Anyone up for a good debate??

Ya'll don't get me wrong....

I don't think there is a thing as a "good" war, and I like you would not want to see either of my sons or my daughter killed in a war. My oldest has made his own decision to become part of the defense of this country knowing full well what might happen, I dont like, but I do understand it. No one wants to loose a loved one, noone wants to see civillians perish, but I have faith that my president will do whats best, what needs to be done. Remember there are things that we don't know about any political situation, and probably never will.

Anne, would it not be possible for your hubby to pick a baby kit for you?? He probably has the connections....

Ken hit it right on the head. We all have to support and have faith that our president that WE elected will make the right choices for our country.

We live in a democracy, a law abiding country. I for one am proud of our president, he has had to deal with unprecedented situations and has handled it with the utmost of grace. We are in unsettled times, and have situations that have never occured before. He has made very intellectual decisions, and has led this country thru a very dark hour.

Originally posted by Imagyne
Anne, would it not be possible for your hubby to pick a baby kit for you?? He probably has the connections....

Click to expand...

There's no shortage as far as I know. It's just a matter of spending the day standing in lines at the distribution center. I did suggest he come with me in uniform the center is run by a lower rank officer and there's a good chance they'd let him jump the queue but my hubby wants nothing to do with it - he says he would come with me, not in uniform, and we'll both wait as long as it takes... what can I do? I'm married to a saint

Thank you for the sympathy kat. Don't get me wrong - I don't think SH should be attacked because of the scud attacks. What I meant is that I support an attack now, despite the risks I know it holds.

Okay....so lets say we do go to Iraq, we kick Saddam's fat butt, and win the war. So, now we have to help the people of Iraq rebuild their country, elect sane politicians, and develop a healthy economy. This will take many, many years to do.

If we look back at our interventions in the former Yugoslavia, what you will see is that most US Americans disagreed with Clinton using our military forces as "nation builders" and as "world police." But, won't that be the exact same thing we will be doing in Iraq? why is it okay to do in Iraq but not in the former Yogoslavia where there were also murderous fascists with potential access to weapons of mass destruction.

And.....what about the high probability that the Kurdish people will use this invasion as an opportunity to try to make a country of their own? I personally think they should have their own country, but the Turkish people and others would be really pissed off if our actions allowed the Kurds to gain power.

There are so many implications beyond kicking Saddam's butt that we need to consider before making the decision to invade another country!

I am not afraid of war. My husband actually fought in the Lebanon war from its beginning to its conclusion. He was wounded twice and decorated three times. He watched the Americans come and go (he was part of the IDF then).

I completely disagree that we should "have faith" in our President that "we" elected. I did not vote for him, and that is the beauty of our political system, I can disagree, and I can ask my Congressman and my Senator to disagree with "my" President.

...and my problem with his ability to speak is merely symptomatic of my lack of faith in his intelligence and his ability.

I agree that he has had to deal with unprecedented situations. I disagree that he has handled it with the utmost grace. He made speaches that played directly into the terrorists hands, if you understand their "culture" and what it is they want.

In Afghanistan, we have put the largest drug-producing and smuggling peoples in the world back into power. Deaths from heroine overdoses in the U.S. (probably Europe, too) have skyrocketed because of the "problems" with purity. Heroine on the streets has recently skyrocketed to 90% pure from formerly 30% pure. Prices have dropped. The Taliban, albeit a system we do not agree with, is actually a political system based on a religion. It had laws. It had structure. Afghanistan, for the first time in literally centuries, actually had some sort of infrastructure with a governing body. We as a people, a country, and a culture might not have agreed with it. But it was not lawlessness, it was a system of laws built on a different belief structure.

Granted, that "brand" of Islaam would like to see the "West" irradicated. That is what we must contend with, not just the people at the head of that system. We are not addressing that at all.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the U.S. has a TERRIBLE history of replacing governments. What is happening in Afghanistan right now illustrates that point. Has anyone paid attention to just what is happening with the "Northern Alliance"? It is a band of thieves, in-fighting. One sect has joined to fight against the U.N. forces. This is no solution, and we haven't found Osama bin Laden, so how successful has this been? It has simply served to expand the hatred of the West. It has increased the breeding of fanatics. So how is this a good policy? It certainly serves no long term solution, and is already creating new problems here at home. I question the "wisdom" in this.

Saddam Hussein must be stopped. I argue the timing and the way in which we go about it. I agree with lotsocats. It is a shame Bush's father didn't finish the job. But being what it is, I simply think we need to forge a consensus among nations to deal with this.

We keep "talking" here as if we are not already doing something about Iraq. Let's not forget we are already policing Iraqi airspace, and we have been bombing Iraq almost daily for over a year, so it's not like we're not doing anything already.

