Discussion in 'NorthEast Regional Discussion' started by Darth_Stalker, Jan 27, 2003.
I can't say yes and I can't say no... sorry.
Why can't you have an opinion one way or the other? This morning the U.N. inspectors noted that after 12 years Iraq was still refusing to comply with U.N. resolutions and Saddam is suspected of having links to terrorists that would like to use these weapons of mass destruction in our own D.C. area.
well, I would support the US if we do attack but I hate war. I'm sorry if I'm not making sense.
Why start making sense now, SB?
good point SL. I never make sense.
I understand. Most people hate war and many families lose loved ones in wars. However, many American families will lose loved ones at some point in the future either way. As far as I'm concerned it really comes down to the decision of who dies and how. Will it be the soldier in the trench holding his rifle that gets hit with a heavy artillery round or will it be the kid at the bus stop when the dirty bomb goes off? I don't intend to be so grim but the world isn't pretty.
Putting in my word for the Defense industry. It keeps me employed!
Hmmm...I see some anti-war people have voted recently. I wonder who among us is anti-war? I think it is safe to rule Tim and I out since we are in the military.
I could name names but I make it a habit to stay out of discussions like this.
NO war No war!!
Shut up you whinners!
I don't know where I stand
I haven't voted.
Well, I'm with Rog and Tim, since I work in the military aircraft industry.
Nothng i'd love to see more than Napalm dropped on the Baghdad palace! Which is what should've happened the first time.
Tim...what is with this "no war" thing...that is sarcasm... right? :?
Mutt, I agree stronger action should have been taken years ago. Our current situation might have been avoided entirely if it had.
the first and third stament are bogus
So then Tim, is it safe to say that you haven't voted yet?
Okay... BTW, I may be at the Pentagon tomorrow what time do you usually take lunch?
No I did not vote.
Nuke the $^%&**^s
Would at least one of you who voted "no" please share your views with the rest of us?
Both Christa and I voted "no." I really, really don't like war. I especially don't like it when the administration is seemingly shoving it down our collective necks. Something stinks about the whole thing.
Why does he want to attack a small country when the only beneficiaries, as far as I can see, would be:
1. the oil industry.
2. the Kurdish people.
Sure, he may have weapons of mass destruction, but, then again, attacking him might make him launch them. I have to remember how everyone finally let go of that breath they were holding during the Cold War. The threat of them scares the Mr. Hankey out of me, but I'm not about to go and launch an attack for it. My next-door neighbor might have an illegal gun, but is it my place to go over there and take it from him? Wouldn't he use that gun on me if he's as insane as I think he is?
I can't even say the economy would get that much of a boost. War helped our economy back in the day when the men went to war and the women went into the factories from that huge injection of cash that went into the economy. Nowadays war is so cost efficient that there's no financial benefit.
Also the fact that Germany and France have come out against war in Iraq raises a lot of questions.
Speaking for Christa, who is definitely not a fan of George Jr and Dick, she doesn't trust him as far as she can spit on him. Nothing he says can convince her that a war against Iraq is necessary.
If this riles feelings against two newbies on this board, I apologize. It's just one of those things we just can't agree with.
I think that if the USA gets the support of the UN then yes. But doing it alone would only hurt our economy.
DarthDrew, I do not expect to see anyone condemning your views and if I hadn't honestly wanted to hear them I wouldn't have asked. Now I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers either but sometimes I like to get controversial conversations going and I ask that none of the "anti-war" people take offense...
The comparison of a crazy neighbor having an illegal gun...let's put all the elements into that scenario now. Crazy neighbor (Saddam) has illegal weapon (VX, Anthrax, etc.) and you don't want to go try to take it away from him which could indeed be frightening. But this crazy neighbor has already wounded another neighbor (Kuwait), that being said, would you call the police to let them know so SOMEONE with the proper training could try to convince him to put down the gun OR are you going to just sit in your house fearfully praying that crazy neighbor or one of his equally whacky buddies doesn't take that illegal gun and hurt or kill a member of your household?
I make no claims of what this will do for the economy. Furthermore, I'm neither going to condemn nor defend the Bush administration and their decisions.
