal polls at the rally in San Francisco against the war found that more than 60% of the people there wanted the United States to lose teh war, and by extension supported the Iraqi regime.

[Durandal]

No international support? What, Britain, Australia, Denmark, Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and the Czech Republic don't count? We do have international support. We just don't have the support of the UN, and frankly, I am glad as hell that we currently have a president who refuses to subordinate American security interests to the will of an organization that put Libya in charge of a human rights commission. He's got his priorities exactly right there.

Ah yes, the "Coalition of The Willing." And yet the majority of the Security Council doesn't support it. We'll show Saddam what the consequences of disobeying the UN are by ... disobeying the UN.

I should have said UN support, but the point remains. Damaging relations with a good portion of the EU isn't a good thing. Like it or not, there are countries in the world aside from the US, and we don't have the right to tell them all what to do or punish them if they don't support us. That's precisely what we're doing or intending to do. I don't like my country's international image being that of a bully; do you?

As for our economy, it could be better, but I can't picture Saddam's regime obligingly waiting until our economy is in better shape before doing something like selling Sarin nerve gas to Al Quaeda or closing down terrorist training camps until we're more stable economically, and in a better position to launch a strike. In war, you don't always have the luxury of waiting till everything is just so. To paraphrase Geo. S. Patton, a good plan executed right now, is better than a perfect plan executed too late.

No one's proven that we can't afford to wait. By all indications, he hasn't been selling nerve gas to al Qaeda and wasn't involved in September 11th in the slightest. There's a whole thread dealing with Saddam's connections to terrorism already, "Ansar Al Islam." The only "evidence" of Saddam's links to al Qaeda is rampant speculation and monstrous leaps in logic based on uncorroborated reports of maybe finding a dozen al Qaeda members fighting with Iraqi troops.

And as for the restructuring of Iraq after the war, how do you know we have no plan? You and I are simply not privy to all the doings of the U.S. government. It could well be that they do have a plan, and that they are in communication with Iraqis who will be able to put together a government once the shooting stops, and have simply not announced anything yet because to do so prior to achieving victory would appear premature.

So I'm to assume that things don't exist even if there's no evidence that they do? This moronic line of, "Well you're not privy to what they are" could be used to justify anything the government does, i.e. "You don't know what the government knows, so you should support the PATRIOT act because the government obviously knows that we're in danger, but it can't tell us directly."

And don't give me this "premature" bullshit, either. It's a foregone conclusion that we're going to win; the only questions are how long will it take, how many soldiers will die and how much will it cost. Feel free to stop making excuses for the Bush administrations to fail to think things through any time.

[Queeb Salaron]

Actually, informal polls at the rally in San Francisco against the war found that more than 60% of the people there wanted the United States to lose teh war, and by extension supported the Iraqi regime.

First of all, protestors shouldn't be polled to represent the anti-war masses. That's like asking fundies to represent Christians, or Ted Nugent to represent Republicans... For the most part, anyway.

Second of all, the poll was conducted in an extreme environment and those statistics are obviously warped. There's too much passion at an anti-war rally to be able to conduct any sort of accurate survey. That, and as it has been proven by countless videos and audio conversations posted on this very board, protestors are hyped up enough as it is. Any kind of elevated atmosphere sends what little congnitive ability they once had into oblivion.

Third, I think maybe when a protestor answers that he would like to see the US lose, he is commenting on the fact that he would revel in the irony that would necessarily follow. It would justify their protests. 30% of the US could essentially say, "I told you so," and no one would have any foothold to state otherwise. It would give them purpose, and would make them seem like the intelligent portion of society (which, as we can see from videos and recorded conversations, they are not). Further, it would promote liberalism in the US, because, as the average Joe might say, "after all, those leftists were right. Maybe we should start listening to them more often." This is obviously beneficial to the leftists waving signs in Frisco.

That's my take on it, anyway. Protestors scare me, though.

[weemadando]

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.

seconded.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, informal polls at the rally in San Francisco against the war found that more than 60% of the people there wanted the United States to lose teh war, and by extension supported the Iraqi regime.

First of all, protestors shouldn't be polled to represent the anti-war masses. That's like asking fundies to represent Christians, or Ted Nugent to represent Republicans... For the most part, anyway.

Second of all, the poll was conducted in an extreme environment and those statistics are obviously warped. There's too much passion at an anti-war rally to be able to conduct any sort of accurate survey. That, and as it has been proven by countless videos and audio conversations posted on this very board, protestors are hyped up enough as it is. Any kind of elevated atmosphere sends what little congnitive ability they once had into oblivion.

Obviously. This was an informal poll, as I believe I pointed out earlier.

Third, I think maybe when a protestor answers that he would like to see the US lose, he is commenting on the fact that he would revel in the irony that would necessarily follow. It would justify their protests. 30% of the US could essentially say, "I told you so," and no one would have any foothold to state otherwise. It would give them purpose, and would make them seem like the intelligent portion of society (which, as we can see from videos and recorded conversations, they are not). Further, it would promote liberalism in the US, because, as the average Joe might say, "after all, those leftists were right. Maybe we should start listening to them more often." This is obviously beneficial to the leftists waving signs in Frisco.

Actually, we reminded each one of the repercussions of their answers before asking for a final decision and recording it. We basically said, "Okay, you know that if the US loses, Saddam will stay in power. You also know that that will cost Coalition lives, though perhaps no more than an Coalition victory. Having heard that, do you want the Americans to lose the war?

That's my take on it, anyway. Protestors scare me, though.

[jegs2]

Hopefully, we'll follow the model of our restructuring efforts Germany and Japan, rather than later efforts that were doomed to failure. Perhaps that is why Bush is working to keep the UN out. So far as I'm aware, the UN had little to nothing to do with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and pretty much any nation-building effort they've attempted has failed.

[Hamel]

Haha

Coalition of the willing? We had to bribe Turkey, and 15 nations don't even want to be identified as part of the coalition.

[Master of Ossus]

Ah yes, the "Coalition of The Willing." And yet the majority of the Security Council doesn't support it.

Bullshit. The French claimed that "a vast majority" of the Council was against the War. The Americans and British claimed there was no need to call it to a vote because of 1441 in wake of the French decision to veto. In reality, the Americans had eight votes on the Security Council. That's a majority, but it's not the nine required to pass a resolution.

We'll show Saddam what the consequences of disobeying the UN are by ... disobeying the UN.

How have we disobeyed the UN? 1441 offers legal justification for the action. Are you saying that additional justification was required?

I should have said UN support, but the point remains. Damaging relations with a good portion of the EU isn't a good thing.

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

Even Germany sent the same number of troops to defend Turkey (in indirect support of the War) as it was asked to send by NATO, and it has allowed the United States and other Coalition members to use its air-space and bases for the war.

Like it or not, there are countries in the world aside from the US, and we don't have the right to tell them all what to do or punish them if they don't support us.

Obviously. There are also countries that support us. You have SUBSTANTIALLY marginalized them in your statement, and I think you're ignoring their contributions and the risks they've taken to support the United States in its policy against Iraq.

That's precisely what we're doing or intending to do. I don't like my country's international image being that of a bully; do you?

How have we forced other nations to support the war? Have we placed sanctions on France or Russia or Germany because of their anti-War stance? We're having a disagreement with nations opposed to the war, but the US has never forced another nation to support the war.

As for our economy, it could be better, but I can't picture Saddam's regime obligingly waiting until our economy is in better shape before doing something like selling Sarin nerve gas to Al Quaeda or closing down terrorist training camps until we're more stable economically, and in a better position to launch a strike. In war, you don't always have the luxury of waiting till everything is just so. To paraphrase Geo. S. Patton, a good plan executed right now, is better than a perfect plan executed too late.

No one's proven that we can't afford to wait. By all indications, he hasn't been selling nerve gas to al Qaeda and wasn't involved in September 11th in the slightest.

Is this a war against terrorism or a war against Al Qaeda? You're oversimplifying the equation.

There's a whole thread dealing with Saddam's connections to terrorism already, "Ansar Al Islam." The only "evidence" of Saddam's links to al Qaeda is rampant speculation and monstrous leaps in logic based on uncorroborated reports of maybe finding a dozen al Qaeda members fighting with Iraqi troops.

Who cares? He's supported terrorist organizations other than Al Qaeda.

And as for the restructuring of Iraq after the war, how do you know we have no plan? You and I are simply not privy to all the doings of the U.S. government. It could well be that they do have a plan, and that they are in communication with Iraqis who will be able to put together a government once the shooting stops, and have simply not announced anything yet because to do so prior to achieving victory would appear premature.

So I'm to assume that things don't exist even if there's no evidence that they do?

There's substantial evidence that a plan exists. Concession accepted.

This moronic line of, "Well you're not privy to what they are" could be used to justify anything the government does, i.e. "You don't know what the government knows, so you should support the PATRIOT act because the government obviously knows that we're in danger, but it can't tell us directly."

Red herring. The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with Iraq. It further has nothing to do with the plan for Iraq after the War is over.

And don't give me this "premature" bullshit, either. It's a foregone conclusion that we're going to win; the only questions are how long will it take, how many soldiers will die and how much will it cost. Feel free to stop making excuses for the Bush administrations to fail to think things through any time.

Excuses? All of your attacks have been bullshit, and based on fiction. You also ignored the contributions of other nations that have agreed with the United States. I don't agree with all of Bush's policies, but in the matter of Iraq I don't see much doubt. You certainly haven't created any.

[Master of Ossus]

Haha

Coalition of the willing? We had to bribe Turkey,

It's hardly a bribe. It's an insentive, but they could have turned it down. In fact, they did for some time prior to the war. Moreover, you ignore the other nations including the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, and numerous others that offered their support for the war without any insentive but their consciences.

and 15 nations don't even want to be identified as part of the coalition.

The US didn't want to be identified with supporting the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. That doesn't mean anything. Even Germany has been quietly supporting the war, though admittedly France has been opposed in both action and word.

[Hamel]

It's hardly a bribe. It's an insentive, but they could have turned it down. In fact, they did for some time prior to the war.

A bribe is a bribe is a bribe. whether it can be turned down or not. Eventually they took it.

Moreover, you ignore the other nations including the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, and numerous others that offered their support for the war without any insentive but their consciences.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Turkey was bribed, so this is a red herring. Concession accepted.

The US didn't want to be identified with supporting the Israeli strike on the Iraqi nuclear plant. That doesn't mean anything. Even Germany has been quietly supporting the war, though admittedly France has been opposed in both action and word.

It DEFINATELY means something. If their consciences are straight, and their words honest, they will have no issue with declaring openly their opinions on this war.