...and Ken, I didn't mean to imply that you think there is such a thing as a "good" war. I was trying to illustrate with facts that war has actually not been good for the economy. Not ever.

...I don't mean to make a joke out of it, but if war was good for an economy, Israel would be one of the richest nations on earth right now.

dtolle writes: "I say go in, oust him, and get a good gov't in there. One that is a democracy, one that will abide by the UN rules, and one that nobody has to be in fear that one morning they may wake up and find the half the world has been blown up by the almighty Hussein."

That's fine... in theory. In fact, that was the thought behind the original US participation in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. The problem is that the US has notoriously poor follow through in these instances... In the case of Afghanistan, they withdrew economic support with the withdrawal of the Russians, creating the conditions that supported the rise of the Taliban. And now, having ousted the Taliban, the US is once again failing to provide the economic impetus and infrastructure necessary to drive Afghanistan's recovery.

What happens in these circumstances is that the sheer expense involved in providing the equivalent of a Marshall Plan is a political black hole... and it wouldn't matter who was in office. War destroys more than the "enemy": it destroys the country and ultimately it is civillans who pay the price, not soldiers and not politicians... it's their homes, their economic stability, their families that are completely devasted by war. Unless that is redressed, the resulting poverty, disease and other hardships creates fertile ground for the rise of extremist groups.

Hence, it will take much more than simply ousting Saddam to rid the US of the threat of terrorism. If there is a true nuclear threat -- which Bush has not substantiated with anything more that simple political rhetoric (just because he says it's so, doesn't mean it is) -- destroying Saddam may disarm the bomb but unless the US is genuinely committed to the economic recovery of the country, all Bush will succeed in doing is igniting the next generation od Osamas.

Yup. I tried to say the same thing at the end of page 3. Thanks for stating it so clearly.

So the dreaded tum, you think we should just leave him in power and wait??

For those of you are against the prospect of war, please explain to me what you think the US should do instead?? I'm confused.

I really should not get into this because I don't think my thoughts are going to be very popular. But being 57 years old I've been around awhile. I'd like to know who died and made the United States the policeman of the planet. If we are the richest most powerful country in the world, why is it that we are unable to take care of our own? Why do we have homeless people? Why do we have children who are hungry and have no medical care? Why do we have elderly people who must choose between medication and food? Why do we have child and animal abuse? Why do we have drug problems that are out of control? Why do we have someone running around shooting and killing people randomly, the last being a 13 year old dropped off at his school.
I don't like Bush and I didn't like his Daddy. His "read my lips" slogan kept people trying "read his lips" while a lot of his actions or nonactions slipped through. "Daddy" should have taken care of Saddam back then. But he didn't and the Kurds took the fall. Bush talks a good talk most of the time but I would not believe the man if he told me white was white and black was black.
Is there a lot we don't know? You better believe it. And I sincerely doubt that we ever will until enough people in this country stand up and say "enough" and force our government to show some accountability. If you take a look at our history back through the years its plain that our land of the free government is one of the most corrupt in the world and has been for a long time. And before anyone tells me that if I don't like it I should leave, please let me tell you that over half of my ancesters were here first. It isn't that I don't love my country but I'm not blind, deaf, dumb or stupid. A lot of the time our government seems to think that the American people are all four.
Do we have to go to war with Saddam? I don't believe so at this time. We have the ability to watch him for a while. Who said " walk softly and carry a big stick"? We just need to be ready. Besides I don't understand how the economy can be so bad that for example here in Washington, education, health care, you name it, is being cut to the bone and I understand its that way with the other states and yet Bush is considering going to war and spending billions upon billions of dollars. Where is that money coming from and what shape will we all be in when the war is over, if it ever is? I believe that if we go to war with Saddam now it will only be the beginning. War not only costs money, it makes money but its blood money.
Dee
Mom to Jessie, Nikkie, Luckie, Lady, Sammy & Sassy

I can honestly say that although I think he should be removed from power, I don't know what we should do or how to accomplish that end. I don't think that I enough information to make an intelligent decision, but I don't need all the information. The people who actually make the decisions do, and I certainly hope they have it. I have to agree that Bush has not made an airtight case with intelligence that SH has the weapons Bush says he does. I'm thinking back to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the UN wouldn't make a decision until we SHOWED them the missiles. The UN has to take this posture or else anyone could just attack any country they didn't like.

The other thing is that if/when we do take him out, the US/UN has to do a better job of getting the country back on its feet. This has historically been a world-wide problem, not just with us but with all the world powers. What do you think the political climate was when Hitler rose to power? German citizens were so miserable with how the world left them after WWI that the climate was ripe for someone like him to take over. They wanted anyone who at least promised them improvements. After the US and Russia fought over the Middle East during the cold war, we just left them too. And so, powers like the Taliban, SH, and extremist groups rise up to power.

The thing that truly needs to change over there is not just leaders of countries, but the mindset of many of the people. Even many of those who aren't radicals hate the US and everything we stand for, and considering what we have done to their economies and infrastructure they actually have good reason. Well, that and all the propoganda that their leaders have told them (i.e. that we are still the reason that nothing has improved over 20 years).

I'm not necessarily against the idea of going to war with Iraq. Something must be done about this, but we need to consider all the implications and future needs of the countries we will affect before we bomb the heck out of them.

dtolle writes: "So the dreaded tum, you think we should just leave him in power and wait??"

I'm simply saying that the US has to be prepared to do the whole job instead of part of it. If the committment isn't there, economically and politically, you might as well wait: chances are, you'd do less damage to yourselves as a country.

If you think that this is a war about borders, that can be confined to finite Iraq or Afghanistan, then you fail to fundamentally understand the strength of your enemy, which is a poor basis on which to go to war. Islam transcends borders: it is Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, the US, Canada, Africa and anywhere Muslim religion is practiced. bin Laden's organization and others encompass extremists from all of these.

There is a great deal riding on how the US treats Iraq in the aftermath of war. What deeply disturbs me is the narrow vision that all the US has to do is drop a few bombs, put a puppet government in place and the aims of democracy will be served, ending the threat. So far, I don't see any vision of what happens after Saddam being forwarded by Bush's advisors. There's an old saw: those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. If Bush and his advisors don't wake up and put into place an affirmative plan to deal with the aftermath of invasion, the Towers will only be the beginning. To me, this is a much more serious threat than nuclear war.

I do not think this war is about borders. I think that it is imperative that we try to stop this maniac, who is following the likes of Hitler and Stalin. I don't believe we want the Holocaust repeated, and that is exactly what Saddam is all about. He killed thousands of Kurds, and has gassed his own people. He is a control freak, that is why he invaded Kuwait. In his mind I think he thinks he could take on the world.

I agree we will need to be in it for the long haul. I believe Bush will need to have a plan of action for what will happen after we oust him. It will not be easy to conform a new gov't for them, but it must be done. Look at Afghanistan, the taliban toppled and although they are far from being recovered, they have been given a start.

I have faith and confidence that leaders like Cheney and Powell can make that happen in Iraq.

Valanhb writes: "The people who actually make the decisions do, and I certainly hope they have it."

I am, for various reasons, a student of war propaganda in Vietnam and Nazi Germany. One of the scary things for me is that a lot of the talk being advanced by Bush and his advisors show eerie similarities to the type of rhetoric being advanced to justify Vietnam, which was later demonstrated by history to have more to do with political agenda than with a true analysis of the dangers of the situation.... I sure hope their information is based in reality and not politics, because, as you point out so well in your post, the stakes are very high here.

The stakes are indeed high. Very high.

I believe though that if we choose not to invade now, the consequences to us as Americans could be tragic. Saddam is a Hitler in the making, and another year or two could make a large difference in the 'type' of war we fight with him.

Lets get in, out, and move on to any other countries who are harboring terrorists.

We need to make this world a safer place for our children.

dtolle writes: "I think that it is imperative that we try to stop this maniac, who is following the likes of Hitler and Stalin."

This is the problem... like Bush, you keep saying that this is about Saddam and Iraq, as if the invasion can be contained in the artificial space of Iraq's borders. To Muslims, it's an attack on Islam, and if Bush continues to ignore this, he will do a serious disservice to the people of the US because he's wilfully or blindly ignoring the full implications of his actions.

Because there has been no repeal of the tax cuts implemented when Bush-the-younger came to office, the money for the war and the security budget are coming from Social Security.

Also, Bush has managed to take a multi-hundred billion surplus to what will be between a $450 billion - $650 billion deficit.

I personally believe we should "go to war." But I do not think it is in the national interest. I quite agree with The Dreaded Tum. This is not about Saddam per se, and borders. It is a problem between the Shiite Muslims (one of the three sects of Islaam) and the modern world. Bushes speaches and stance only serve to fan the flames, they are not productive to education and a long term solution.

Hussein is a genocidal maniac. And the U.S. and U.N. have allowed it to continue for years. What is the imperative now?

Look at Afghanistan, the taliban toppled and although they are far from being recovered, they have been given a start.

Click to expand...

And as I said before, In Afghanistan, we have put the largest drug-producing and smuggling peoples in the world back into power. Deaths from heroine overdoses in the U.S. (probably Europe, too) have
skyrocketed because of the "problems" with purity. Heroine on the streets has recently skyrocketed to 90% pure from formerly 30% pure. Prices have dropped. The estimates are that Afghanistan will export approximately 1200 - 1300 tonnes of refined opium products this year vs. 90 - 95 tonnes at the peak under the Taliban.

And this is safer for our children?

The Taliban, albeit a system we do not agree with, is actually a political system based on a religion. It had laws. It had structure. Afghanistan, for the first time in literally centuries, actually had some sort of infrastructure with a governing body. Afghanistan has returned to lawlessness. One of the groups of the Northern Alliance has joined forces against the U.N. forces. We as a people, a country, and a culture might not have agreed with the Taliban. But it was not lawlessness, it was a system of laws built on a different belief sruture. I don't defend the Taliban. But they use essentially the same laws in Saudi Arabia. It too, is a terrible place for women. It too pays for terrorism. Do we not need to do something about this?

I have no answers. I just know the problem is much bigger than Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I disagree that this is about borders. It is about a clash of cultures. And the U.S. does not have a good record of putting in new governments. Again, I point to Somoza, Pinochet, Baptista, Noriega, Lon Nol (which led to Pol Pot).

It simply costs to much to see it through.

None of those made a safer world for our children. What makes us think this would be any different?

To The Dreaded Tum:
No, I do not think this is just about Saddam and Iraq, but it certainly has somehting to do with it! I am well aware that they will view it as an attack on Muslims, but all I am saying is that I think Saddam needs to go.

LDG, nothing personal, but I strongly disagree with what you have written. Heroine/drug use has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction to include possibly nukes. I am sorry to say, but that scares me a hell of a lot more than heroine!! The drug problem is the least of our problems right now, there is millions of people who HATE Americans are willing to blow themselves up to prove it. We need to do something about terrorism, and Iraq is a good place to start. Yes, drugs are indeed a problem, and I would like to think that someday we can tackle that and win as well. But right now, the discussion at hand is focused on attackign Iraq because Hussein is a nutcase, and could possible use gas or nukes on innocent people.

Ok, I'm done w/ this thread. I've said what I think...and obviously others disagree which is fine! Two each his own opinion!!
Great points made on both sides I must say

Daniela, I agree. This IS a good debate.

I know you said you're "done" with this thread, but I feel a need to "correct" one apparent misconception. In writing about the drug (heroine) problem, I was addressing your point about Afghanistan having been given "a start." I was pointing out that far from having been given a start, Afghanistan has returned to lawlessness, and the U.N. forces put the largest drug smuggling rings in the world back into power. Troops are stationed only in and around Kabul, and the rest of the country has returned to warring factions, under control of various war-lords. Part of "our" alliance is now fighting against us. Part of your point was that we should make things safer for our children. I was merely pointing out that we have not achieved this through our actions in Afghanistan. (For instance, in over a year we haven't "smoked out" bin Ladin).

Of course I agree that nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons are far more dangerous than heroine. But the Ukraine, Tajikistan, Iran, and Pakistan pose just as serious a threat. Yes, Iraq's Jihad IV missiles can reach Israel. This is one "trump card" Iraq holds over the world that the rest do not. Of course, The Ukraine's nukes can reach the U.S. But my point is that if we are worried about the safety of U.S. children, Iraq poses no more threat than any of these others, three of which are also under muslim control and also sponsor terrorism. Israeli intellegence has learned that Iran DIRECTLY funds the Hezbollah and Hamas.

Delivery of the weapons to the U.S. is the problem, and Iraq has no advantage over any of them in this respect - they all pose an equal danger.

Yes, there are millions who HATE the U.S. and Israel and are willing to blow themselves up to prove it. But they do not come only from Iraq. As a matter of fact, so far, most of them come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Attacking Iraq will serve to increase those numbers and justify their cause. Eliminating Hussein does not eliminate the problem.

And other than in World War II and Korea, as a country, our military actions and replacement governments have never achieved the goal of making the world a safer place. Every single regime the CIA has ever put into power through covert action has resulted in establishing military dictatorships with, if not genocidal maniacs, then certainly repressive homocidal maniacs. We were the ones who supported the Shah of Iran, which has led directly to the creation of Iran as we know it today.

I simply don't understand the necessity of war right now, independently waged without a U.N. consensus. This situation has existed for over a decade, and other nations with nuclear and biological weapons pose just as great a threat, Tajikistan probably being number one on that list.
The problem isn't a person, it's a culture and a religion, and they can't eradicate us, and we can't eradicate them. Eradication isn't the answer.