Anyway, like you I was here for September 11th 2001 and I remember that smell the next morning and (several days later) and the curiosity that came with it..how much of this is human flesh? Was one of those people in the car with me on the way to work earlier this week? How many of these people did I throw a quick glance and nod at in the halls of the Pentagon. I was there 7 minutes after impact and I don't want to see that much damage on American soil ever again. BUT...if these illegal weapons are given to terrorists to smuggle inside our country to use against defenseless civilians, I will indeed see more fire and smoke. I will smell the eeire scent of the ashes and I will walk on trembling legs constantly looking around for the next attack.
Again, I'm not trying to slam anyone's points of view but I want to voice mine.
I agree with you on some points. Yes, we should go to the UN (the police) to get this resolved. However, we should trust in the systems in place to work. If that means more inspections, that means more inspections. The problem is, I (and it appears a few other people, too) see the Bush administration running headlong into war. Not a good thing at all. Newsweek has an article this week that I'm dying to read: "Hell Bent on War?" I'll let you know what I find.
My point on the economy should be looked into further. The question that is asked in all elections is "Are you better off today than four years ago?" At this point, I'm at a lateral - not better, not worse... and I'm one of the success stories. Robert Reich (sp?) had a commentary on Marketplace Radio a week or two ago about this. He said that the only reason that the unemployment rate hasn't gone up more than it has already is because people are falling off the unemployment rolls. What this does is creates a false sense of comfort over the percentages not rising. But, if you look at the numbers more, you see that there's less money coming into the economy. Freshman economics tells us that less money in the economy means less money coming to the companys producing goods causing reduced productivity and lay-offs. It's a vicious cycle.
So what does that have to do with war? It was common wisdom that war was good for the economy. As I said before, war has become more cost-efficient, reducing the benefit that comes from industrial productivity. Therefore no economic benefit.
So, now let's talk about the safety of the American people and the world in general. If weapons inspections are given a chance to work, they will show whether or not the Iraqi people are doing as they promised. If they are not doing as they promised, there are systems in place to punish them. If the US jumps the gun and pushes everyone to start attacking (as Germany and France accuse us in the article I referenced earlier), we could be viewed, perhaps rightly, as bullies. Bullies never, ever come out ahead - and we wouldn't in this instance either. Pushing the system to go to war would increase the middle east's negative view of us.
It's quite sad, really. We view ourselves as an example for all people. Most of the other countries view us as wasteful and arrogant. Consider all those B-movies you saw when you were young. The handsome, blonde, rich kid always came in last. We are that handsome, blonde, rich kid.
Thank you for a healthy discussion of the issues. As I've always said, how can you know where you stand if you don't challenge and open yourself to be challenged every once in a while.
Clearly you and I could hold a lengthy and well thought debate on this topic. I did read the article but Germany had blown there credibility in my mind about two months ago when they condemned us on human rights policy, and if my knowledge of history is correct 60 years ago they executed millions including children even infants for the horrible crime of having the wrong genetics. Frankly what Germany says to me is as important as sitting through a sermon by the great reverand Jesse Jackson
The econonmics of war could easily be a separate thread (create it if you wish) and that is why I have avoided that topic. General politics and the Bush administration would also require a different thread.
Bullies, you say...I admit we are. Our options are very grim at this point though. North Korea has also turned up the heat with weapons of mass destruction and again we appear to be bullies. But ask yourself this-- Who were we attacking before September 11th?
I've saved one of your comments until last to respond to..."more time" Iraq has had 12 years to say, "okay we will comply with these inspections as per our agreement with the UN resolution" During the eight years Clinton was in charge there was no pressure for them to comply with these regulations other than the 'no fly zones' Its easy to say, "W' is wanting to pick up where his dad left off, they are both warmongerers." but if the Clinton administration had continued to insure that these conditions were met, we would have reached a decision many years ago. Frankly Clinton wasn't concerned about the military and it showed in our funding. Yes the economy as a whole was considerably better with Clinton but the military suffered and that is where some of this extra money came from. But again, let's not start talking about politics on this thread, afterall it's not a nightline or 20/20 forum
Once 'Stormin' Norman,' Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq